The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-14 00:00:00

THE JEW BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL said—Sir, a certain bill some
time ago passed this hs uee —though from souse delay it
has not yet come doswn again from the other house—
and I think at this period of the sension it is important
that the house should be aware of the course which I
propose to pursue with respect to the Oaths Bill, and
also with respect to another bill which is now before
the House of Lords, I believe, though I am not sure
whether it has passed its third reading. I beg to move
the adjeurnmont of the house in order to enable me to
make the explanation which I think necessary of the
course which I intend to pursue. Toe house is perfectly
aware that for some years—nine years, I think—they
have agreed to bills for the relief of her Majesty's Jewish
subjects, and fir admitting them to offices and to bold
seats in Parliament on condition of taking the oaths
with the omission of those words which Baron Roths-
child declared not to be binding on his conscience.
Though those bills were recommended to the House
of Lords by great authorities in that. house, yet they
failed in obtaining the assent of that house. But at the
end of last year, after the bill had been again rejected
by the House of Lords, a committee was appointed on
my motion, in order to consider whether this house had
not the power to order that a member might be admitted
on making a declaration, and without the necessity of
taking the form of oath, the substance of which would
be embodied in the declaration. In the course of the
sitting of the committee, of which I had the honour
to be chairman, very able arguments were made on both
sides, but more especially the late Attorney-General,
Sir R. Bethel', enforced, with great legal learning, the
op Mon that this 11011,9 was able to a itninieter a decla
ration to a person ajectieg, as a member cf the Jewish
religion would, to take the oath, and tbat that declara-
tion would be sufficient to admit him to a scat in this
house. A narrow majority of the committee decided
aettinst the advice anti opinion of the late Attorusy•
General, but there were many persons who supported
it, believing that the opinion was right ; more especially
three member's of the present Government--the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the Admiralty,
and the President of the Board of C mtrol—were in
favour of the view taken by the learned fientletuan. If
a rnetion was made by the late Attorney-General, it was
stated to be the iate.ntien of the First Lora of the Ad-
miralty to move a resolution that, though it was c on-
petent for this house to receive a declaration in lieu of as
oath against that, it was not advisable to use that power
until other constitutional remedies bad been exhausted.
It appeared to me, t hough I was not called on to give
au opinion in the committee, that that was the right
and true view of the question before tre that the legal
power was in the House of Commune, but that it was not
expedient to use it until the house hat exhausted all cm-
etitutional remedies, This opinion appears to have had
great weight with the house. In the present session
1 Baron Rothschild, beicg a person who had not taken
the oaths, was appointed a member of a select commit-
tee. A bill, similar in purport to the other, hut calcu-
lated, if pee-noble, to meet the objections entertained by
the House of Lords, was sent up to the otaer house, but
was rejected by a majority of 39. After this took place
the very grave question seemed to have made great im-
pression on the minds of many members of the House of
Peers, and I have communications from some of those
peers who seem to have been much affected by the (lithe
culty, not to say danger, by watch this matter was sur-
rounded. If a maj oety of this house resolved a at a declara-
tion should be substituted for an oath, in accordance with
the motion of the hou.and learned member for Aylesbury,
it was impossible not to see tbat other and serious ditficul-
' ties might ari-e. I am inclined to believe that after that
the courtsofcommen law would have been disposed to think
that the autoority of the house would have been e
cient far the interpretation of the act of Parliament. But
the contrary might have been the case. The Lord Chief
Justice of England, indeed, went eo far as to suppose
that he might be imprisoned by the House of Commons
for having delivered an opinion contrary to the opin on
of the house, and that the people rising in insurrection
would have delivered the Lord ChiefJostice. (Laughter.)
Bat • flowing that to have been rather a stretch of ima-
gination on the part of the Lord Chief Justice, and that
the house would not have gone to that extremity, still
it is obvious that if the House of Commons bad come to
a resolution that Baton Rothschild might take his seat
on making a declaration, it would have been incumbent
on the house, having taken that step, to have defended
their member, as far as Mrcunistanees admitted, from f
any injury sustained, whether by the ju'lgnient of a court
of law or otherwise, in consequence of his doing his duty
as a member of this house. That state of things would
have had an injurious effect upon public feeling. Al-
though this house is the supreme power in the country,
which I think nothing could resist, the exercise of that
power of seating a member would have been attended
with no little disturbance of the public mind and inter-
ruption
of public businees. We must all bear in failed
that it is no longer like those questions of privilege which I
existed on former occasions when the house was etrug-
gling against the undue exercise of the prerogative of '
the Crown. On the contrary, in the present city the
House of Comons has so much power that the tendency
of the public mind is that the house might absorb the
power of the State, or at all events more power than be-
longs to it, and the courts of law are filled by indepen- I
dent judges, whose opinions would have weight. There-
fore 1 say the conflict between the house and the courts
of law would no longer be what it was in former thrice. I
believe there would hardly have been any mode of settling
this question, supposing the House of (Summons to be de- ,
terulioed to protect their member and the judges proceed-
ing to enforce their lodgment; there would have peen no
•

