The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-24 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the wootsack
at 5 o'clock.

ROY AL COMMISSION.
The Royal assent was given by commission to the fol-
lo wing bills :—Sir William Williams' Annuity ; Re-
formatory Schools (Scotland) ; Juvenile Convict
Prison's (Ireland) ; Public Health (Supplemental) ;
Drafts on Bankers ; Pawnbrokers ' • National Gal-
lery ; Oxford University ; Whichwood Forest ;
Canada Company ; Bath Gas ; Cheltenham Gas ; Crow-
land and Eyre Road ; Edinburgh Municipality ; Cork
and Youghal Railway ; Shrewsbury Water ; St. Ives
and West Cornwall Junction Railway ; Dewsbury, Bat-
ley, and Heckmondwike Water ; Kettering and New-
port Roads ; Glasgow Court-houses and Public Offices ;
Alford Valley Railway ; Banbridge Junction Railway ;
Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding Junction Rail-
way ; Vale of Clwyd Railway ; Antrim and Coleraine
Roads ; Shrewsbury and Hereford Railway ; Stock-
ton and Middlesborough New Road and Bridge ;
Cork Bridge Water Works, &c. ; Knaresborough and
Green Harnmerton Roads ; Kuaresborough and Patley
Bridge Road ; Eastern Counties Railway ; Hampstead
Junction Railway ; Lowestoft and Beccles Railway ;
Coventry (city) Gas ; Swamerton's Name ; Clarke Thorn-
hill's Estate ; Wainman's Estate ; Blenheim's Estate ;
and Midland Railway.
The royal commissioners were the Lord Chancellor,
the Earl of Harrowby, and Lord Colchester.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
_

On the motion of Lord REDESDaLE, the Mid Kent
Railway Bill was read a second time.
On the motion of the same noble lord, the following
bills were severally read a third time and passed :
Bell's Estate, Rotheravon and Baroby Moor Road, G'as-
gow Paving, Wolverhampton Water, Blackburn, &c.,
Water, Middlesborough Improvement, and Todmorden
Water.

THE OATH OF ABJURATION BILL.
Lord LYNDHURST-11y lords, I am placed in a situa•
tion of some difficulty with respect to the second readirg
of this bill, which has been so frequently debated by your
lordships that hardly any new facts or arguments can be
brought forward respecting it. Were Ito go into details I
fear I should be listened to with impatience ; but, on the
other hand, if I were to treat the subject merely in general
termßal should perhaps be charged with neglecting the duty
which I have undertaken to perform. I shall endeavour,
therefore, my lords, as far as possible, to steer a mid Ola
course on the present occasion, and discarding everything
that does not bear materially on the subject, bring before
you those facts, those arguments, and those considerations

that appear to me most essential to the right appreciation
of this bill. I am relieved from one very considerable
difficulty in this case, because no attempt has been made
by this bill to repeal the oath of supremacy, an attempt
which, on a former occasion, proved fatal to the hill. I
feel also relieved from another difficulty, and by no means
an immaterial one. When two years ago I brought in a
a bill for the repeal of the oath of abjuration, I was met
by the observation that I was repealing also the oaths re-
lating to the settlement of the Crown. On the present oc-
casion I cannot be met by arguments of that kind, because
there is a clause in the bill by which persons are bound to
maintain the succession to the Crown as it was established
by the Act of Settlement. Should the present bill pass
three oaths will require to be taken, the oath of allegiance,
the oath of supremacy, and the oath to maintain the succes-
sion to the Crown as established by the Act of Settlement.
Now, my lords, what objections there can be to a hill of
this description it is extremely difficult to understand.
My noble friend who sits near me on the cross benches
means, I understand, to move its rejection, a course which I
must say I hardly expected from him ; but I have endea-
voured to ascertain the grounds upon which he means to
proceed, and I am told that it is in consequence of some
words being omitted, namely, the words " On the true
faith of a Christian." That lam told is the ground upon
which my noble friend means to move the rejection of the
bill; but let it be remembered that these words are no
longer used for the purpose originally intended. Is it not
singular that they should be attempted to be introduced
into this bill for a purpose never contemplated by the per-
sons by whom the act was passed? (Hear.) But passing
that over let me ask my noble friend what is the object at
which he aims ? The regular course would be to allow this
bill to be read a second time and to move the insertion of
the words he advocates in the committee; but my noble
friend is pursuing a different course, and see what the con-
sequence will be, should he be successful in procuring the
rejection of the bill. The consequence will be that every
one of your lordships, and every member of the House of
Commons, will be obliged to continue to take that oath
which all consider ought not to be taken—namely, to
swear that no descendant of the person, pretending to be
the Prince of Wales has any right or title to the crown
of these realms, while all obedieno to him or
his heirs is abjured. (Hear, hear.) Meet of your lord-
ships deem that oath impertinent and idle; and give me
leave to add, that fOr a person to take an oath which is a
mere act of folly must be designated an act of impiety also.
