The Sun.
London, England, 1858-07-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAY.).
THE OATHS BILL,
On the order of the day for considering their lord-
ships' reasons for insisting upon the amendments to this
bill,

The Earl of DERBY said he bad an amendment to
move which would materially alter the character of some
of the reasons, but het would net do so until after the
noble earl opposite (Granville) bad stated the objections
he entertained to those reasons generally.
Earl GRANVILLE thought the Government had
taken a somewhat singular course upon this question,
and that it would have been much better if the noble
earl at the head of the Government had taken his stand
on the second reading of the bill of the noble and gallant
earl (Lucan). No doubt the noble earl bad been placed
in some difficulty by the speech of the Lord Chancellor,
wb ich did not come with much grace after the statement
of the noble earl that he was prepared to accede to some
satisfactory arrangement of the question. The noble earl
(Granville) proceeded to comment upon the "reasons"
as absurd and unnecessary. It was childish to suppose
that the Howie of Commons had not already made up
their mind to admit the Jews to Parliament through the
noble and gallant earl (Lucan). These " reasons" seemed
to indicate that the House of Lords desired to have the
last word in the controversy with the House of Com-
mons. When it had been determined to settle the ques-
tion amicably, it was worse than idle to attempt to com-
plicate the settlement of it.
The Earl of DERBY explained that the reason why
the Government had not consented to the adoption of
the amendment of the noble and gallant lord (Lucan) on
the second reading of the bill which had been sent up
from the Commons, was in accordance with the gene-
rally expressed wish of the house that some time should
be afforded for consideratlbn. He had stated on a for-
mer occasion he had not changed in the least his opinion
with respect to the propriety of admitting the Jews
into the legislature, bat the bill to which the Govern-
ment had agreed was one proposed with a conciliatory
view alone, and there was nothing inconsistent with
that state of the case in putting on record their reasons
far dissenting from the principle of the original bill
ton which the bill for admitting the Jews was founded.
It was not inconsistent with a due regard to courtesy to
the House of Commons, which had sent up their reasons
for disagreeing to the Lords' amendments to the bill, for
their lordships to state their reasons in reply to those
of the Commons, for disagreeing from the principle of
the bill. The noble earl went seriatim through the
reasons assigned by the Commons, and the correspond-
ing reasons put forward in reply by the Lords. He
contended that their lordships were perfectly correct,
and were fully justified in stating, among other objec-
tions to such a course, that in their opinion the denial of
the Saviour was a moral disqualification for legislating
for a Christian country. The last of the reasons which
bad been drawn up on the part of the Lords, he proposed
to omit. He repeated that there was nothing whatever
discourteous to the House of Commons in the course
which was proposed to be taken, and hoped that the
house would, by consenting to the reasons assigned, vin-
dicate their own conscientious opinions, while they left
the Commons, at the same time, the full liberty to act in
such a manner, so far as they were concerned, as they
might think most consistent with their feelings and their
duty. With respect to the 4th resolution, be could not
concur. The opinion which it expressed was, that the
prayers offered up at the commencement of the proceed-
ings of the house on each day would be a mockery if
there should happen to be present during such service
any person who might deny the great Christian doctrines
of religion. He proposed, therefore, to move an amend-
ment to that resolution. (Hear, hear.)
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE hoped that for the
sake of the dignity of the house their lordships would
not consent to the passing of these resolutions. (Hear,
hear.) He had been for many years a consistent sup-
porter of the policy of repealing the disabilities of the
Jews, and did not think that there was the slightest pro-
hibition to be found in any part of the Holy Scriptures,
or.in the doctrines of the Christian religion, which pro-
hibited the admission of Jews to a share in the legisla-
tion of a Christian country. It was idle to suppose that
the Jews could be admitted without the authority and
sanction of the House of Lords, indeed the permissive
power which they proposed to accede to tne House of
Commons was dependent entirely upon the decision of
the House of Lords. Now then, after a siege longer than
that of Troy, their lordships bad decided upon showing
a flag of truce, but they propose to annex with their
surrender the most extraordinary conditions pos•
sible. (Laughter.) He reminded their lordships of the
old advice offered by Lord Mansfield to a brother judge,
to give his opinion, but not to venture upon the reasons.
Posterity would be sorely puzzled to know, upon an ex-
amination of the journals of the house, what were the
reasons which guided the policy of their lordships. Fu-
ture historians would find in the journals perhaps of the
same day, a declaration that the Jews were unfit to have
a seat in the Legislature, and a bill giving a power—
permissive, it was true, but still the power—to the
House of Commons to admit the very same persons
whom they solemnly declared to be disqualified to a
share in the business of the Legislature. (Hear.) He
objected, therefore, to the reasons which had been given,
and hoped their lordships would not adopt them.
The Earl of MALMESBURY said that be had con
tinuously opposed the measure for the admission of Jews
into Parliament. When en a former occasion he
had expressed his opinion that the time had arrived
when a compromise might be effected, he ex-
pressly guarded himself by stating that he had
in no respect changed his opinions on the sub-
ject. That compromise was one in obedience to political
necessity, but be and other noble lords who were favour-
able to that compromise, felt it imperatively necessary
that there should be no future mistake as to the moral
opinion which was still entertained on the subject. (Hear,
hear.) It was necessary that a reply should be given to
the reasons of the Commons, and according to precedent
tbatreply had been drawn up by the committee appointed
for that purpose. The reasons drawn up were those of the
majority of the house, and it was a most unprecedented
thing for the minority to take any exceptions to the
reasons which had been an drawn up. (Hear, hear.) The
reasons were not drawn up by the Government, which
had really no more to do with these reasons than the
minority of their lordships. (Hear, bear.)
The Earl of CARLISLE cordially rejoiced at the vir-
tual success and triumph of a cause in support of which
he bad spoken just 25 years ago, and to which he had since
given a uniform support. He wished that the settle-
ment of the question could have been accompanied with
a more appropriate act than that to which the house was
now invited. If the language of the resolutions was cor-
rect, then he contended that there ought to have been
no compromise. (Hear.)
The Earl of HARDWICKE supported the resolu-
tions, and said that he was very glad to have an oppor-
tunity of coming to a compromise on this long-disputed
question ; and he contended that these resolutions were
an essential part of the compromise. (Hear.)
Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEY I:contended that
these resolutions, if agreed to, would be considered as
those of the whole house, and the extent to which the
Government was responsible for them was endorsed by
the announcement on the part of the noble earl at the
head of the Government, of his intention to propose cer-
tain amendments in them. The Government, in making
these c )ncessions, ought to have done so freely, gra-
ciously, and ungrudgingly, rather than in the manner
whith had been adopted. He looked upon the hypocrisy
of those resolutions, in the face cf what the Government
bad done, with respect to this bill, as most discreditable
to the House of Lords. (Hear.)
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that he had heard
the speech of the noble lord who had last addressed the
house with great credit, for up to the present time there
bad been no display whatever of anything like acrimo-
nious feeling. (Hear.) He thought that great allowance
ought to be made to noble lords who bad supported the
Government from the position in which they were placed,
and the greatest credit was due to the noble earl at the
head of the Government for the sacrifices which had
been made by him in order to bring about a settlement
of this long-vexed question. (Hear, hear.) He thought
it would have been better that the question should have
been postponed than that an imperfect measure should
be introduced

