The Sun.
London, England, 1856-04-10 00:00:00

With respect to what the hon. and learned member
had just said about the Roman Catholics being famished
with an argument as to the asserted negative character
of the Protestants, he considered it was one of those
statements that was quite beside the question. It was
not the intention of the Math of abjuration to exclude
a person of the Jewish persuasion from Parliament, and
if it was intended to exclude men holding that faith from
taking part in their proceedings, he contended it ought
to be done by express act of Parliament, and not to be
effected by the fag end of an oath of abjuration. He
should support the second reading of the bill on the
grounds urged by the right bon. gentleman the member
for Manchester.
Mr. NAPIER objected to the second reading of the
bill, because it made open questions of sacred and con-
stitutional matters. He certainly would not go the
length of the learned Lord Advocate in the
extension of civil and religious liberty, but would
step short at the limit of Christianity. The noble lord
(J. Russell), when he brought forward the measure, did
so in a far more straightforward manner than the right
hon. gentleman had done. By the bill of the noble lord
admission to the Legislature was strictly confined to the
Jews ; but the bill of the right hon. member for Manches-
ter would open the door for admission into the Legislature
of all persons not Christians. He thought the person
who denied the truths of the Christian doctrines ought
not to be admitted into Parliament any more than a
republican who denied the existence of an earthly sove-
reign. The latter would most certainly be decided to
be not qualified, and he certainly thought that the for-
mer was not in a better position. The constitution
of this country was allied to Christianity, and there-
fore the entrance of any persons who were not Christians
into the house was a direct violation of the Christianity
of the country.
Lord J. RUSSELL said there were two points upon
which the house seemed pretty well agreed, namely,
that it was no longer necessary to abjure allegiance to the
successors of James 111., and that part of it with respect
to the Protestant succession, they all seemed to agree
that this part might be retained. He did not quarrel
with the oath of allegiance, and doubted not that
every one admitted to that house would maintain the
Protestant succession to the throne. The point in dispute
was quite beside the question of Protestant alarm. The
hon. and learned gentleman appeared to consider that,
hereafter, if persons of the Jewish persuasion were ad-
mitted to a seat in Parliament, the hon. and learned
gentleman said he would stand on the ground of Chris-
tianity ; but there were others who stood on narro her
grounds to exclude from office those who differed from
them in religious opinions. It was in former times, be-
fere the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act, held that
a man who did not profess the principles of the Esta-
blished Church was not fit to hold any office, or to enter
the House of Commons as a member of Parliament.
He maintained that there was more hostility on the
part of the Protestant dissenters towards the Establish-
ment than there was on the part of the Jews. The
Jews did not seek to make proselytes, but were attached
to their own faith. If they admitted Jews into Parlia-
ment, it was said the effect would be to nu-Chris-
tianise the House of Commons. What would they say
of the City of London which he had the honour to
represent. They had at the present time a gentle.
men of the Jewish persuasion as their Chief Magistrate,
but by so having him in that office had the city of Lon-
don parted with its Christianity, and were they only to
resume that Christianity on the next 9th of November.
(Laughter). If they thought to maintain the character
of that house by oaths, he would refer them to the time
of the Commonwealth, when every man was called upon
to declare his form of belief in the Scriptures. If such
was the desire of the house now, why was not a bill in-
troduced for that purpose ? (Hear, hear.) Having
gone over some of the objections to the bill, the
noble lord said the oath of abjuration of
the descendants of James 111. to the throne of this king-
dom was no longer necessary, as those descendants no
longer existed ; and concluded by urging the house to
agree to the bill, and thus promote the onward progress
of civil and religious liberty.
Mr. WALPOLE objected to the bill. When the
hon. member for Manchester said the City of London
had been for nine years deprived of one of its represen-
tatives by the refusal of that house to admit Baron
Rothschild, he would only say that if the City of Lon-
don chose to elect a person who was consititutionally
disqualified, it was the City of London. and
not that house, which was to blame. By the
C institution of the country there never was a time when
a Jew was entitled to a seat in that house, and, there-
fore, there was no argument in saying that the house
was defeating any constitutional principle. The prin-
ciples of religious liberty entitled every one to the fullest
liberty, but that did not apply to this case, as it might
'be the means of admitting persons to office which might
be altogether incongruous with the admission of the in-
dividual. (Hear, hear.) It was not a question of
persecution and intolerance, but it was one calcu-
lated' to alter the Christian character of that
house. If this bill was to get rid of obsolete forms he
should have given it his support, but believing it to have
a precisely opposite tendency he should give it his most
determined opposition.
Lord PALMERSTON said he should give his hearty
concurrence to the second reading of the bill, as the
time had come when the taking of such an oath should
be dispensed with, and that it ought to be removed from
the statute-book.
Mr. DISRAELI—I wish briefly to state my reasons
for the course I shall take on this occasion. Notwith-
standing the observations of the nob'e lord the member
for the city of London, I must say that I think the ques-
tion which is really at issue has not been brought before
the house in a form the most desirable for its proper
solution. The house perhaps is aware that I have upon
the subject of tre restrictions on the Jewish portion of
her Maj sty's subjects a strong feeing of a peculiar
nature. I regret that the question has not been pre-
sented to the consideration of the house in a manner
that would have raised a simple issue, and which would
haye asked for the opinion of the house upon the single
question whether legislative power should be entrsated
to British Jews. I deeply lament that that question
should have become involved with one which at all
touches the Protests, t sentiments and Protestant preju-
dices of the peop'e of England. When the noble lord,
two years ago, introduced a measure, which was then
unfortunate, I felt it my duty to vote for the first time
against the measure, although I had before supported
measures of an analogous kind ; and I did so because I
felt that the noble lord had fatally shifted his ground,
and that he would thereby raise up a host of prejudices
against hire, in addition to those against which he must
from time to time have to contend. With regard to the
particular proposition before us, it is divested, no doubt,
of many of the objections which could be fairly urged
against the proposal of the noble lord in 1854. The oath
(4t abjuration in its present form was clearly indefensi-
ble. No one on either side of the question has for a mo-
ment pretends(' that the oath, as it is now framed, is not
open to very serious objections. Whether it has arisen
from inadvertency by the Legislature, or from the refit
changes that have taken plate in men's minds, or (men
the political circumstances we have had to encounter, I
know not ; hut it cannot be denie i that the terms of the
oath are most anomalous. In dealing with' this ques-
t'on I, for one, should deeply regret, that in voting for
the motion of the right hon. gentleman the member for
Manchester it should be supposed that I would vote for
a mot'on by which it was attempted in an indirect man-
ner to get rid of those obstacles which are at present in
the way of British Jews entering into Parham, nt, by
simply removing from the oath the words "on the true
faith of a Christian. ' We ought to frame an oath which
stiould be taken by members of Parliament on taking
t seats in this house. Whether, if we were called
upon to frame an oath ab initlo, it could with propriety
be framed accor l ng to its present form, so far as the
retaining of those words is concerned, I will
not stop to discuss. That is of secondary import-
ance. But these words at present exist, and, if we aJw
repudiate and reject them from the oath, it appears to
me that we-should be taking a course which, 1 iokieg
only to the policy of our conduct, and not regarding
other considerations, would in my mind be greatly de-
trimental, and be fraught with consequences which all of
us might deplore. (Cheers...) I have another reason, I
confess, for calling upon the house not to renounce that
form of oath. I have never advocated the cause of the
Jews in this house upon the principle of religious liberty,
which the noble lord (Lord J. Russell) most sincerely
and consistently advocates, and which he has at all times
male the basis of the policy which he has recommended
to us. I have always felt that when you came to prac-
tice, and were determined to act upon that principle,
you would find it a very difficult one to carry you through
your cause. Unquestionably, with reference to other cases,
there are some broad instances to which that principle
will apply, but I very much doubt that if the claim of the
Jews for the removal of these restrictions is merely found-
ed upon the abstract principle of religious liberty,
grounds of opposition may arise which have not yet been
introduced into the controvergy, and which it may be very
difficult to meet and defeat. have always felt that the
claim of the Jews to an entrance into Parliament, and
to the full erj )yment of all the rights which this state
can confer upon the subjects of her Majesty, mainly
and, in my opinion, justly rests upon the principle
that this is a Chri.tiau state, and that we are a Chris