But this must be the consequence should my noble friend's
motion be successful. Another noble friend of mine, for
whose opinion I have the greatest possible respect, foresee-
ing the difficulty, lei a endeavoured to avoid it—and no man
has more resources in a case of. difficulty than the noble
friend to whom I allude—by proposing, as he informed
me the other night, that if this bill be rejected, he should
move the second reading of a bill now on the table, the
object of which is to strike out of the oath all words relat-
ing to the Pretender, and to retain the words " on the
true faith of a Christian." But what would be the con-
sequence provided that bill sheuld pass your lordships'
house? It would go down to the other house of Parlia-
ment, and the course there would obviously be at once to
strike out the words. (Hear, hear.) The bill would then
come back to your lordships in that shape, and of course
would be lost. We shall then be precisely in the situation
in which we now stand, obliged to abjure the Pretender,
and to swear that no descendant of his shall have any tit's
to the crown of these realms, which is the absurdity to
which I have before referred. Let it not be understood
that in these preliminary observations I am endeavot ring
to anticipate and prevent any arguments that may be ad-
duced. Far otherwise. lam prepared to discuss and de-
fend the principles of the bill now, as at any other time ;
but let me first in a few words trace the history of this
oath. 'When William 111. came to the throne, in the first
year of his reign there were no oaths administered except
those of allegiance and supremacy. Two or three years
after, an attempt was made in the House of Commons to
introduce the oath of abjuration, a similar attempt being
made in your lordships' house. But William the Third,
with that liberality which was the peculiarity of his
character, declared that he did not wish to impose any
additional tests on his people, and the bill was lost in
both houses. Thus the matter rested until the last
year of the reign of William and Mary, when, as your
lordships are aware, in consequence of the Pretender hav-
ing assumed the title of King of England, and having been
recognised as such by Louis XLV., the oath of abjuration
was introduced and became law. But let us look at the ori-
gin of this oath, not as a matter of history but of form. It
had its origin long before the reign of William, at a period
immediately subsequent to the discovery of thePopish plgt,
when a piece of writing came through the hands of Garnet
and others concerned in the plot, to the effect that the only
mode of defeating the equivocations of the Rowau Catho-
lic; was to frame an oath of a certain shape, and to insert
the words, "On the true faith cf a Christian." They were
introduced, and were afterwards copied into the oath of
abjuration for the same purpose, and every one acquainted
with the history of the period knows that the oath was so
framed with the sole object of guarding against the Roman
Catholics. If any doubt should remain in the mind of any
noble lord, let him read the clauses of the act of Parlia-
ment ; nay more, I implore my noble friend to refer to the
debates which took place, and then I say that the conclu-
sion to which my noble frien I and your lordships must
inevitably come, and which I defy any one to reject, is that
the oath was intended to apply solely to the consciences of
Roman Catholics. Parliament had no idea whatever of ap-
plying 'the words to members of the Jewish religion ; in
fact there is nothing to show that they were at all contem-
plated in the oath of abjuration. 1 have now strictly
given the history of the oath of abjuration, and the objects
for which it was introduced, but there has been brought
to my recollection within the last two days what appears
to me a most extraordinary argument on the subject, or
rather I should say a mixture of statement, history, and
argument, to which I must for a moment advert. A
most rev. prelate in Ireland has published a collection
of rescripts and bulls of the Pope, and among these
documents are several relating to the Pretender, merely
matters of history, and obviously intended to be so.
Certain documents are referred to by the prelate in
question, and he is supposed to have stated, or to have
quoted, a passage in which it was asserted that there were
fifty Roman Catholic princes on the continent of Europe
who were nearer in blood to James 11. and the Pretender
than our present most gracious sovereign, Queen Victoria.