Reasons 1,2, and 3 were agreed to.
Their lordships then divided on the amendmEnt pro.
posed by the Earl of Derby to be substituted for the 4th
clause—

Contents
Non-contents
Majority
—8
Thd sth reason was agreed to, and the 6th struck out.
The remainis.g reasons were agreed to.
THE JEW BILL.
The Earl of LUCAN moved the third reading of
this bill.

The Earl of GALLOWAY entered his protest
against the third reading, declaring that he had never
been a party to any compromise to admit the Jews to
Parliament. There might be subjects on which it would
be well to listen to the plea of "expediency," but this
was not one of them. The country, he believed, was in
favour of the Jews teicg excluded from Parliament.
(Hear, hear.) He moved that the bill be read a third
time that day six months.
Lard DUNGANNON also strenuously opposed the
bill. By admitting those who denied the divinity of our
Saviour, the prayers now offered up at the commence-
ment :of their deliberations would be little better than
a mockery.

Lord COLCHESTER (who spoke from one of the
Ministerial benches below the gangwa)) trusted that the
noble lord would not press his motion tor rejecting the
i'l to a division.

Their lordships then divided
Contents for the third reading.... 33
Non-contents
iVlajcrity
On the question that the bill do pass,
A NOBLE LORD gave notice of a clause providing
that no resolution for admitting the Jews to Pall,ament

should be moved in either house without due notice iu

compliance with the standing orders.
Lnrd REDESDALE deprecated any interference with
the forms of proceeding of the other hou,2e, The noble
lord moved as an amendment that no Jaw contractor
should be at liberty to sit in Parliament.
Lord LYNDHURST said that if no resolutions were
passed in the House of Commons the Jews would be
placed in a worse position than they were at presant.
The Earl of DERBY hoped his noble friend would not
proceed with his clause. (Hear.) It would not be wise to
trench upon the free action of the other house. On the
other band, there could be no danger of any surprise.
Lord REDESDALE cnnsented not to press his clause.
The Earl of HARRINGTON was sorry to be obliged
to oppose a measure in which the noble and learned
lord (Lord Lyndhurst) took so &ep an interest. Nor
bad he a word to say against the personal character of
Baron Rothschild, but it was a farce to say that the in-