remedy but the deterth lnation that the house would proceed
with no other business until their member was protected,
and thus stopping both brariches of the Legislature until
the power of the House &f Commons was ratified by law.
If that be so, I think that ereat credit is due to those
who in the House of Louis have introduced and sanc-
tioned a measure which may prevent this embarrass-
ment, and do at once that which might have been ob-
tained after a long and dangerous struggle. On the 31st
May the Earl of Lucan proposed an amendment by
which this difficulty would have been removed. I think
it unfortunate that that amendment was net taken into
consideration, and the Oaths Bill amended in the man-
ner proposed. The House i f Lords have, however,
taken another course, intending, no doubt, to arrive at
the same end. Instead of adopting that amendment
proposed on the 31st May they resolved is insist on
their amendments in the Oaths Bill, and appointed a
committee of couferenc®. A bill was afterwards intro-
duced to give each house the power, if either of them
should think fit, on a declaration being made be a Jewish
member of Parliament that he had conscientious objec-
tions to taking the oaths in the form in which they nue
stand, to relieve him from using the words "on the true
faith of a Christian," and to let him take his scat. The
former bill did a good deal more than that, because it
allowed persons of the Jewish persuasion to hell all
those offices for which the oath of abjuration was now
required, by omitting the words, "on the. true faith of
a Chri-tian," except only these few offices which could
not be held by a Roman Catholic. The bill introduced
in the House of Lords is not, certainly, a concession of
the whole principle of religious liberty, for which the
House of Commons contended ; but at the same time it
is a practical solution of a very grave question, and as
such it is my intention, when that bill shall come down,
to move the second reading, and to endeavour to carry
it through all its stages. (Cheers.) I hope that the
Chancellor of the Exchequer will allow me to take
precedence on Friday next, so that it may be read a
second time on that day. There will then be room for
discussion, and a division if it is thought proper ; and if
thereis a majority of the house in favour of the bill, I hope
to be allowed to proceed with it rapidly, a favour which
is sometimes allowed at this period of the session, so that
there may be no further difficulty in the way of its pass-
ing. But then I come to the question of how the Lords
have dealt with the bill seat up by this house ; for, sin-
gularly enough, they not only have not concurred in the
clause as to the relief of the Jews, but, instead of that,
they ommitted this clause, because they thought, as they
might fairly in the ex-rcise of their privilege think, that
the object might be better provided for by a separate
bill ; yet instead of so stating, they have given all the
reasons why no bill of this kind should be admitted at
all. (Hear, hear.) Certainly that is a course that might
be said to be insulting to the House of Commons.
(Hear, hear.) I have heard it said, and on the highest
authority, that it was not intended as an insult to the
House of Commons, but at all events it is a course which
puts this house in some difficulty, and, still more, shows
a singular inconsistency in the majority of the House of
Lords. I will read what I have had put into my hand
as one of the reasons of the Lords for not agreeing to our
amendments. Because, without imputing any disloyalty
or disaffection to her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish
persuasion, the Lords consider that the denial and rejei-
tion of that Saviour—

Lord J. MANN EHS—I rise to order. I wish to know
whether these reasons are before the House of Commons 1

