The Sun.
London, England, 1849-02-20 00:00:00

EVENING, FEI3FLUARY_ 20, 1849.7

TUESDAY

Such is the soletim declaration made by every Member
upon entering this or the other House of Parliament;
and let us see how this declaration arose. When the
house of Hanover came to this country, and when George
the First was tile King of these realms, there was a Prince
professing to derive his title from James 11.,
and ceiling le7rnself James 111., who claimed the
crown of these realms as a right. There was also a party,
and a very considerable party, who considered his claim
superior to that of the King upon the throne; and Par-
liament thought it necessary that every person who took
his seat in either House of Parliament should not only
take the oath of allegiance, but should disclaim and ab-
jure the title of the person who pretended to be King of
these realms. In the course of time James 111., as he
called himself died, and the claim descended to his sons.
Parliament then, irs 1766, altered the terms in which the
abjuration was taken, and instead of requiring and abju-
ration of the title Of James 111., they altered the form to
that in which it now stands, and required an
abjuration of the- descendants of the person who pre-'
tended to be James 111. This was no doubt as ra-
tional a proceeding as could well be. In the first place,
with a Pretender claiming the throne, and with a great
party ready to support him, and in the first year of
George I. even in arms on his behalf, Parliament, for its
security, called upon every Member of Pediment to ab •
hire the title of the Pretender. When he died, the Par-
liament again called upon every one who should take
his seat to abjure the the title of those who succeeded
the Pretender as claimants of the crown. But what is
the case now ? Since 1807 there has been no de-
scendant of the person calling himself James 111., who
claimed the throne of England. Cardinal York, I think,
died in that year; and from that time there has not
been the least necessity for the abjuration still imposed.
Therefore, to require Members by a solemn oath to ab-
jure the title of the descendants of a person who has not
left any descendants—to abjure the title of a family
which does not now exist—becomes a sort of mockery of
our proceedings—(Hear, hoar)—and, being now brought
under the notice of the House, I think the
practice will not be any longer continued.—
(Hear.) Every one knows that if there is any pretence
to a title to the Crown it must be in the descendants of
Charles 1., not in the descendants of James 11. But the
title of the Queen is now so perfectly well established
that I think it would be only necessary to declare ad-
herence to the settlement of the Crown in the present
family, and that it is not necessary to abjure any foreign
prince—upon whom it might be difficult to fix—who
might derive his title from James IL The oath of abjura-
tion ends with these words And Ido make this re-
cognition, acknowledgment, abjuration, renunciation, and
promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true
faith of a Christian."—(hear, bear.) Now, Sir, with
respect to these words, I argued last year that they
ought not to be continued with regard to persons of the
Jewish religion who might claim seats in this House,
having been elected by any body of constituents. I do
not mean to go at any length into that argument on the
present occosion. I own it appears to me, after the
debates which have taken place, and the able
speeches which were made against the proposition
I formerly submitted to the House, that the objec-
tions resolved themselves into this—that the Jewish
subjects of her Majesty are of a different opinion in
matters of religion and of conscience from Roman Ca-
tholics and Protestants, and that therefore they ought
to be excluded from this House. Now, Sir, I must again
maintain that you have no claim or right to exclude
any subjects of this realm from Parliament, except upon
the ground that some of their doctrines or opinions are
such as to make them unfit to be Members of this House,
and incompetent to perform the duties of legislation.—
(Rear, hear.) For instanee, with regard to the Roman
Catholics, it was alleged—l will not say now whether
truly or falsely—that they were persons with a divided
allegiance, that they owed allegiance to the Pope, which
made their allegiance to the Sovereign of these realms
wholly imperfect, that they never would be satisfied
with allegiance to a Protestant sovereign, or observe
good faith towards a Protestant Government, but that
they would be constantly attempting to overturn that
Government and to give the Roman Catholic religion
supremacy in this country. I will not enter into the
merits of that allegation ; but, if it were true—if
such a case were proved—it would be a good
and sufficient reason for excluding Roman Catholics
from this House.—(Hear, hear.) So again with regard
to the exclusion of the Protestant Dissenters, not from
this House, but from certain public offices, it was alleged
that they would use the powers of office for the destruc-
tion of the Established Church of these realms, anal
that if once admitted to office there could be no securiiy
for the Established Church, but that they would never