tian community. (Hear.) I have more than once ex-
presied the reasons which I have always cherished for
entertaining this opinion. It appears to me that
-the claim of the Jew to the respect of the Christian
cannot be far a moment contested. (Cheers,) If the
not a '
religion of this country were not Christian, if this were
Christian community,
there might be many plau-
sible reasons urged against the admission of Jews as
members of this house. But, with all becoming re-
spect, I may be allowed to say that this would not be a
Christian State, or a Christian community had it not
been, under Divine impulse and inspiration, for the
efforts and exertions of a Jew. (Rear.) I think that
that fact constitutes a claim to the respect, and consider-
ation and sympathy of this house. (Cheers.) Under these
circumstances, the course I shall venture to take will be
shall vote for the second reading of this bill,
and for this reason, that when the bill is in committee I
shall take the opportunity of proposing an oath in lieu
slt the of abjuration which the bill nmtains, an 1 in
which I shalt retain the words "on the true faith of
a Christian ;" and I shall subsequently take the liberty i
of proposing an oath which will meet the cise of any
Jew who may be elected a member of this house, and
which will prevent the necessity of his using those words,
which he cannot conscientiously do. (Hear.) I give
the house my thank for allowing me to make this state-
ment. (Cheers.) I could not go into the lobby with-
out entering into this explanation, after having voted
against the motion of the noble lord. I regret the ques-
tion has been brought before us in the form it has, but
after the most anxious reflection I can give the subject,
I think the course which I have mentioned is the one
most likely to conciliate all parties. (Cheers, and cries
of "Divide.")

Mr. NEWDEGATE said the measure was one calcu.