Lord J. RUSSELL—No, reasons
ought to have been sent down, but they have not been
sent. But long ago Lord Castlereagh quoted the House
of Lords' proceedings, and when he was interrupted he
stated that the House of Lords was a court of record,
and no member could be interrupted in reading what
they have placed on record. (Hear.) On the votes of the
House of Lords are the reasons I have mentioned, and
one of them declares to this effect. (Cries of" Read,
read.") I will, at all events, read the last words of the
reason—" That the denial and rejection of that Saviour
in whose name each house of Parliament daily offers up
its collective prayers for the Divine blessing on its coun-
sels constitutes a moral unfitness to take part in the
legislation of a professedly Christian community. I
cannot understand that they have any moral unfitness
for such duties, and the Lords, at the same time that
they state these reasons, send down a bill by which Jews
are to be allowed to take part in the legislation of a
Christian community. I own that it appears to me that
it is a question whether the course ought not to have
been to have placed resolutions on oar journals, without
answering these reasons of the Lords, so as to give our
reasons for not taking any notice of those reasons of the
Lords, that as the House of Lords have passed a bill to
carry into effect; the admission of the Jews to Parlia-
ment, it is not necessary to consider the reasons of the
Lords. (Hear.) I think some record of that sort might
be advisable for the sake of our own consistency. We
might prefer insisting on our original bill, or we might
concur in the amendments of the Lords. In proposing
the course which I have stated, however, I am propos.
ing that which I think it is our duty to take, so as to
agree as far as possible in the practical mode by which
we may obtain our object and agree as far as possible
with the other house. If the whole question were involved
in this bill we could not do otherwise than insist on the
principle of religious liberty, but when the House of Lords
only passed a measure partly dealing with the question
and admitting the Jo as, I think that we ought to agree
to the settlement of a question which has been so long
agitated. At the same time, I should rejoice for my
own part if, having relieved the Protestant Dissenters and
the Roman Catholics from their disabiliti, 0, we had con-
summated the principle that religious differences should
be no objection to a man holding any civil position. (Loud
cheers.) I believe that the tosj.rity of this house was
right on that subject, though the House of Lords is still
in darkness. (A laugh.)
,Yet they may, when a J ew sits
in the House of Commons, put the question iu a more
consistent form than is done by the measure no w before
them. I beg therefore to move the adjournment of the
house, and to apologise to the house for having so long
detained them with this explanation. (The noble lord
resumed his seat, but no member of the Government
answering, he again rose and said, "I ask the right hon.
gentleman whether be will allow me Friday ? ")
Mr. DISRA ELI said though this bill had not yet
reached the house, he fet it his duty to answer the ap•
peal of the noble lord. Since the house had placed at
the disposal of the Government all the time usually en-
trusted to private members, he thought that for business
of public importance they might make an arrangement,
such as was suggested. He would, therefore, give the
noble lord Friday.
Lor J. MANNERS said he had risen to interrupt be-
cause he believed, and still believed, that the noble lord
was out of order—(hear)—in referring to a subject not yet
before the house. He also rose in consequence of the
unseemliness of the course pursued. It was impossible,
he thought, for a debate to have arisen now without the
greatest possible inconvenience. He would not further
allude to what the noble lord had said than by saying
that as a member of the committee be had referred to,
be did not think the statement of the noble lord was per-
fectly cortee'. He had heard—unless Isis ears deceived
hint—with great surprise, that this house was the su•
preme power in the country, and against which there
was no other power which could presume to contend. He
was not aware until he heard the statement of the noble
1 rrd, that either by law, or by habit, or in fact, that howls
was the supreme power in toe country. (Hear.) If these
words had escaped the noble hastily and unad-
visedly, he had nothing fur her to say about
it, except that he did not, for one, concur in
that view, and he hoped that the house would not allow
ii to go for ward that it concurred in such a view of its
own powers as that given by the noble lord.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, as to the point of order, be
believed he wag perfectly right —(hea )—that the votes
of the Lords were matters of comment in that house. It
was a very different thing to comment on speeches made
in the House of Lords. The noble lord had said that
his account of the proceedings in the committee was
incorrect, but he bad not said in what it was incorrect.
If it were incorrect he should have been glad to be cor-
rected. He had said that the minority were in favour of
Sir R. Bothell's opinion, and that in that minority were
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the First Lord of the
Admiralty, and the President of the Board of Control.
He believed those were facts. He said that the late At-
torney-Cemeral had spoken with great ability, and be
did not believe that anybody who heard it would deny
th-at it was a speech of very great ability. The noble
lord further thought that he had stated inadvertently
that this house was a power which no other power could
control. If the house were once resolved to use its power
and the public supported them, if they said that they
would not pass the Mutiny Bill, and would not vote a
shilling of tupoly —(Near)—it would be impossible for
any power within the constitution to resist the expres-
sion of their vei,b. He ought to have said that the house
was bound to-exercise its power with the greatest•mode-
ration and deliberation, but the house having been duly
elected by the people, showing the confidence of the
people, they bad power which no other power in the state
could resist. (Cheers.)
The motion was withdrawn.
DESTRUCTION OF PROPERTY IN THE GULF
OF BOTHNIA.
_ _