cease their endeavours to subvert and destroy that in-
stitution. This was an allegation of considerable
weight when the question was whether Dissenters
should be relieved from civil disabilities ; but with
regard to the Jews no man can venture to say that
there is anything in their opinions that would be hostile
to the constitution of this country, or that they would
use any power they possessed for the purpose of destroy-
ing or injuring the constitution, still less of endangering
the monarchy. If this be so, it comes to be a pure and
unmitigated case of persecution.—(Hear.) The denial
of privileges is persecution;—persecution of the same
nature as the violent persecutions which in former days
were carried on by the faggots and the axe.—(Hear
hear.) There is this peculiar feature in the present case
—that the persons against whom your exclusion is di-
rected enjoy the utmost safety and security in this coun-
try. Attempt to-morrow to exclude the Roman Catho-
.lics, and you have 5,000,000 or 6,000,000 of people in a
state of bitter discontent and exasperation. Exclude
the Protestant Dissenters, and you have some 3,000,000
of persons in this United Kingdom who are at once
estranged from your constitution and your laws. But
exclude the Jews, and you know perfectly well you are
safe in that exclusion, and that you may enjoy all the
triumph and all the pleasure of your persecution with-
out exposing yourselves to any danger from their discon •
tent.—(Hear, hear, and cheers.) I say, therefore, that
this exclusion, after the admission of Roman Catholics
and Protestant Dissenters, against whom there were
plausible, though I think by no means sufficient reasons,
is peculiarly odious and inexcusable. I will now state
to the House what I propose as an amendment of these
oaths. I have already stated, that with regard to
the Roman Catholics—that matter having been so
recently settled, and there being no sufficient reason for
a disturbance of that settlement—l propose to make no
alteration whatever. With regard to other subjects of
her Majesty, I propose that there should be a general
oath to be taken; and I should here say that I have
taken nearly all the words of an oath penned by a Com-
mission which was appointed, and which made a report
in 1845, which report was presented to Lord Lyndhurst.
The oath then proposed to be taken by Members of Par-
liament is as nearly as possible that which I now submit
to the consideration of the House. It is—
"l, A. 8., swear that I will be faithful and bear true
allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I will
maintain the succession of the Crown, as established by
an Act intituled An Act for the further limitation of
the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties
of the subjects;' and that I do not believe that the Pope
of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person,
state, or potentate bath or ought to have any temporal
or civil jurisdiction, 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 esta-
blished by the laws; and I do make this recognition,
declaration, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly,
upon the true faith of a Christian.—So help me God."
I propose that that should be the general oath taken by
Members of Parliament
Acts which have been , but in conformity with certain
passed, I propose that in the oath
administered to Jewish subjects, members of the Jewish
persuasion, the words " on the true faith of a Christian"
shall be omitted.—(lieu', hear.) Now, it might be a
question whether the words "on the true faith of a
Christian" should be at all continued in the oath; and I
own that if we required
any security from this oath, I
cannot think that a barrier which did not exclude such
men as Bolingbroke, Gibbon,
and Wilkes from Parlia-
ment, can be any barrier whatever—(Bear, hear)—but I
am aware that advantage would be taken of the omission
of these words, to say that an attempt was made pur-
posely to admit infidels and unbelievers, and that was the
effect of the measure. I therefore continue these words
in the oath. I leave, then, the Roman Catholics on the
footing they now are; I propose that other subjects
of her Majesty shall take the oath I have read, an
oath taken originally from the report of the Commis-
sioners of 1845; and I propose further that when any
person of the Jewish religion is asked to take this oath,
the words " on the true faith of a Christian" shall be
omitted.—(Hear, hear.) By this means I think the
measure of religious liberty in this country will be com-
plete. All persons being subjects of her Majesty, and
inhabiting these realms, shall have the power to be
elected Members of this House, and of taking their seats
as representatives of the people by whom they are
elected.—(Hear, hear.) The people will thereby acquire
that which they ought to have, the full right of choos-
ing any person it may be their will to choose, otherwise
properly qualified for a seat in this House.—(Hear,
hear.) There will be no longer the stain of religious
exclusion and intolerance; and the words of William
111., who learned the lesson of religious liberty in the
country from which he came, that " conscience is
God's province," snail be carried into effect by the oath
to be taken by Members of this House.—(gear, hear.)
