The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-22 00:00:00

ItHE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 22, 1857

if he hail rceiived any infsmation respecting the recont
tea's at Sligo, arising out; of the late e!ections, and the
systematic exclusion of all persons professing the Roman
Catholic religion from the j Hies emi.annelled to try the
paeies accused of rioting.
Mr. H. A. HERBERT had not received any such in-
formation.

supro:t s'rennously such a blll
.as the one I now pro-
pose to bring in—if they art inclined to give it a better
chanue in the House of Lords than their late bill l al.
we might look to the end of the questior. (Hear.)
If they are not prepared to do so, it is not my intrnti•)n,
after introducing the bill, to mislead the house by telling
them that I think the bill is likely to receive the appro-
bation of the other house. (Rear, hear.) I shall now
e titer into a statement of the bill I propose to introduce.
I have said it will be a declaratory bill. Now, the first
proposition I propose to make is, that according to the
general principle of the law of England, when oaths are
to be taken, they are to be taken in the manner and
with the forms and c:remony that are binding on the
consciences of the p-rsons taking the oatb. Tnat prin-
cipal, as far as regards witnesses in courts of justice, was
laid down in the case of " Otnichund and Barker." In
that case the law was laid doe n by Lord Hardwicke,
assisted by the Chief Justice and the Chief Baron. The
house is well aware that in that case it was contended
that the Hindoo witnesses to be examined must be sworn
upon the Holy Evangeli-ts. The case was argued
at considerable length, and we have the authority of
these learned judges in favour of taking an oath in the
manner most binding upon the conscience of the person
to be sworn. In the course of the discussion the Chief
Baron said, " It is objected to us, that we are imposing
upon our own authority a new oath ; but Isay this is no
new oath." The Chief Baron thereby meant to imply
that he was not altering the oath, but that the substance
of the oath was entirely distinct from the form and sere•
mony whieh made it solemn and binding on the conscience
of the person taking it. But lam told, as we heard the
ether night, that there is a distinction between a witness
taking an oath for the purposes of justice and persons
taking an oath to qualify themselves for office or seats
in Parliament. Now what I maintain is, that in princi-
ple there is no distinction whatever. Upon what can
you ground that distinction ? Can you say there is more

importance attached to the oath of a sheriff, who is to
administer the law, than to the oath of a Jew who is
seeking to recover a debt before that officer ? The she-
riff iq liable to penalties, and so is the Jew, and no one
can say that the one is more important than the other.
It is of the highest importance that the ends of justice
should be obtained ; it is of the highest importance, if a
murder is committed, and none but a Mallomedan and a
Jew should have been witnesses of it, that they should
be able to give evidence in a court of justice according
to the form of oath binling on their consciences. No
person would dispute the importance of that mode of
taking the oath ; but if it is important in view of the law
of England, it is equally important in view of the liber-
ties of England, which are the birthright of the pe.iple
of tla3 country. It is declared by statute that unless a
person is absolutely disqualified by law he should ob-
tain the office to which he is legally appointed or he
should obtain the seat in Parliament to which he is le-
gally elected. No man at this time of day will dispute
that maxim. It was asserted in the House of Lords 150
year-i ago, that there could be no greater hardship to an
Englishman than deprive him of this object of ambition.
Well, sir, I do not doubt, I do not question that there
may be particular statutes depriving the subjects of this
country of advantage; which, if there was no law against
them, would btlong to them. For instance, not to speak
of the law with regard to minors, it was once the policy of
this country to fxCude Roman,Catholic3, to impose upon
them a declaration against transubstantiation. The in-
tention of the legislature in asking for that declaration
was to exclude them from Parliament ; but they now
make no such declaration. It would be obviously an
infringement of the very purpose of the law, if when a
Roman Catholic came to the table to be sworn, he should
be required to make a deearation against transnbstan-