In reply to an appeal from Sir J. PAIEINOTON,
Mr. CRA.WFORD postponed his motion relative to
the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into
the complaints made by certain of her Majesty's sub-
jects of the destruction of their property by her M'a.
jesq's forces at Uleaborgand the Gulf of Bothnia during
the late war.
The CLIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would name an early day for its discussion.
SUPPLY—NATIONAL GALLERY.

On the motion that the report of the committee of
supply he agreed to,
Lord ELCHO called attention to the report of the
commission on site of National Gallery. He suggested
that a room was required fur the national collection of
paintings. The Royal Academy who occupied one-half
of the building, "haul I have notice to quit. That would
give the space required for the national collection. The
Royal Academy had no right to the space they °cm•
pied, and it was the duty of her Majez,ty's Government
10 resume possession of that portion of the building.
That would .ave an outlay
of money for a new building.
Mr. CONING FIAM referred to the nature and con-
stitution of the Royal Academy. It was a private
society enjoying the privileges of a public body, and it
occupied,
to the injury of the public, a portion of a
public building, intended for public purposes. It en-
joyed privileges exceedingly injurious to the arts, and,
being a voluntary eeciety, it was irreeponsiWe to any
party in the State. He c,ridernned the mode of instruc-
tion pursued by the Royal Society.
After some remarks from Mr. LOCKI3 SING,
The CHANCELLOR of -the EXCHEQUER said
something must be done to provide adequate accommo-
dation fir our national collection and its enlargement.
At present they were deprived of receiving legacies from
the scant of room. There was no necessity for further
inquiry, and so far as the National Gallery was con-
cerned, her Majesty's Government at the proper tirna
would submit a measure for affording the necessary

amount of accommodation. Her Majesty's Government
accepted, however, the responsibility of providing ac-
commodation for works of art generally.
Mr. SEYMOUR regretted the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer had not stated it was the intention of her
Nliesty's Government to get rid of the Royal Academy
from the National Gallery.
After some remarks from Mr. J. EWART and Mr. J.
A. SMITM,
Lord ELCIIO moved the reduction of the amount for
the National Gallery by 3001., the amotint of the travel-
ling agent's salary. It was an appointment not reCom-
mended by the Committee of 1853. He was not required,
and his travelling about Italy enhanced the sums' the
country had to pay for pictures. He was appointed
under a Treasury minute in 1855, at a salary of 3001. a-
year, with an allowance of 6501. for travelling expenses.
He was required to keep a diary to show his activity,
and he was sufficiently active and industrious. All the
world knew who he was, for he not only put his name on
his card, but, proud of his vocation, he added the words,
M. Otho Mfindler, expert dc des Galerie Nationale do
Lendres." (Laughter.) The consequence was that
he Austrian Government instructed the ketrpers of
galleries and the heads of religious establishments
oot to allow him to visit their collections. One
" Paul Veronese," which he purchased for 2,0001.,
was valued at only 370/. The other picture by
the same artist, for which the country paid 14,000/.,
would not in an auction-room fetch more than
2,500/. When he purcba,ed a gallery the National Gal-
lery would only keep one or two pictures which might
posse-s merit, and then sold the others at a loss, or sent
them to Dublin to the gallery there. For a picture,
for which the Florentine agent of Mr. Baker was about
to pay 701., the travelling agent bid first 7,000 scudi.
and subsequently 10,000 scudi, or about,2,oool. It was
thus the public money was wasted. The British
Museum, by having local instead of travelling agents,
picked up at a small expense whatever was worth secur-
ing. It was true the director of the National Gallery
himself travelled every summer, but that gentleman was
also President of the Royal Academy, and himself an
artist, and bad not time sufficient at his disposal to
enable him to select the best pictures to be feund on the
Continent. All these arrangements had been made by
the hon. gentleman the member for Devonport, who had
been a most consistent defender of the abuses of the
National Gallery, and had been gallant enough to defend
" The Woman taken in Adultery." The proposition, no
doubt, would be opposed by the late Secretary of the
Treasury ; but if he (Lord Elcho) failed in carrying it
this year he would probably be tempted to put it in a
different shape on another occasion, and to ask the house
to give the agent 1,0001. a-year, but to bind him to re-
main in this country. (Laughter.) That would be one of
the best bargains the House of Commoms ever made for
the country. He concluded by moving that the vote be
reduced from 16,140/. to 16,440/.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, hoped
the house would not suddenly terminate the career of
Mr. Mundler. He felt disposed to believe that some-
thing might be said on the other side of the question ;
but the whole subject of the National Gallery was at
present under consideration, and he felt fully justified in
stating that a great revo!ution would inevitably take
place in the' general management of that institution.
Such being the case, he should be sorry if any harsh
steps were taken towards an individual. The whole es-
tabliiliment required investigation, and it would receive
that consideration which it so well deserved. This was
not a mere phrase used to deprecate division, but as the
whole question was being considered, and as they might
rely that the management of the National Gallery would
be placed on a proper footing, he trusted the house
would not consider it necessary to divide on the noble
lord's amendment.