Now the inference drawn from these statements is the
most extraordinary that can be conceived, viz., that the
Roman Catholics still have hopes that at some future period
a Popish Sovereign may be placed on the throne of these
realms. The argument is therefore that you ought not to
touch this oath, and not ,render it less effective than at
present for the purpose to which it was originally intended.
I am at a loss to know how to describe this argument.
(Hear.) I have read it with much attention, and believe
the statement made to be perfectly correct. But what is the
argument ? No Roman Catholic is now bound to take the
oath of abjuration, and why? Because it was rescinded
in 1829, when the Roman Catholic Relief Bill passed,
and another oath was substituted in lieu of it. (Hear,
hear.) The argument I have stated, therefore, although
proceeding from high authority, is wholly inapplicable to
the present case. Passing from that argument, I beg to
remind your lordships that by the Roman Catholic Relief
Bill, the words, "On the true faith of a Christian," are
abolished. The oath the Roman Catholics are obliged to
take has no such words in it. So that you abolish these
words which were intended to apply to the Roman Ca-
tholics, and retain them, for what purpose ? to apply them
to a class of the Queen's subjects for whom they were ori-
ginally never intended. (Hear.) I believe that a more
inconsistent argument was never dreamt of. I took the
liberty on a former occasion to lay down a position which
I repeat now, and that is, that no British born subject ought
to be disfranchised unless by some legislative provision di-
rected against himself, or against the class of which he was
a member. I say that this is the very basis and prin-
ciple of our constitution. (Hear.) lam glad to be sup-
ported in this opinion by one of the learned judges before
whom the case came on a former occasion, and whose
opinion I shall take the liberty of reading to your lordships.
He says—" A construction the other way, excluding the
Jews from sitting and voting in Parliament, not by a direct
and intentional legislative act, but by an unforeseen and
unintended application of a few words inserted in the oath
with an entirely different object, is not in accordance with
what I considew to be the principles and practice of the law
of England." This was the opinion of one of the most learned
of our judges ; an attempt to answer which was made on a
former occasion ; and what was that answer? It was an
answer attempted by a noble friend of mine who sits on the
benches opposite, who said that if the Jews were not ex-
pressly excluded, it was because Parliament took their ex-
clusion for granted, and that therefore they were to be
actually excluded. So that whenever, by any mistake,
Parliament omits to legislate, we are to consider it to have
legislated, especially when it is a case of penalties and dis-
abilities. But even then the substratum is wanting. I
deny that in the act of William 111. they were supposed to
be inducted. Thera was tlion, )11.t Cinenumant &luau
.

whose learning and eloquence has never teen exceeded, I
mean Lord Somers, and it would be extravagant to suppose
that he would have allowed the act to pass with such an
intention without observation. Nay more, in consequence
of some vulgar notion that got abroad some years after re-
specting the position of the Jews, an opinion was taken of
ralbot, afterwards Lord Chancellor, and Raymond, after-
wards Lord Chief Justice, and they stated with reference to
the disabilities of the Jews, that they werein all respectspree
cisely in the same situation as any other natural born sub-
jects of this empire; so that there is no ground forth° sup-
position that they wore contemplated by the oath. Ido
not wish.to detain your lordships with lengthened quota-
tions, but there is anopinion of another distinguished judge
who de idedthe caseinthe Exchequer, to whichl must refer.
The substance of that opinion is thatif itberighttoexclude
professors of the Jewish faith, with respect to which he
offers no opinion, it would bo more consistent with thecha-
racter of this country and its Parliament to exclude them
by direct legislation rather than by the casual expression
of an Act of Parliament never intended to apply to them,
and which was intended for another object and a different
class of persons. For the rule of construction applicable to
all acts is to ascertain what were the intentions of the Le-
gislature ; you are not to construe an act so as to derive
from it some object which is not consonant with its plain
intention; above allyou are not to construe it so as to make
it contrary to its tenour, a bill of pains and penalties. But
if you got rid of these words, " On the true faith of a
Christian," what will be the effect ? You will un-Chris-
tianise the Legislature. I have heard that argument insisted
on with great pertinacity, and in a great variety of forms.
Is it meant to be said that during the reign of William
111., when that precise oath did not exist, the Parliaments
were less Christian ? or that the House of Commons was
less Christian than the House of Commons of the present
day? (Hear, hear.) Nay further, look back to the reign of
Edward VI., a reign remarkable for itsreligious character.
