The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-06 00:00:00

" -
MARRIAGES (MOSCOW, TAHITI, AND
NINGPO).
This bill was read
JEWS a secon BILL.

On the motion for going into committee inn this bill,
The Earl of CLANCARTY said it appeared ti`rat Lord
Derby attached great importance to effecting a reconcilia-
tion with the other house. He (Lord Clancarty) did not
think that any light matter ought to starlet in the way of
such an arrangement ; but they should not lose sight of
the fact that there were three estates. of the realm,
and they ought not to presume on the acquiescence of
the sovereign in a measure of this kind. The noble earl
referred to some cases-in which George had with-
held his assent from measures passed by both house?.
The Roman Catholic Emancipation Bill had only been
introduced by the Government on a recommendation
contained in the speech from the throne. Where a boon
was to be conferred on a class .of ,ber subjects, it was
respectfully due to the sovereign that she ought to have
had an opportunity of recommending the measure in a
message to Parliament, if she really approved of it. The
Queen, byher position, was head of the Church and de-
fender of the faith ; and he could not suppose that she
would wish to associate in her councils Jews and unbe-
lievers. He wished to know, if her Majesty's approval
lied not been give-, what coarse she would be advised to
adopt ? If this bill passed, what would be the position
of the Roman Catholic body, bound as they still were by
an oath not to use any influence they possessed to
weaken the Protestant religion as by law established.
This could not be a final settlement of the question' if it
led to an agitation by Roman Catholics—which had al•
ready begun—against the oath they were now obliged to
take. Was the noble earl prepared to stand by the Act
of 1829, and resist any alteration of the oath ?
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH said that under this
bill there was nothing to prevent a Jew from occupying
the position of Prime Minister ; but a Roman Catholic
could not do so. At any rate, words ought to be intro-
duced similar to those in the Roman Catholic oath, bind-
ing Jews not to use their influence against the Church
as by law established. He deprecated the measure being
passed in such baste.
Lord REDESDALE said it was unconstitutional and
extremely objectionable to allow the houses to act by
resolutions as this bill proposed. They would have cause
to regret deeply, either now or at some future time, if
they allowed so unconstitutional a measure to pass. He
implored their lordships not to be induced, by temporary
convenience, to establish so dangerous a precedent. It
had been recently held in the other house that a Jew
member might act on committees without taking the
oaths. Thus one concession followed another, and it was
impossible to say what they might come to. He was
anxious to see a distinction made in the bill in favour of
their lordships' house. (Hear.) It was desirable that the
provision as it was should only be made applicable to
the other Leuese Tao Jew had a nationality distinct
from that of the country where he was bur,: z,nd Herd ;
and this was such as to incapacitate him for legislative
functions, This matter was one which he felt deeply; he
was not opposod to what was done, but the manner of
doing it.
After a few words from Viscount MELVILLE,
Lord BROUGHAM said it was quite common for re-
solutions, not of a house of parliament, but of a court of
justice, to have the force of law. Scarcely an alteration
was made in the legal procedure but power was given to
the judges to issue orders for carrying it out ; and these
orders virtually became a portion of the statute. He (the
noble lord) did not think the present was the best course
that might have been adopted, but still it was a coarse
to which he had no solid objection. He found that he
had somewhat misstated the object of a bill on another
subject, which might be expected from the other house.
At present it applied only to members of the House of
Commons, but he had no doubt that the first thing their
lordships would do, when it came before them, would be
to make it include themselves.
The Earl of DERBY said that his noble and learned
friend put him in a somewhat unhappy predicament.
A number of noblelords had risen one after the other and
put questions to him, which he had had no opportunity
allowed him to answer. Now, his noble and learned
friend entered into the discussion of another bill which
had been disposed of, and respecting which the noble
lord had delivered aepeech. He supposed his noble friend
thought the subject was one upon which he must have a
few more last words ; and a little divergence from the
ordinary course might perhaps be allowed his noble
friend. (A. laugh.) The noble earl (Lord Clancarty) had
suggested two different objections to the course their
lordships were about to pursue. In the first place, he
stated his opinion that in seeking to reconcile the views
of both houses of Parliament, their lordships were in
danger of coming in collision with the Crown. In a ques-
tion of this kind he was sure the last thing his noble
friend would be desirous of would be to bring into discus-
sion the personal opinions of the sovereign of the realm.
But he (Lord Derby) had not the slightest reason to sup-
pose that her Majesty would interpose her prerogative,
and he had no apprehensions of any such collision as that
to which his noble friend had referred. Again, his noble
friend said that if it was determined to alter the law, the
proper course would be to send down a message from the
Crown. But the noble lord forgot that none of the bills
had been introduced on the part of the Government. So
far from the Government having assented to them, they
had recommended their lordships to strike out that part
of the Commons' bill by which the proposed privilege was
conferred upon the Jews. But then the noble earl (Lord
Lucan) came forward with the bill now before their lord-
ships ; and by that measure each house was allowed to
take its own course, a plan which he (Lord Derby)
thought was the best they could pursue.. The bill was
next objected to en the ground that it would place the
Roman Catholics in aiposition of inferiority as compared
with the Jews. But7ie (the noble earl) could not see
how the bill placed Roman Catholics in a position of
inferiority. A provision had been introduced into
the act of 1820 for the purpose of meeting an
objection which was generally entertained by Pro-
testants. They were apprehensive that the Roman Ca-
tholics, being a rival body within the Christian Church,
were likely to avail themselves of their new position in
Parliament for the purpose of injuring the temporalities
of the Established Church. In this state of things an oath
was introduced, and unhesitatingly accepted by the
Etonian Catholic body, by which they bound themselves
not to make use of any of the privileges that might be
conferred upon them fur the purpose of injuring the
church establishment, an object which they emphatically
disclaimed. He (the noble earl) did not believe thnt there
prevailed to any great extent any dissatisfaction with re-
gard to that oath, neither did he see how the admission
of the Jews could affect the question. Although they
no doubt thought the Christian religion an erroneous
one, he had never heard that they had any designs against
the temporalities of the Church of England. There was,
therefore, no reason why securities should be taken of
them, as had been done of the Roman Catholics. (Hear.)
The noble duke (the duke of Marlborough) complained
that the bill did not impose the same limitations with re-
gard to presentations to benefices which were imposed ,
upon the Roman Catholics. Now, so ,far as referred to
presentations made by persons of the Jewish persuasion
in their private capacity, the bill introduced no alteration
whatever. The noble earl had consented to insert in the
bill the clause which had been omitted from the former
measure, placing the Jews, in respect to the situations
they might hold, on exactly the same footing as the Ro-
man Catholics. (Hear.) It would also be necessary to
introduce an amendment with regard to the oath of ab-
juration. His noble friend (Lord Redesdale) had taken
an objection to the mode of proceeding by resolution ;
but he (Lord Derby) could not see with the noble lord
any danger or possibility of stretching the bill beyond
the point that was intended. It must be remembered
that the measure did not give the House of Commons
the power of passing resolutions generally, but only the
power of passing one specific resolution for one spe-
cific purpose. So, far, too, from the course they were
following involving the creation of Jewish peers, it
would really place an obstacle upon the exercise of the
royal prerogative in that matter, because it was an ex-
pression e f their' lordships' opinion that no Jew peer
ought to sit in that hou,e. Their lordships were not
abandoning their judgment that it was not desirable for
Jaws to sit and vote in either House of Parliament, but
on the contrary their lordships maintained their pre-
viously expressed opinions, and had sent down to the
other house reasons for doing so. All that their lord-
ships did was to say that out of deference to the fre-
quently expressed opinions of the Commons—expressed
by constantly increasing majorities during the last ten
years, although he would admit that the question had
never been put to the constituencies—(hear, hear)—
their lordships said that, out ofrespetctey feltit i
tothat fretqg%t to
frequently
expressed opinion of the Commons, they
authorise a suspension of the law. (Rear, hear.) There
was no doubt as to there being precedents for this
course. There wa., for instance, ne law which forletee
peers from voting for members of Parliament. On the
contrarY, the law said that any person who possessed a
certain qualification should have a right to vote; and
what, then, prevented their lordships from exercising
that right ? Merely a resolution of the other house.
Lord CAMPBELL—You have no right to vote by
the common law of England.
Lord DERBY—I hear that statement of the noble
and learned lord with groat surprise. (Loud cries of
Hear, hoar.) I was always of opinion that there Was no
law which prevented our voting, but that our power was
taken away by a resolution of the House of Commons.
Lord CAMPBELL—That resolution only declared
the law.