Mr. COWPER expressed a hope that there would be
no division. Tue original appropriation of a sum of
money to meet the salary and expenses of a travelling
agent was, he contended, quite correct; but, in voting
for the full grant, they were not by any means precluded
from doing all they could to place the management of
the institution on a better footing.
Mr. WILSON said that the noble lord was entirely
misinformed as regarded Mr. Mundler's power. That
gentleman had no power to purchase pictures. He merely
offered the price for them which was authorised.
The house then divided—
For the amendment .... l2B
Against it
Majority --18

Toe amendment was consequently carried, and the re
solution, as altered, was agreed to.
SPECIAL FORMS OF PRAYER AND SERVICE,

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. COWPER rose to move an humble Address,
praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to
take into her Royal consideration the proclamation of the
first year of her Majesty's reign, commanding that forms
of prayer and service made for the sth day of November,
the 30th day of January, and the 29th day of May,
should be annexed to the Book of Common Prayer of
the United Church of England and Ireland, to be
used yearly on the said days, with a view to the
discontinuance of those forms of prayer and service.
lie thought it improper to make permanent by royal
authority services which were only intended for special
ocoa,ions. At the time those services were appointed
no doubt they gave full utterance to the feeling.; of those
who used them ; but now, after a lapse of 200 years,
they were altogether unsuitable. The last important
event tbat happened on the sth of November was the
battle of Inkerman, and though less important than the
one commemorated on that day, yet it was one which
might, at this period of time, be commemorated with
much more propriety than the Gunpowder Plot. On
these grounds, he hoped her Majesty would be induced
to reconsider her proclamation for the continuance of
those special services, with a view to their removal from
the Prayer Bonk,
Lord BURY seconded the motion.

Mr. IVALPOLE thought it would have been better
if originally (but it was too late now) ajpint address to
her Majesty bad proceeded from both Houses of Parlia-
ment, and then one answer would be sufficient. Poli-
tical services were always to be deprecated, unless under
very extraordinary circumstances. He thought the
services referred to in the motion were more detrimental
than otherwise to the Prayer Book, and therefore he
would give his hearty consent to the motion.
The motion was then agreed to.
BATTERSEA PARK.

On the motion for going into Committee of Supply,
Mr. ALCOCK said he wished to call the attention of
her Majesty's Government to the expediency of offering
the surplus land in Battersea Park (100 acres) for sale by
auction, with a reserved price of 284,730/.93 3d., in order
to refund to the Government the loans advanced for Bat-
tersea Park, Chelsea-bridge, and Chelsea embankment.
The only objection that he could conceive could be urged
against his proposition was that in 20 years time the land
would be greatly enhanced in value, and that at presert
it could only be disposed of ai; a loss. But were the
people of London to be taxed at the rate of 6,5001. a
year (the estimated value of the tolls on the new bridge)
for 20 years I This would take from their pockets a
sues of about 130,0001., and for no conceivable purpose
except pr:sti • ing the patronage of the Chief Commissioner
of Works, over the surplus laud. If this land were now
sold, and the proceeds of the sale did not pay off the
debt, he felt convinced that the people of London, like
those of Biriumgham in a similar case, would make up
the deficiency.