No such words as these formed part of any oath re-
quired to be taken at that time; and because of that are
we to say that Parliaments in the reign of Edward VI.
were lees pious than at the present moment ? The same ar-
gument may be repeated in connection with the long reign
of Elizabeth. I have also heard it said that it is inconsis-
tent with propriety that a person of the Jewish faith should
be a member of the Christian legislature of a Christian
country. I have heard this over and over again repeated ;
I believe it had its origin with a right rev, prelate for
whom I have a great respect, who I regret now not to see
in his place, and that the more because of the cause of his
absence—l allude to the distinguished metropolitan bishop.
Now, I have always heard it said, Be cautious of an argu-
ment embodied in a phrase, for it is used to cover some
fallacy. Examine the phrase, " the Christian legislature
of a Chrsitian country." No doubt this is a Christian
country. What is meant by that ?—it means a country of
which the great portion of the inhabitants are Christians—
of which the government is Christian—of which the estab-
lished church is Christian. But it is not to be said that
there are none others than Christians here. Nor is it con-
tended that those who are not Christians are to be put
utterly out of consideration. We find that those of the
Jewish faith are possessed of all the rights of citizenship,
and are liable to all its duties. Why, then, should they
not be represented in the Christian Legislature in a pro-
portion similar to the numbers in this Christian country ?
(Hear.) A member of the Jewish faith is required to fill
onerous offices. You call upon him to fill the office of she-
riff. If a Jew is eosea sheriff of London or Middlesex and
does not accept the office he is mulcted in a heavy fine. A
member of the Jewish faith is bound to serve on juries ;
nay more, we have placed them in a position to administer
the law; we have placed them in the municipal corporations
of the country, and I charge any person to say whether
they .have not performed the duties incident to this office
as well as those other British subjects who have previously
filled them. There is at this time a gentleman of the Jew-
ish faith at the head of the magistracy in this metropolis,
and I can fearlessly put it to any of your lordships to say
whether in indulgence, impartiality, benevolence, and
splendid liberality, that gentleman has been surpassed by
any of his predecessors in office. (Hear.) I have heard a
remark, I confess with surprise, of this description, that it
was a strange spectacle that a Jewish chief magistrate
should attend at St. Paul's on the day when a solemn
thanksgiving was offered to Almighty God for the restora-
tion of the blessings of peace. I, my lords, have been pre-
sent at the performance of divine worship in cathedrals,
when the form of worship and the doctrines taught dif-
fered widely from the religion which I hold to be true ;
but, notwithstanding, when I have seen myself surrounded
by numbers who gave praise to God according to the man-
ner which they in their consciences devoutly believed to
be the true one, I confess that I have felt myself stirred
with feelings of religious emotion, which I should seek in
vain to describe to your lordships. (Hear.) Again, the
phrase to which I have referred, that it is inconsistent
with right that a gentleman of the Jewish faith should be
a member of the Christian Legislature, enunciates a prin •
ciple. If it is a principle it ought to be acted upon with
uniformity. Let us see how it is acted on. I remember,
some years ago, upon the union of the two provinces of
Canada, the constitution of that colony was considered in
this house. Many right rev. prelates were present, for
questions deeply affecting the interests of the Church were
under discussion. Is Canada less a Christian country than
England, or was its legislature less Christian than our own?
But no person had, when the discussion to which I have
-referred teokplace, proposed toinsert a clause preventing a
Jew from sitting in the Canadian legislature. This is the more
remarkable, because the attention of Parliament must have
been called to the matter; for when the colony was divided,
a gentleman of the Jewish faith sat in the House of Repre-
sentatives, and was one of its most distinguished members.
