The Sun.
London, England, 1858-04-28 00:00:00

iIYI

fdAL PAIMAME

N T•

HOUSE OF LORDS.—(YESTERDAy.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat ou the woolsack
at five o'clock.

Earl GRANVILLE presented a petition from tre
c Irporation of Manche ter in favour of the Oaths Bill.

PRIVATE RUSINEes.
On the motion of Lord REDESDALE, the Cheltenham
Water, the Whitehaven Harbour, the Edinburgh Life
Assurance, and the Gosport Water Bills were read a
third time and passed.
OATHS BILL.
The house then went into committee on this bill.
On clause 1 being read,
The E trl of WICKLOW moved the omission of the
fallowing words from the clause :—" And I do declare
that no foreign prince, person, prelate, State, or poten-
tate bath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction,
power, superiority, preeminence, or authority, ecclesi-
astical or spiritual, within this realm." The noble lord
said he was surprised at the statement that the present
bill bad been altered to meet the views of the noble eail
(Derby) opposite. He f mnd the bill was precisely stall
tar to that of 1849. He trusted their lordships would
not agree to this bill. If it was sought to admit the Jew
into Parliament, he thought that a separate measure,
with that precise object, should be introduced. It would
be far preferable to the course that had been adopted dur-
ing the last few years. He contended that the words in
the oath of supremacy relating to the Pope were untrue,
and therefore that they ought no longer to he retained.
In the Dublin Cemetery Act Archbishop Murray was
clearly recognised, and therefore it appeared to him to
be utterly impossible to say that the Pope had no spi-
ritual power io this country.
Lord LYNDHURST rued I understand it to be the
wish of my noble friend to strike out of the first clause of
this bill all the words I hat relate to the eat h of supremacy,
because, as I understand my noble friend, he considers
those words are in direct contradiction to the novel state
of circumstances which now exists, and because he con-
ceives a foreign power has some authority within the
meaning of the oath. That I conceive to be his meaning,
although he has contrived to mix it up with topics that
have no relation to the question. If my noble friend should
succeed in the course he has adopted, when the bill goes
down to the other house, an additional difficulty will be
created in reference to a question greatly involved in
difficulties. If my noble friend should condescend to look
into the history of the oath, all the ditE.:ulties that ope.-
rate on the mind woul f at once disappear. No doubt
can exist as to the real meaning of the oath. It does not
relate to any vague spiritual power, but to a substantial
power to be exercised by a jurisdiction that can enforce
its decrees. It does not refer to a mere in Tat influence
on the mind of man. Let me direct your lordship's atten-
tion to the history of this oath. In ancient times the juris-
diction over spiritual, ecclesiastical, and temporal causes,
was exclusively vested in the Crown. How was that
jurisdiction exercised By means of courts of justice,
appointed by the Crown, to ex,rcise auth rity, and in-
vested with power to carry that authority into effect.
This constitution existed for several ages. What folio wed
afterwards ? A part cf this jurisdiction was substantially
usurped by the Pope of Rome, and that usurped juris.
diction was carried on in the Caine form by means of
courts. It was not -an ideal authority, it was not a
vague authority, but a substantial authority, exercised
in courts of justice, and carried into effect by decrees of
courts of ju-Vce. Thus the matter rested till the Refor-
mation. What took place then At the Reformation
this jurisdiction, power, authority, and pre-emicence
were again united to the Crown by the first of Eliza-
beth, c. 1. And what is the title of that act? The
title is to restore to the Crown its ancient authority,
and put au end to all power in opposition to it. That
statute was levelled at the usurped power and authority
of the Pope of Rome. That act put an end to and ex-
tinguished his authority, which was not a vague autho-
tity ; not a mere moral influence, but the authority of
establishing tribunals in opposition to the authority of
the Crown. Then, my lords, came the oath of supre-
macy, which consisted of two part-. The terms of that
are affirmative in the one part and negative in the other.
Tnt3 affirmative part states that the authority and power
of Government in ecclesiastical, spiritual, and tempera!
affairs is vested solely in the Cro sn. In the negative
part the words referred to by my noble fii,nd are used,
and the whole oath shows that the affirmative authority
vested in the Crown is direc•ly opposed to the negative
lautherity of the Pope of Rome. This oath was retained
till the time of Wrl tarn 111. He struck out the affirma-
tive part and left the negative, and hence it is that the
negative part of the oath is misunderstood. I think
that, after bringing to my noble friend's recollection the
the circumstances under which the oath was framed, he
will feel satisfied that those words meant a jurisdiction
which was to be exercised by courts of justice whose de-
crees were to be enforced by authority f law, and that
the words did not refer to a value moral influence un-
supported by any substantial power. (Hear, hear )
Earl GRA.NVILLE expres-ed a hope that his noble
friend would not press his motion tt a divi,ion. He ad-
reitted many of the arguments of his noble friend, but
still he must say that his noble friend had shown no
practical grieea.eca as affecing the members of that
house. The noble and learned lord opposite (Lord
Lyndhurst) had referred to the historical part of the
question, and had shown how the oath was to be core
siiered. It was true that two noble peers bad objected
to the oath which formed the ground of his noble f iend's
amendment, but these noble peers had since giveu up
their objections, and had taken the oath, and now no
practical difficulty riveted on the subject. This being
so, he trusted that his noble friend would not press his
amendment to a division.