While we shall no longer bear the reproach of exclud-
ing any persons on account of their religious faith from
the privileges of being Members of this House—(Hear)
—we shall complete that great edifice which has been
the boast of statesmen, but with regard to which some
have endeavoured to show that there is danger in throw-
ing open its doors too widely. My belief, however, on
the contrary, is, that whether you examine the precepts
of Christianity or the maxims of the Constitution, it is
your duty, it is your policy, to throw open those doors
as widely as possible, and place no religious bar of ex-
clusion against any class of persons professing any par-
ticular religious persuasion.—(Hear, hear.) And in the
belief that what I now propose to you will clear away
ambiguities, will remove those parts of the oath that are
unnecessary, and make your whole system defensible
and justifiable in the eyes of the people of this country
and of the world, I ask this House to resolve itself
into a Committee to consider the oaths taken by its
Members.—(Cheers.)
Mr. GOULBURN regarded this as a question that
ought to be discussed and decided with great delibera-
tion. With regard to the oath of abjuration, he cer-
tainly thought it fairly open to consideration by the
House ; and, for one, be would not resist the Noble
Lord in his proposal for going into Committee, with a
view to its full revision. He wished it to be understood,
however, that in consenting to this first stage of the
measure proposed by the Noble Lord, so as to enable
the House to have distinctly before it what that measure
really was, he protested against its being supposed that
he adopted the principle on which ho had recommended
it to the House. He would not discuss the question
now ; but he did not see, so far as regarded the
Act of Supremacy, that any reason had been shown
why an alteration should be made. The principle
of the change proposed he was not prepared to

sanction ; but the most important part of the Noble
Lord's speech was that which related to the admis-
sion of Jews to Parliament. And, hero he must say,
he saw no reason to alter those opinions which he
had expressed last session, as to the inexpediency of
that proposal. He then said, mad he repeated now,
that the admission of the Jews would be considered
as derogatory to the character of the country, while it
would diminish the authority of that House ; that it
would be productive of serious consequences to the
people at home, and would onerate with still greater
force on the extension of religion abroad.—(Hear.)
The Noble Lord said the exclusion of any party from
Parliament on account of religion was persecution ; but
the Noble Lord, in this very measure, imposed that on
Protestants and Catholics, and indeed on every other
class of her Majesty's subjects, which ho did not impose
on Jews, all others being required to take the oath " on
the true faith of a Christian." In short, religious
liberty appeared to be granted solely to the Jews, while
it was denied to all others. He would not oppose the
House going into Committee, but he hoped they would
well consider the proposal now made to them, which ho
believed to be one that would be derogatory to that
assembly, while it would have the eflect of diminish-
ing the sense of obligation felt by those who were called
upon to bind themselves by the sacredness of an oath.
Mr. PLUMPTRE thought no one would suppose that
those who protested against the Noble Lord's proposition
last year could be conciliated by the measure now
brought forward, and he must say that even at that first
stage of the measure he was prepared to divide the
House against it, if it was the pleasure of any Member
to go into the lobby along with him.—(Hear, hear.)
He must confess that to his ears the proposal of the
Noble Lord with regard to the admission of the Jews
was exceedingly offensive.—(Hear.) The Jews were to
be admitted to that House by omitting the words " on
the true faith of a Christian;" and because he could utter
the words "So help me God."—(Hear, hear.) He
must say that it appeared to be a trick, a subterfuge, by
which the Jew was to be admitted to that House. He
was to be accommodated at the expense of an insult to
Him whom Christians adored as, their Saviour and their
God—(Hear, bear)—for every one must know that when
a Jew used the words "So help me God," he had no
respect whatever to Him whom Christians adored as
their God and Saviour.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble
Lord spoke of there being no danger in admitting the
Jews because they were so few in number; but there
was no safety in taking any step by which they might
provoke the Divine displeasure.—(Hear, hear.) He re-
peated that if any Member was disposed to view the
matter as he did, he would resist the very first step in
this measure by dividing the House.
Mr. LAW had seen no cause to change the opinion he
had formed against the measure last session. The
Noble Lord spoke of its being odious and hateful op—
pression to exclude the Jews; but this came with bad
grace from the Noble Lord as the colleague of Baron
Rothschild in the representation of the city of London.