And yet the principle, if true principle it be, ought to be
acted upon everywhere and constantly. The case, however,
to which I refer took place some time back; many of your
lordships may snot remember or may have forgotten it. But
within a very few years we have given a constitution to
Australia, to New Zealand, to the Cape of Good Hope—
all Christian countries, all Christian legislatures, but not
one of them bound to exclude a Jew from being one of their
representatives. It has been said, "No such clause would
have been pas,ed ; such an attempt would have been nega-
tived by the legislature." And yet you are now taking hold
of a fragment of an act to do that which otherwise you are
unable to do. It has also been said, if persons of the
Jewish faith sit in Parliament, how could they judge of
questions affected by religious considerations ? That argu-
neet was urged with great effect and considerable ability
a hen the claims of Catholics were under consideration ;
but in that case it was found to be unavailing, even though
applied to a sect which feels it its duty to proselytise, and
which looks upon the English Church as possessing places
and temporalities to which it lays claim. But how widely
different in the case of the Jews. They have no desire to
make converts—their principles are opposed to it; they
have no claim upon your temporalities ; they are inoffen-
sive ; not desirous at all of interfering with your religion,
but solely anxious to be allowed to worship God according
to the rule of the Mosaic law. We have a maxim at law
"de ininimis non curet lex ;" I wish I could apply the
amino rule to the arguments of those who oppose this mea-
sure. As I cannot do so, I must answer an observation which
has been made ; which, however, is so trivial as an i.rgu-
went that I only notice it because it is founded on a mis-
apprehension of fact. I have heard this said, " How can
a person of the Jewish faith properly fulfil the duties of a
member of the House of Commons ? Committees of that

house, election committees especially, are sometimes bound
to sit de die in diem., and a Jew could not attend a sitting
upon a Saturday." Now I have been in communication
with the highest authorities upon the subject, and I find that
such a statement has uo foundation in fact. There is nothing
in the Jewish religion preventing the doing of such a duty on
the Sabbath, rand two passages in the Talmud have been
pointed out to me which appear suefieient authority for the
statements which I have heard. In truth this is a question
which affects not religious but civil rights,, awl, in connec-
tion with this, I mustrerlind your lordships that you have
not scrupled to forcer theis to do that which you do not do
yourselves. The noble lot d opposite (Lord Clarendon) has had
some argument with the Turkish Government, and has no
doubt put it to them how could they' thus deal with their
Christian subjects; that the question was one of civil
rights, not of religious opinions, and he has thus urged
them to admit these Christians to equal rights with their
Mussulman fellow-subjects. These arguments, bucked no
doubt by something which I will not now stop to allude
to, have proved successful, and by the Hatti-Scheriff
now in force, Christians and .rilussulmans are on an
equal footing. I counsel your lordships to take example
by this, and not to force precepts upon others which you
in practising yourselves. My lords, there is now a
bill upon your lordships' table, the preamble of which
states " that nothing is more contrary to the spirit of true
religion than that persons should be subject to disabili-
ties on account of their forms of worship." This bill has
been on your table for some weeks; it has been referred to
the Statute Law Commission, a body composed of the
highest and most competent authorities in the land ; these
persons have returned it to you with the preamble unaltered,
ad.i to the principle which it enunciates, and upon which I
pray you now to act, they have given their high sanction.
I know there are persons who look with something like
scorn on the Jewish race. I hope, however, that this is one
of the prejudices of a former time which has almost passed
away. Fur my own part, I cannot but view them as a most
remarkable people, calling forth widely different feelings.
Even when in captivity at Babylon we find them long before
high in the confidence and service of the conquerors. When
we come to more modern times, and consider the case of
Spain, we find them for many years overwhelmed by op-
pression and kept in obscurity; but the moment that op-
pression ceased and a liberal system was introduced, they
came out from their obscurity, and in the next three cen-
turies were distinguished in literature, science, and the
arts. In still later times we find their history the same. Is
there, then, ground for daring to point the finger of scorn
at these our fellow-subjects? For let it not be lost sight of
for a moment that these are British subjects for whom I am
now pleading—not asking a favour, but contending for a
right. My lords, I have always considered this house as
the safeguard of the people against rash and hasty legisla
tion. But, my lords, to stand as a barrier against bills
coming repeatedly from the other house upon a subject
deeply affecting the constitution of the house itself, only
calling for legislation through the perversion of an act of
Parliament, as I consider, inconsistent with true policy,
and contrary to the fundamental principles of the consti-
tution. The principle upon which this bill is founded
has been several times affirmed in the other house of Par-
liament, after debates in which the highest ornaments of
that house have taken a conspicuous part. The first bill
upon
ntghuiissubjecte mWas
beri, tontroduced in the other house by a
d
whom, in the opinion of many
of your lordships, much of the prosperity of the country
might be traced. From that time to the present many
have been the bills which have been brought to your lord-
ships bar. I would urge
mupyonleyrodue,thitehaa impolicybeee
of
madelongeran
oarpgpaomsinengttbhyeitrheeeop
progress.posing measures of this discussion,
that in removing the disabilities which press upon the
Jews we are acting in contravention of the prophecy under
which they labour. No doubt if a man looks to a pro-
phecy, and deliberately takes means which according to
his judgment would tend to its falsification, nothing could
justify him in such an act. But we know so little of the
mysterious ways of Providence that;we should commit a
grave error if we were to be guided by any interpreta-
tion which we might place upon prophecy, instead of sur-
rendering ourselves to the dictates of justice and charity.
