The Sun.
London, England, 1857-06-16 00:00:00

election of every Roman Catholic bishop in Ireland or
in England, the new prelate took en oath of canonical
obedience to the Pope, and yet they were told that the
Pope had no ecclesiastical jurisdiction in these realms.
$o as to spiritual dominion. The Pope imposed, say, the
doctrine of transubstantiation, and it was believed by
Boman Catholics. How then could it be said that be
bad no spiritual jurisdiction ? (Hear.) He (Nlr. Roe-
buck) perfectly understood the sneers of the learned
gentleman—he knew what that meant ; but why should
they be called on to swear that the Pope had no eccle-
siastical jurisdiction in these realms when they all knew
that be had ? (Hear.) He wanted to be put in this
matter on the same footing as the Roman Catholic
members ; and in the name of the Protestants of this
country, of the truth-loving people of this cenntry, of
the gentlemen of this country, he called on the house
not to allow the words to be retained. (Hear, hear )
Mr. NAPIER.said the hen. gentleman within the last
month had taken this oath. He (Mr. Napier) denied
that the Pope had any jurisdiction in this country.
(Laughter.) Jurisdiction and orders were, too, quite
different things ; and though the Pope might make a
bishop here, be Gould not give him jurisdiction, which
flowed only from the sovereign. Lord Cloncurry and
another noble lord had made the same objection as the
hon. gentleman ; but then they made it before they took
the oath—they did not take the oath and then make the
objection. The Duke of Norfolk, Sir R. Peel, and other
eminent gentlemen, did net understand the oath as the
hon. member for Mayo did. In 1849 Sir R. Peel stated
that there was a solemn compact, and that the Roman
Catholics had offered to give the security of a plain awl
unambiguous oatb, that they would make no attack on
the purport of the oath. With respect to the oath of sus
premacy, he wieil I remind the hon. member (M. B.
Hope) that in 1854 Archdeacon Wilberforce wrote a book,
in which he spoke of that oath as the national sin of Eng-
. land, because it was the embodiment of private judg-
ment. (Hear.) Against the papal supremacy the oath
was an emphatic protest, and he hoped the house would
not interfere with words on which the whole fabric of
the constitution stood. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. THEOIGER, explained that when the Queen's
counsel referred to by Mr. Roebuck objected hi take the
oath, the benchers discovered that they were the only
society which imposed it ; and feeling doubts whether
they had any right to exact it, they discontinued it alto-
gether. (Hear, hear.)
The committee then divided—
For the amendment
Against it
Owing to the number of members in the house, and
the great preponderance on one side, this division occu-
pied upwards of 20 minutes.
Mr. ROEBUCK moved, after the word "spiritual" to
insert the words "by law." It had been stated by Sir
F. Thesiger that the meaning of the oath was that the
Pope had not by law any jurisdiction in this realm; he
therefore wished to introduce those words into the clause
to render that perfectly clear.
The committee again divided—
For the amendment .. 68
Against it — 243-175
Sir F. THESIG ER then rose to move his amend-
ment—after the word " realm," to insert the words,
"And I do make this promise, renunciation, abjuration,
and declaration heartily, willingly, and tru'y, on the
true faith of a Christian." The noble lord at the head
of the Government had proposed a new form of oath as a
substitute for those they had previously taken ; and he
was disposed to allow that it was a great improvement
on the old oath. But the noble lord proposed to abare
den a profession of faith which had been taken for 250
years, without objection or scruple by the Christian
members of the house. (Hear.) Considering that
part of the oath to be solemn and essential, he desired
to retain it. (Hear, hear.) If the times had not sadly
changed, he shoal l haveeanticipated support to his amend-
ment from Mr. Gladstone and Lord J. Russell ; for, in
1819, when the noble lord introduced one of his nume-
rous bills for admitting the Jews to Parliament, he
framed an oath for the Christian members of the house,
containing precisely those words which he now proposed
to add ; and Mr. Gladstone said he rejoiced that the
noble lord retained those words, and that ho had acted
wisely in not reducing the high standard they had hi-
therto maintained. There were many Christian members
of th it Louse who, although they desired to see the Jew
admitted amongst them, wool i yet be unwilling to re-
nounce the profession of their faith. (Tear.) They would
desire to " profess and call themselves Christians," at
the same time that they considered that the question of
the admission of the Jew to Parliament ought to be dis-
cussed and settled as a distinct and separate measure. In
the former discussions on this subject, the advocates of
the admission of the Jew had used the fallacy which
was ordinarily called " begging the question." They had
supposed that the native-born Jew had an inherent rigtet
o a seat in the legislature ; and they called upon the
opponents of the Jew to establish or justify his exclu-
sion. But the supporters of a long established course of
things had a right to call up in those who were desirous
of disturbing it to bring forth their reasons. Those who
supported existing institutions had nothing to do but t.