In proportion as the subject was one of the greatest mo•
ment he asked the Noble Lord not to press the House to
resolve itself into Committee within half an hour of its
being informed of the nature of the measure. He sought
time to consider the form of an oath which he conscien-
tiously believed was not six hours old. It was his con•
viction that when the Noble Lord rose from his bed in
the morning he had not determined what was to be the
shape of his measure. It was necessary the Noble Lord
should explain what he meant by speaking of the re-
moval of all religious disabilities, and then limiting his
measure to the case of the Jews.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL would support the motion, but
regretted that when the Noble Lord was dealing with
this subject he had not introduced a uniform oath, which
members of all religious persuasions might be able to
take. There were words in the oath taken by Roman
Catholics which were made a subject of annoyance to
them. They had been accused of tampering with their
oaths. If those bitter bickerings should be revived by
those who had imposed the oath, ho for one would at
once acquiesce in their decision, and resign his seat in
that House.
Mr. BANKES expressed his disappointment at the
silence of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for the
University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) on this occasion,
whom ho had certainly expected to have heard speak,
more especially as the colleague of that Right Hon.
Gentleman was at this moment confined to his bed by
indisposition. If they had agreed to the proposition now
submitted by the Noble Lord, he could have been ready,
on the first occasion, to how to their authority; but he
was now bound to say that, opposed as he was to the
principle of the measure, if the Hon. Member for Kent
should think fit to divide the House, ho (Mr. Bankes)
would divide with him on the question of principle. It
was true the Noble Lord did not put forward the prin-
ciple as he did last year, but involved it with other poli-
tical matters of inferior importance. This he hardly
thought worthy of the high character of the Noble Lord.
The oath, as now proposed, afforded ample security for
the succession to the throne, which was not required,
because that security was to be found in the hearts of
the people; it also affirmed the rights of property; but
there was omitted from the oath that provision which
was included in the Roman Catholic oath, by which
the persons taking it solemnly abjured any intention
to subvert the present Church Establishment.—[Lord J.
RussELL—They are not in the present oath taken by
Members who are not Catholics.] No, because when
that oath was framed none but members of the Estab•
blished Church were Members of Parliament. Those
words, therefore, were unnecessary. But the moment
persons were admitted into this assembly who were not
adherents of the Established Church they should, by
oath, be bound not to disturb that Church.
Mr. GLADSTONE—After the allusion which has
been made to me by my Hon. and Learned Friend, I
cannot shrink at least from stating...Au opinion on this
subject,—(Hear, hear.) So far as regards the main pur-
pose which is contemplated by the Noble Lord, lam
bound to say, in the words of my Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge,
that my opinions upon this subject have undergone no
change, unless it he that they have been strengthened
and confirmed by reflection during the interval that has
elapsed since the last discussion of the question.—
(Cheers.) I am still deliberately convinced that the
civil and political claim of the Jew to the discharge of
civil and political duties ought not in justice to be
barred, and cannot beneficially be barred, by a difference
of his religion from ours.—(Cheers.) In reference to
what has fallen from my Honourable Friend the Mem-
ber for Kent (Mr. Plumptre), I must say, with all due,
sincere, and cordial respect for him, that with my
views, in voting for the admission of the Jews
into the Legislature, we are not abandoning our
duty to the Almighty—(Hear, hear)—but'are acting in
strict fulfilment of that duty by giving effect to the prin-
ciple of natural, justice.—(Cheers.) But, although this
is undoubtedly the main purpose which the Noble Lord
has in view, still I would put it to the House whether
there are not sufficient grounds for going into this Com-
mittee, even independently of the main purpose.—(Hear,
hear.) The secondary question which the Noble Lord
has introduced to us, respecting the alteration of the oath
which is taken by ourselves, although it is undoubtedly
of inferior importance as compared with that great con-
stitutional question which is raised in regard to the Jews,
yet it is not in itself a question undeserving of attention;
and I do, therefore, put it seriously to the House
whether the alteration which the Noble Lord is desirous
of making in our oath is not an improvement—and an
improvement of weight sufficient to justify even those
who are most opposed to the proposal in respect to the
Jews in giving their assent to the proposition that the
House go into Committee?—(Hear, hear.) I think we
must all feel that an oath of this description, taken in
public by large masses of men, under associations not.
very favourable to the presence of the most solemn and
religious feelings, has a tendency to degenerate the whole
proceeding into one of mere formality; and it must,l think,
be admitted, that that tendency becomes aggravated in
proportion as the oath is prolonged beyond the necessity
of the case by the introduction of irrelevant matter. That
in purging from this oath such irrelevant matter, and in
excludiug from it that which has now come to have no
rational meaning, we are pursuing a course with regard
to the legality of the oath that must bo an improvement,
there can scarcely be any difference of opinion; and an
improvement which is by no means insignificant. It is
upon the highest authority that we are told that our
words ought to be few in all those solemn acts which
have peculiar reference to the Deity. I cannot but say,
on reviewing these oaths and comparing the number of
words with the purpose which the oaths have in view,—
I cannot but say that they will admit of abbreviation, not
only with advantage, by bringing them into a more lucid
distinct, and intelligible form, but likewise with the ad-
vantage of bringing them much nearer that standard of
propriety according to which all oaths having a solemn
end ii view ought to be unquestionably framed.