We have succeeded in establishing an hereditary and
landed monarchy connected with representative bodies and
liberal institutions. We have advanced, though by slow
and cautious steps, to our present system of civil and
religious liberty. There is one defect only in that system,
one blot—the subject now under consideration. Let As
remedy this last defect, or rather let us toar the defect it-
self from the statute book, and make perfect that system
which is founded on that eternal principle of justice—the
independence of civil rights and religious opinion.

Earl STANHOPE said that the course which he pro-
posed to take in moving that the bill be read a second time
that day six months was in perfect accordance with his con-
duct while in the other house, he having on every occasion
opposed the progress of the measure. In the course of the
able address which their lordships had just heard, the noble
and learned lord referred at some len4th to the motives
-which setts- ted those who introduced "the words; " on the
truelikith of a-Christian" into the eaistieg act; He (Ear 1

Stanhope) looked upon this view of the matter as merely
collateral ; they were assembled, not as antiquarians, but
as legislators, and the question was, whether it was consist-
ent with justice or charity now to repeal those words. The
noble and learned lord had used the words "scorn and con-
tempt," as descriptive of the feelings which animated some
of those who opposed this bill, towards members of the
Jewish persuasion. He denied that there was any ground
for making such a charge. He regarded the Jews as most
useful, worthy, and honourable members of society. He
had taken part in supporting a bill to confer upon the Jews
full civic rights and privileges, bat there he felt bound to
atop, as he considered the members of the Jewish persua-
sion were not disqualified by their religious opinions from,
the discharge of executive functions. It was, however, a
very different matter when they were called upon to con-
sider and decide upon the making of laws for a Christian
country. Christianity was part and parcel of the law of
the land, and he trusted ,that their lordships would not
now depart from the old maxim of our constitution. He
was 'prepared to tadmit that the oath of allegiance had
not succeeded in keeping out all persons disaffected to
the existing monarchy, but no person proposed on that
account to abolish the oath of allegiance. By a parity
of reasoning, the oath of abjuration, which did not
exclude members of various religious persuasions,
and even of no religion whatever, as in the case of Gibbon
and others, did not thereby afford any ground for its abo-
lition, or for the omission of the words, "On the true faith
of a Christian," which formed the main subject of discus-
sion. There was no doubt that Tom Paine, as an English-
man, might have taken his seat in the House of Commons;
if he had doneso, by what means could the house have pre-
vented him from making constant and repeated attacks on
the Christian religion, if this safeguard were abandoned ?
He might fairly say in the absence of any such oath that
there was nothing to prevent his continuing these attacks.
He denied the accuracy of the statement of the noble and
learned lord that those who were oppose.l to the repeal of
the Jewish disabilities were the same as those who had op-
posed freedom of trade and the development cf civil and
religions liberty. So far at least as he was personally
concerned the imputation was" unfounded, for even
in the earliest years of his public life he was
an advocate for the removal of the Catholic
disabilities, and had since supported measures for
the promotion of civil and religious liberty. At the pre-
sent moment there was too great an amount of division in
the Christian world, and points of difference were too often
dwelt upon to the exclusion of other and more important
ones upon which agreement existed. It was therefore of
great Importance that there should be something in the
nature of a bond or common union between professing
Christians, which the abolition of these words would, in
his opinion, go far to destroy. The noble earl then referred
to the opinions of Dr. Arnold and Archbishop Whately,
and concluded that, notwithstanding the broad grounds
which they had laid down as to the rights of all persons born
under the constitution, still there were numerous disquali-
fications, which were provided for the benefit of the abate
and the good working of the Government. There were
disqualifications of age, parentage, and other matters; and
were•the religious opinions of the legislators of the country
to be regarded as of less importance than those points?