Lord CAMPBELL expressed a similar hope,although
he felt, as Lord Eldon himself had expressed it, that the
oath of allegiance was sufficient for all necessary pur-
poses for subjects to take, when entering the Legislature.
The Earl of WICKLOW, believing it wont I be use-
less to persevere, would not press his amendment to a
division.
The amendment was then negatived without a divi-
sion, and the clause agreed to.
Clauses 2,3, and 4, were also agreed to.
Upon clause 5, which gave power to Jews to enter
Parliament being proposes),
The LORD CHANCELLOR said that having hitherto
offered his most strenuous opposition to the admission of
Jews to Parliament, their lordships would not be sur-
wised to find that he should appear on the present occa-
sion in support of his lon-cherished opinion on this ques-
tion. He assured their lordships that he was influenced
by no personal feeling or prejudice in this matter, but
solely from an earnest desire to support that principle
which ho believed was necessary for the maintenance
and welfare of the Christian character of eur country.
(Hear.) Justice had not been done to this great argu-
ment. On every occa,ion there had been an express or
tacit reverence paid to one or or two individuals who
were supposed to be the types of the Jewish persuasion,
gentlemen of the highest respectability, who lived in
social intercourse with their Christian tellow-sul j sets
and who possessed none of the narrow and exclusive
spirit which was considered to be the characteristic of
the religion which they professed. (Hear, hear.) To
discuss a question of this importance, with reference to
the admission of men of such a character, was to sub-
stitute personal considerations for the discussion of a
great and general measure. (Hear, hear.) Another
difficulty upon which he felt embarrassed was, that
there was no common debateable ground on which
the two contending parties could meet. (Hear,
hear.) On the one hand it was stated that the reli-
gions character of the legislature and the country were
deeply involved in the result, and, on the other it was
asserted, that religion had nothing whatever to do with
the question, and that it was merely considered in re-
ference to civil rights or po!itical expediency. If he
could consent to take that low view of the question it
would be a matter of perfect indifference to bias whether
or not two or three hon. gentlemen of the Jewish per-
suasion should become members of the legislature, hut
he could not consent to consider it on any such low
ground. (Hear, bear.) Higher considerations had al-
ways influenced his feelings and notions with regard to
this subject, but he impressed on their lordships most
earnestly that be had never declined to meet the advo-
cates of the measure on their own ground, and descend
into the field they had chosen. The noble and learned
lord then glanced at the different arguments that had
been used by the advocates of the measure, which ap-
peared to him not to be of so strong and conclusive a
character as they were generally supposed to be. The
right f admission of Jews to Parliament was advocated
on the ground that, in a free a ate, the citizens were en-
titled to equality ti civil rights. That, however, be
considered a fella° 7, arising out of the ambi4uity of the
term " civil rights." He understood the enjoyment of
civil rights to mean the enj .yinent of property, personal
security, and everything comprehended by the words
within tbo limits of the constitution ; but if by the term
was meant a claim to the admission to political offices,
then he took upon himself to deny the proposition, and
to Pay that no such right existed indiscriminately for
citizens of free countries. It was said that the Jew
had been exeluded from the legislature by accident,
and not intentionally or by design ; but he thought
that a misapprehension. He admitted the historical
account of the original insertion of the words " on the
true faith of a Christian" in the oath, bet they uu•
mistakeably stamped on the oath itself the legislative
declaration, that every one who was to be admitted tole,
seat in the legislature should be a Christian. (Hear.)
was not the intention of the legislature to direct
at
words against the Jew, and exclude him, bee:mus that
time be believed there was not a single Jew i
that in 1663 there
coun-
try. It was a curious historical fact. and they re.
e the
were no more than twelve Jews in it,svere "e"
regarded en-
turned, after the Restoration, they
duties. In the
tirely as aliens, and subjected t
reign of James 11. they were rooefliirevviel
dliafmron2lllth. einexl6p9oo",
customs duties, but in the reign
on the remonstrance of the. merchants 26 ft
hLon
e odrogne It Ih.e,
Jews had the power to
alien duty was reineposed•
By
ythe
prefer bills of naturalisation
without first taking the sacrament, was repealed almost
by popular cl!)
Namoitini
Lord L JRST and Lord CAMPBELL—
ForeignY Jews.
The LORD-
CHANCELLOR said he believed that
leas not the true interpretation of the act. In the let of
William 111., the words "On the true faith of a
Christian," were omitted, and it was contended that then
Jews were competent to obtain admission into Parlia-
ment ; but when their lordships considered that they
were regarded as aliens, and the alien duty was imposed
upon them, such arguments could not be maintained,
and so late as 1836 Jews were incapable of filling any
civil or military offices. The word-,, "On the true faith
of a Christian," were reinserted in 13th William, 111.
and which he looked upon as a striking declaration of
the legislature that no person who was not a Christian
should by possibility obtain a seat in Parliament. He