I therefore must express a hope that as the pur-
pose of the Noble Lord in this respect is quite sufficient
in itself to justify the House in entering into Committee,
although inferior in comparison to the other object con-
templated by the Noble Lord, the House will assent to
the proposal, as they cannot thereby be committed as to
the vote they may be disposed to give with regard to the
principle of this measure. With respect to the plan of
the Noble Lord, I will not enter into any detailed argu-
ment. But I cannot help expressing my own satisfaction
to find that it differs in one most important particular
from the scheme which was announced in some of the
journals a few weeks ago. lam glad.at finding that the
Noble Lord proposes to retain the words " upon the faith
of a Christian," in the oath to be taken by all Christians
in this House.—(Hear, hear.) For, considering the so-
lemnity of the duties which wo have here to perform, I
think it is right that we should approach the performance
of them under that sanction which is the most solemn
sanction to us. And although we purpose to act in com-
mon with the Jews, yet I think, in declining to deduct
anything whatever from the height of that standard by
which we fix in our own minds the solemn nature of the
duties we impose on ourselves, the Noble Lord has adopted
a course which must meet with universal approbation.
But I would venture to make a suggestion to the Noble
Lord with respect to a portion of the oath which he pro-
poses—a suggestion which I think is in the sense of the
alterations which he himself is about to advise. He
proposes, as I understand him, to exclude the words
from the latter clause of the oath of supremacy in which
at present all Protestant members of the House declare
that " no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or
rpo-
tentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power,
superiority, pre-eminence, or, authority, ecclesiassttoi.
sub-
stitute spiritual, within this realm;" but he proposes
Jews hereafter, that no " foreign pr
a declaration to be taken bytuae
temporal
any,
state, or potentate bath or ought to have
within this
N ble Lord that
or civil jurisdiction,
realm." Now, I would submit lel Protestantsprelate, p
er
person,
his proposition it he
it would be an improvement on his
Hear, hear.) For
omitted these words altogether.—(
authority,
toorth peowoer
upon to abjure the temporal
Catholics should be called
Pope within this
of the
power and pre-eminencebe a justification for imposing
what reason is there that gentemen who are not Roman
realm? There may
such a declaration upon Roman
Catholics, because
there may be time among that body—it is at least

conceivable case—that; there may be 'Roman Catholics
now, as there hale bees in former times, who think that
the Pope may indirectly, but still really, be entitled to
temporal power and jurisdiction within this realm ; but
certainly it is impossible that this can be implied of any
human being except a Roman Catholic.—(Hear, hear.)
If this be so, then it appears to me that the principle
upon which the Noble Lord has proceeded of excluding
irrelevant and unnecessary matter from the oaths ought
to carry him as far as the point which I now contem-
plate, and to prevent him from calling upon gentlemen
who are not human Catholics—whether Protestants or
Jews—to abjure an opinion with respect to the tem-
poral power of the Pope which it is virtually impos-
sible they can entortain.—(Hear, bear.) The Noble
Lord told us justly that such oaths were originally in-
troduced in the nature of a test, and not with a view
of giving greater solemnity to the discharge of our
ditties or of laying down a higher standard of duty;
that they were introduced merely in the nature of a
test with the view of excluding certain parties. Now, it
certainly never can exclude one who is either a Protes-
tant or a Jew; but it does put into their mouths in a
solemn manner—when no words ought to be put there
except such as were of evident utility and necessity—
words which are neither necessary nor, so far as I can
perceive, useful for any purpose whatever. I think it
right to make this suggestion at the earliest stage. With
respect to the proposal which she Noble Lord contem-
plates, I beg to say that he shall have my support in its
various stages.—(Cheers.) I, of course, cannot under-
take to speak on behalf of my respected colleague, to
whom the Hon. Member has referred.—(Laughter.)