The noble earl, after some further remarks, proceeded to
state that he maintained that the words "on the true
faith of a Christian" were not introduced by the original
framers of the oath for the exclusion of Jews from Parlia-
ment. The Jews never 4practically had a meat in Parlia-
ment ; and the motion he asked their lordships to assent
to would not, if agreed to, deprive the Jews of any pi ivi-
loges they ever possessed. The question their lordships had
to consider and discuss was whether, in justice and on
round policy, the Jelin could be admitted within the walls
of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) The words of the o
which he had just quoted acted r.s a religious barrier
against the intrusion into Parliament of men of opinions
entirely opposite; and if they omitted these words from
the oath, not only Jews, but the followers of every religion
would some time or other seek for admission into the
House of Commons. (Hear, hear.) The question now before
Parliament was one of principle, and not one of relief to
numbers .Considering it affected a great principle, and
believing that sufficient grounds had not been laid before
their lordships on which teeagfee to the second reading of
this bill, and believing ale.) that if their lordships agreed to
it, that their acquiescence in the measure would be taken
by a large proportion of the people as discouraging to the
cause of Christian progress, and the voice of wisdom and
of truth, he moved, in parliamentary terms, the postpone-
ment of the second reading of the bill, but in truth and in
fact its rejection altogether. (Cheers.)
After som e remarks inexplan tion from Lord LYNDHURST
and Earl STANHOPE,
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE replied to the argu-
ments of the noble earl who had just sat down, and said
that that noble lord should have met the question of the
admission or non-admissionof the Jews into Parliament in
a fair and proper manner by the enactment of a measure to
that effect, awl not as he had done on the second reading of
this bill. He condemned the policy of the noble lord in
wishing to retain the abjuration oath, which was a miser-
able rag and shred of intolerance, and a disgrace to the
statute-book, and expressed his surprise that the noble earl
should base his support of Christianity on the terms of an
oath—a thing which history informed them had been evaded
to suit the caprice or interests of persons holding high
office both in Church and State, and its practical working
destroyed the force of the noble earl's argument in that re-
spect. Every day's experience showed their lordships how
futile was the argument that 'by the admission of Jews
into Parliament they would unchristianise the country.
Had the various municipal corporations possessing Jewish
members or the magistracy been unchristianised by per-
mitting Jews to those honours? Or had the country or
religion suffered by members of the Hebrew persuasion
filling the office of churchwarden, and having to provide
not only for the support of the fabric of the Church in
levying rates for that purpose, but also the bread and wine
for the celebration of the Sacrament ? (Hear.) The refusal
to admit Jews to Parliament on the ound that it would
sinchristianiseit, was a mockery and a stigmaon the coun-
try, and was unfair and untenable in argument. He (the
Marquis of Clauricarde) supported the measure OR tic..
plain and simple ground, and the only one on which be
thought Dissenters could be admitted to a seat in Parlia
ment, that the State had no right to inquire into the con-
scientious religious oninionsof any free-born subject r f her
Majesty, but only toinquiro into their public and political
acts, and see that they did not belong to any specific or
secrat society dangerous to the State, and if so to exclude
them from a parti ipation in the privileges of government.
He warned their lordships against continuing hostile tothe
feeling of the other House of Parliament and, the country
on this question, and said that they mast give way to the
popular feeling against this, intolerance, and that it would
be better for their lordshipsto do it now than to be obliged
hereafter to yield to popular pressure. He implored them
to act in accordance with the spirit of the times, and pass
this measure, which would be the means of setting the
question at rest. (Cries of "Divide.")
Lord RAVENS WORTH supported the second reading
of the bill, and explained what might be teitne,l his in.