Lord LYNDHURST and other noble lords—No no.
Lord DERBY should have felt bound to submit to
the authority of the noble and learned lord if it had not
been for the emphatic denial of his noble and learned
friend near him. (sear, hear.) However, there vas this
advantage of proceeding in the manner now suggested.
If tiey passed an act of Parliament they would give the
Jew an absolute right to sit in Parliament. But if they
merely authorised a resolution of the other house, that
resolution would remain in forca only so long as it wa,
not rescinded, or until the end of the particular Parlia-
ment by which it ‘‘,lll
passed. If there should he in the
country a strong feeling against the aimission of Jews,
that feeling would no doubt be expres,ed at the nelc.
election, and the resolution would not he renewed ;
wheiel a, if they passed an act of Parliament admitting
the Jews, it could only be rescinded by another act of
Parliament. (Hear, hear.) For these reasons, be thought
they would be acting more consistently with the view
they had previously expressed if they supported the bill
of his noble and gallant friend ; ar,d ho trusted that by
sending the two bills down together as one inseparable
act they would at length set this long vexed question at
rest. (Cheers.)
.Lord CAMPBELL rejoiced at the prospect there was
of Noiatug<;;i:stior.The law of the land could not
be altered by resolutions of either hou.e. laWest-
minster-hall a resolution of the House of Commons, or
even of theirlordabips, would be treated as mere waste
paper, and with great deference to the noble earl, and to
the noble and learned lord, it was not by a resolution of
the House of CJIIIOaOIIB that peers were prevented from
voting for representatives of the people. It was by the