With respect to the immediate proposal, I do hope that
Hon. Gentlemen will not debar the Noble Lord from
going into Committee to propose, in the first instance,
those alterations in the oaths which undoubtedly go to
improve them, and which there is a fair reason for sup-
posing will meet with the unanimous concurrence of the
House.—(Loud cheers.)
Mr. NEWI)EGATE felt the deepest objection to the
proposal of the Noble Lord. It appeared, however, with
respect to the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for
the University of Oxford, that his only objection was that
it did not go far enough—(Hear)—because it retained
a declaration against the temporal power of the Pope.
He must say that to his mind the suggestion of the
Right Hon. Gentleman threw a curious light upon his
general support of the measure.--(Hear.) Ho (Mr.
Newdegate) had a proposal to make, to the Noble
Lord, and that was that he would consent to the ad-
journment of the House, in order that they might have
the advantage of knowing how the resolution now stood,
for he was not sure whether the terms of it had not
been altered since the Noble Lord had spoken.—(Hear,
hear.) The Noble Lord had proposed to retain the
words " on the faith of a Christian ' in the case of Pro-
testants, and to omit them in the case of the.Jeres. He
(Mr. Newdegate) thought that, if struck out in any
case, they ought to be struck out in all. Christians did
not specially need that test to secure the observance of
their oath, but, as they prized them highly as a general
test in the case of a Christian assembly of a Christian
nation, they would defend them to the last.—(Hear.)
He begged to move the adjournment of the House.
Mr. H. DRUMMOND believed that there was not
much difficulty in the mind of any gentleman present
respecting a desire to do natural justice to the Jews ;
but the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) had
gone further than that, for it seemed that, in order to do
natural justice to the Jews, the House must go back to
natural religion.—(Hear, hear.) There seemed to him
(Mr. Drummond) to be considerable discrepancy bee
I.tween the speech of the Noble Lord and the motion with
which he had concluded ; and he entertained, therefore,
some doubt as to what was the proper coarse to be taken
on the present occasion. He admitted that there was
much in the oath as at present taken that would be very
much better left out—(Hear, hear) ; but, as far as
he understood the question, it really was nothing but
the old Jew Bill of last session revived ; that, whatever
might be the overture or prelude with which it was in-
troduced, the measure itself was simply a reckauffee of
the old Bill. In that case he should vote against it, as
he had done before; but if the Noble Lord really desired
to go into Committee on the subject, he thought it a
matter worthy of consideration whether the House
should divide upon the present occasion .—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE asked the Noble Lord whether
he would be kind enough to read the oath again, and also
the resolution which he intended to propose?
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the following was the
resolution he intended to propose:—" That it is expe-
dient to alter the oaths required to be taken by the sub-
jects of her Majesty, not professing the Roman Catholic
religion, as qualifications for sitting and voting in Par-
liament, and to make provision in respect of the said
oaths for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing
the Jewish religion." Upon this resolution he intended
to bring in a Bill. (The Noble Lord then read the pro-
posed oath, which was in precisely the same terms as
those already given in his introductory address.)
Mr. WALPOLE asked whether the Noble Lord, sup-
posing he were allowed to go into Committee, would
consent to do so merely pro forma, in order that he
might take the resolution, and take the discussion on a
future day?
Lord J. RUSSELL replied, that if ho took that
course he should deprive himself of the opportunity
which he wished to have of now laying the measure be-
fore the House; but he begged to say that he did not
wish the Committee to affirm anything at present beyond
the general terms of the resolution he had read.—(Hear.)
Mr. WALPOLE wished, in that case, to be allowed
to say a few words. According to the statement of the
Noble Lord, the House had two distinct propositions
before it,—the one to make an alteration in the mere
form of the oath, and the other to make a substantial
alteration, which involved a fundamental principle.