maintain their ground ; but it was asserted that there
was an exception to this rule in the case of the Jew, be-
cause he was excluded merely by the accidental insertion
of certain words in an act of Parliament which were
directed to a totally different object. And then they re-
. peated the history of Sir F. Tresham, of the Treatise on
Equivocation of the Jesuit Garnet, and of the gunpow-
. der plot. But it was a great mistake to suppose that the
opponents of the admission of the Jew had ever contenilei
that those words in the act were intended at all to be
directed against the Jew ; for at that time there was
.scarcely one, if one, Jew in this country. But they a
, right to contend that by the insertion of those words
the strongest proof was given that no person could be a
member of the Legislature unless be held the faith of a
Christian. That Legislature had been hemmed in with
Christian ceremonials and observances. The oaths mem
hers were required to take were taken upon the Gospels;
they begau their daily labours with prayef, offered up
in that only name which could render them acceptable ;
they were compelled to observe certain festivals and
fasts ; and they could turn in no direction without being
reminded that they performed all their functions under
the sanction and seal of Christianity. (Hear.) It was
' true that by legislative interference in other directions,
persons were now enabled to to se an oath upon any ee-
l' cssion (for those were the word-) in the form which was
•- most binding upon their conscience. But those words,
"on the true faith of a Christian," bad remained in their
. oath to testify that they were a Christian Legislature,
and that no person who was not a Christian had a right
... to a seat in that house. (Hear.) It was perfectly idle to
contend, to any person acquainted with the history
and the position of the Jews is this country, that it was
only by the accidental insertion of those words that he
was excluded from admission to Parliament. Banished if,
the reign of Edward 1., returning to this country after
the Restoration, they were regarded, not as citizens, but
as aliens. In the time of Will ant 111. an endeavour was
made by that monarch to relieve the Jews from an alien
duty which was imposed upon theta in the receipt of cus-
toms; but he was compelled, by the remonstrances ofthe
merchants, to restore that duty, which remained upon
them for a very considerable time after. Every one knew
that in the reign of George If. a 111 v a ire reduced fer
the Purpose of enabling Jews to prefer hills of naturalisa-
tion without taking the sacrament, Tho act passed, but
created so much clamour. that it was repealed in the fol-
lowing year. Down to 1836, when Mr. Robert Grant i- -
troduced the first of the series of bi is for the admission
of the Jew-s, they were excluded from all offices, civil and
military, and from corporations, and from first to last
upoo the ground that they were infidels and aliens.
It was not peeeible, under these circumstances, for any
one seriously to contend that it was by reason of these
words in en act of James 1., "on the true faith of a
Christian," that a Jew was prevented from becoming a
member of Parliament. Therefore, the onus of establish-
lisbing their right must be upon those who sought to ob-
tain their admission. The Christian character of the Ls-
gislature had been established and continued to the pre-
sent time ; and it was necessary for those who thought
that persons who were no Christians should be entitled
to the honour of a seat in that house to eOahlish it by
argument—to prove that, under the circumstance, either
the forms of the helve offered no impediment to their
admission, or that the time had come a hen all those die-
tioctioos should be swept away. (Hear, hear.) The
advocates of the Jews had offered arguments in
favour of their admission, but had never approached
the vital part of the question. In the first place,
they contended that the Jew, as a native-born sub-
ject, ha-.l an unquestionable right to admission to all
offices and all authority in this empire. That was
entirely a misapprehension. That the Jew and every
subject of this realm was entitled to an equality of civil
rights no one ever denied, but poliOcal power and autho-
rity were the creatures of the S ate, and no person could
be entitled to that power and nut ,ority but he on whom
the State conferred it. No one would deny that it was
competent to the State to declare that no person should
be a legislator who wasnot a Christian. Perhaps it would
be hard not to admit that the legislature of the country
had so declared. If such was the relation in which per-
sons stood to the legislature, a person who was not a
Christian might complain of, the condition, and might
seek to have it altered, but be could have no antecedent
right to that Whichwas as prohibited by the constitution.
e
alaaids " We ought to respect the opinion.
who
have respectable a constituency as the City of
London,
returned a Jew to Parliament." That,
evas an argumeht
that already referreir trey much of the same character as
Perfectly well that by la. The citizens of Landon knew
,Tew could not take his seat
in that house, notwitte7tena
that they chose to elect
hire as their representative (iwg
then they endeaveured
to urge the circumstance, e4ahnad,
'institulbtlioYrisfor
of pnicuring an alteration of tne the purpose
Theyof
the
country
u o-have
ty
shown mere deference to the
y avail
manner to
if they had endeavoured hi ever
change ti,e law, buttnhdeytho o
headin,:isrtigohnt
ftooricua
oet-803%i
disqualified by law, a
legislature by that means an alteration of the lappwo,
It
was a bad ex ampile
htto
haven
oatphererfecroene for
n:titueuziroee:oftthheer
country. They mg
disqualified person, might select him as their representa-
tive, and might then insist, as the citizens of London
had done, that the law should be changed to secure
their object. The citizens of London had shown that
they were determined to pursue a course which he
thought was perfectly unconstitutional ; and, at the
same time,- having chooen to lose, now for a period
of ten years; one of their representative?, they had
prribably suggested to the noble lord at the head of the
Government, and hems ght attend to it when he brought
in his measure of reform, that three members for the
city, by their own confession, were perfectly sufficient.
(Leuritter.) Arrether argument usually urged on these
occasions.--something in the nature of the argumentunb
ad hominem —was this ; "You have admitted Jews to
exercise the elective franchise; how can you refuse to a f-
reit them to seats in this house?" (Cheers.) Hon. (made-
nen seen Lad to think that that was a very powerful and
eine°. bison argument; bus tc would submit for their cen-
sidei.ttaou theli2tize.liu L:r.t7.teJa a peolote 144.7i0g ifs