consistency of conduct in doing so. He had on every pre-
vious occasion voted against a bill for permitting Jews to
sit in Parliament, bat he drew a wide distinction between
is bill of that kind and the ono then before their lordships'
house, which was a bill for the repeal of an obsolete and
useless oath, and which he regarded as a blot on the statute
book. (Hear.) No question, inconvenience, he would not
say danger, would result from the admission of Jews into
Parliament, hut still he confessed he found himself bound
to support this bill, because the benefits anti advantsges
that would result from it would more than counterbalance
any evils that would arise from it. The necessity of alter-
ing the oath of abjuration was admitted on all hands, and
the question was what should be substituted for it. He
thought that the form of words prescribed by the bill
would meet everything that wasrequited from such an oath,
and that their lordships were bound to adopt it, having r e-
pealed it as regard? the Roman Catholic, against whom it was
framed, and not to retain it against the Jew, for whom it
was never intended. There were greater inconveniences an-
ticipated from relieving the Catholics than be anticipated
would flow from the adoption of this measure ; yet tho Legis-
lature was obliged to yield principally, he regretted, from
terror and intimidation. Such, he hoped, would not be the
course adopted in reference to this measure should it not pass
their lordships' house. He delineated anything like hostility
between their lordships' house and the House of Commons ;
but he must remind them of a threat that had been thrown
out—that if their lordships refused to read this bill, the
House of Commons would retaliate by refusing to read the
Appellate Jurisdiction Bill. He regretted that this measure
should have caused a difference ofopinion amongst the leade]s
of the Opposition, which be said was an inconvenience to be
deplored; but he was happy to find there were some d'stin-
gaished exceptions to the exclusionists on his (the Opposi-
tion) side of the house. (Hear, hear.) Such oaths as these
were not regarded as any great safeguards of the constitution
or Crown. The qualification Path, was often evaded at the
table of the House of Commons, and persons of any denomi-
nation might take the oath of abjuration to serve their pur-
pose ; but he thought it was too bad for their lordships to re-
tain an oath that excluded a conscientious Jew from taking
his seat in Parliament. He contended that no principle would
be violated by their lordships consenting to the second read-
ing of this bill, which would repeal au obnoxious and obso-
ete oath.

Lord DUNGANNON opposed the second reacting of the
bill. He said the question of admitting persons of a certain
persuasion to seats in Parliament; or to the rights of citiien-
ship, was not involved in this measure; but it was whether
they should or should not maintain their adherence as a legis-
lative body to the fundamental principles of the Christian
faith. Abstractedly he did not apprehend danger from
the admission of a few Jews into the other House of Par-
liament,m but he looked beyond that, and considered the
;rat. effect it would have on the country at large through-
rra. f
the kingdom, and the probability of their having with-
ronithem the protecting hand of Providence f • •
up one of the great strongholds of Christianity.Hrg
eowaswaintga
loss to understand what weretheioshi" dangers or inconveniences to
rd
be apprehended from their Adopting tho amend-
ment. He could not forget that they were a Christian assem-
bly, and he was convin,ed that if they once threw down this
last barrier, they wouldbe opening a door to dangers which it
was impossible to foresee. lie had always oppose d the
Catholic Relief Bill ; but he drew a broad
distinction
wbd ?nwen aee nnt
Jatmeasure and this, He trusted the house
se (1 tameasure which would destroy the Christian charac-.
erof the Legislature.
Lord RAVENSWORTH offered a few observations in ex-
planation.
The Earl of ST. GERMANS expressed his regret that no
member of the Government had offered any observations to
the house on this measure. It was admitted on all hands that
the words "en the true faith of a Christian" were never in-
tended to apply to the Jews. Why if Jews were admitted
into Parliament, the number who would gain admission there
would be very small, so small that if they should be so minded
they never could do anything. The Jews were an unprosely.
Using sect, and the Church of Christ had more to apprehend
from Christians who did not belong to her than from the
Jews. He believed that there was no danger whatever from
this matter; for it was his firm belief that they might safely
leave the election of proper representatives in the hands of
theOonstituencies of the country, and in that belief he should
vote for tho second reading of the bill.
The Marqpis of LANSDOWNE said it must not be in-
ferred that the Government were indifferent to this measure
because they had refrained from offering any observations
upon it after the able and eloquent speech of the noble and
learned lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst). He could assure
their lordships that the bill had the full approbation of her
Majesty's Government, for it was admitted on ad bands that
Vete ancient oath of abjuration was worthies', and worse than
useless. The simple question was, whether a form of words
intended for other persons should be retained as agitnst the
Jews. He could see no danger whatever in admitting Jews
to the Legislature. Surely whit a dishonest Christian mule
do in the reign of George 111. a. dishonest Jew could do in the
Deign of Queen Victoria. To think it possible that anydanger
could arise firma the admission of Jews into Parliament was as
Mousey as anything that could be conceived. All who paid
if) ate taxation Q. Ginatry, ead who gave tbeiv fie4.vi‘e•