Now. he agreed with the merely formal proposition of
the Noble Lord, but he entertained strong objections to
the substantial alteration—(Hear, hear)—and he consi-
dered that it was hardly fair in the Noble Lord to de-
scribe the opposition to that part of the measure as a
case of unmitigated persecution.—(Hear.) Ho must
also observe, that when the Right Hon. Gentleman the
Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone)
put the question upon the ground of natural justice, it
was well to consider whether there bad not always been
a broad distinction between political rights and political
duties. He Niiihed the Right lion. Gentleman to con-
sider whether the right which all persons in this country,
whether Jews or Christirns, had to the protection of the
law necessarily gave them those political privileges
which involved duties, which duties could only, accord-
ing to the principles of the constitution, be undertaken,
and which he thought he could satisfactorily prove could
only be performed, by those who could take the existing
oath, He would not go into the general question of the
measure, nor say more in addition to the few observa-
tions with which be would conclude, and which he felt
as strongly as those ho had already addressed to the
House. He had hoped that the Noble Lord would not
have thought it necessary to renew that discussion, and
that he would have postponed the question, which had
been fully discussed and deliberately settled only nine
months ago in the very same form as that in which it
was then submitted to the House ; and he felt that
the more strongly because he had always understood it
was a wise policy on the part of the Government not to
hazard on slight grounds any collision or disagreement
between the two Houses of Parliament—(Cheers)—and
it was their still wiser policy not in any way to offend or
do violence to the religious convictions of the great mass
of the people.—(Cheers.) But these considerations had,
in his humble judgment, been most unhappily disre-
garded in the present proposition, for no one could doubt,
if the Noble Lord carried his resolution, that he would
at all events run the risk of that disagreement with the
other House which was so much to be deprecated, and
that if the Noble Lord had at all inquired into the sub-
ject during the recess, ho would have found it a painful
shock to the feelings and opinions of the great mass of
the country—he did not mean the ignorant and unintel-
ligent, but some of the best and ablest men, who re-
garded the proposition in no other light than that of a
national violation of Christian principle.—(The O'Gor-
man Mahon laughed.) Notwithstanding the laugh of the
Hon. Gentleman—(the O'Gorman Mahon laughed again,
on which there were cries of " Order")—he could assure
him he could quote some of the very ablest men in the
kingdom, to whose works he had referred, who regarded
it not only as he had already said, but still further as a
national renunciation of our Christian faith.—(Cheers.)
If the religious convictions of men in this country were
to be disregarded, instead of its being an unmitigated
case of persecution against the Jews, it was much to be
apprehended—as that laugh appeared to indicate—that
the only persecution which would take place would be
one against those who belonged to the Church of Eng.
land.—(Cheers.)

Lord J. RUSSELL—I had hoped that as the House,
after repeated discussions, agreed last year to that which
the Hon. Gentleman has stated to be the only point on
which difference could arise this year—namely, the re-
moval of Jewish disabilities—l should have been allowed
to introduce the Bill, and that the discussion would have
been reserved to some stage of the measure in future.—
(Hear, hear.) All I can do at present is to propose that
the House shall now go into Committee. If the House
is pleased to go into Committee I shall then propose the
resolution, and put it into the hands of the Chairman.
If debate should then arise, and if the Hon. Gentleman,
or any other Hon. Member of the House, thinks it ne-
cessary to raise a discussion on that resolution, or to
make that the question on which they are prepared to
resist the proposition I shall make, I shall then certainly
propose not to go further with that discussion at
how-
ever, pro-
sent.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman
as
gone further than this mere propernininLi, and bus
this question
expressed his surprise that I should
setirconceives, settled,
after it had beep moved, and,
as
h
nine months ago.—
But. Sir, that is not
the way in which Itiliaevaer'ulieanderr.itood the constitution of
this country.—(Cheers.)
I hadd
that the question - regarding
ofthe Roman Catholic
the
Roman
C"athhaoll ipcesn—a
question taking away some
noHtous appeare of
that the House of
disabilities—had been rejected in theiynetit does other
Parliament—(Hear, hear)—and
Commons—s thought the decision
of the House of Lards
e.of(Cthhaeter.
s)occasionThe
question
nesirtiroen-
vocable and irreversible veto.—(Cheers.)
was again brought forward, and the House of Lords at
last passed the Bill for the relief of the Roman Catholics.
I myself took part in a measure of the greatest impor-
tance—the Reform Bill. It was carried by a large ma-
jority in this House, but the House of Lords rejected it.
Why, if there is any truth in the Hon. Gentleman's doc-
trine, we ought then to have sat down contentedly as if
the question of reform was settled—(Hear, hear)—and
that there should be no reform in Parliament, and
we should not have ventured under the Administration of
Earl Grey again to disturb the question.—(Hear, hear.)
I say, with respect to this question, that though it has
been rejected by the House of Lords, yet, with all due
deference to the Hon. Gentleman, we may ask them to
reconsider it, and that they, in the exercise of their un-
doubted right, may reconsider it, and may give it an
affirmative or negative.—(Hear, hear.) But to say that
the decision of the House of Lords should be binding for
over, and that we should never bring it forward again—
that is proposition which puma $o me untenable, which