tiatio;. Instead of there being any principle which
makes a distinction between an oath as it affects a seat
in Parliament, as it affects office, and as regards wit-
nesses in courts of justice, I think the only proper dis-
tinction is that which was taken by the learned j edges,
who gave their opinion against Alderman Salomons,
when he sat one on occasion in this house. They said,
there is a great difference between what judges can do
with common law, where they may interpret according
to whatever they believe to be the dictates of reason and
common sense, but with regard to the interpretation of
a statute, in which express words have been laid down
by the Legislature, they said, "We are not at liberty
to deal with a statute the same as the common law ; it
is in our power to modify that from time to time, so
as to make it concert with the interests of society ; but
when the Legi-lature has laid down particular words,
it is not for the judges to say with what purpose they
have laid down those words, or to question what their
meaning shall be ; it is beyond our province to question
that." But if this is beyond the province of the judges,
it is not beyond the province of the High Court of Par-
liament; on the contrary, it is the privilege, it is the
duty of Parliament—it was what was the intention of
the words of the oath to be taken. (Cheers.) I now,
sir, come to my second proposition, which is, that in
the oath of abjuration as taken at the table, the words
"on the true faith of a Christian" are not part of the
substance of the oath, but are of the solemn form in
which the oath is administered. .1 think this point can be
made clear in various ways. In the first place, it is made
clear by the history and origin of the oath. I referred
the other day to Mr. Baron Alderson's statement—a

sta`ement borrowed from what is now perfectly well
known—namely, the history of a treatise which

.-.-
was found in the axileian Library. It appeared from
that treatise that the doe rine of the Jeiuits at that time
was that they might evade the words, and were not bound

to keep their promises with heretics ; but if they swore
upon their faith they were bound to pay so much respect
as not to violate the oath they bad taken. It was with
the view of binding persons who had imbibsd the dostrtne
of the Jesuits that the oath was established in its present
form. Those persons were only portions of the Roman
Catholics of this country at the time o James 1., and the
words "on the true faith of a Christian" were introduced
into the oath immediately after the discovery of the Gun-
powder Plot. It is therefore clear from the origin of this
oath that it was intended as a form more binding than
any other, as a form more binding than the words " so
help me God," or any other words, in order. to bind Ro-
man Catholics in their allegiance to the Crown. With

respect to the oath then introduced, as with respect to
the oaths since, the object was n: t to have a test of the
Christianity of the person swearing, it was riot to require
any special declaration of faith, but to obtain an assur-
ance of loyalty to the sovereign, an assurance that the
person swearing would never plot against the sovereign,
but would loyallydefend the sovereign against any claim-
ant to the throne whatsoever. If this was the origin of
the oath, in the next occasion on which it appeared there
is further evidence that such was the intention. By the
oath of William 111., it was declared that refusing the
oath of abjuration, which was then for the first time intro-
duced with these wor.ls "on the true faith of a Christian,"
should subk.ct a person to be deemed a popish recasant
convert to all intents and purposes. No v does that mean
the Jew? Is it not perfectly evident to the house that it

was intended thereby to say that Roman Catholic persons
who refused to take the oath should he treated as Popish
recusants, and not entitled to sit in Parliament ? It Fs
clear that such was the meaning and object of the oath ;
but I come now to the second proof that these words ars
not part of the substance, but only part of the ceremony
and form. That proof is, that whenever Parliament
has dispensed with the taking of the whole of the oath,
it has relieved persons from the words, " on the true
faith of a Christian," wild; it has not relieved them from
the substanoo of the oath. A Such was the case with re-
gard to the Quakers. (Hear.) By the 8-1 of William
111., Quakers were relieved from these words ; but the
act relating to Quakers has been renewed from time to
time. It was renewed in the reigns.of George 1., George
11., and George 111., and when Mr. Pease took his seat
the last of these acts was passed, which provides for an
affirmation, in which the words " on the true faith of a
Christian" are left out. Now what is the purpose of this?
It is not, the Q Hiker is not a Christian. Is it because a
Quaker coul I object to decline, that if the Society of
Friends took the whole substance of the oath, ho de-
clared against the Stuart family, and any other pre-
tender to the throne, which is the substance of the oath,
but he did not declare that •` on the true faith of a
Chri.tian." (Cheers.) Truth in proof of this is with re-
re9pect to the Jews themselve,, when Parliament wished
to relieve the Jew, which it did from certain penalties
with regard to the non-register of their estates. If they
did not take the oath of abjuration, the words ' on the
true faith of a Christian" were not applied to the case.
But, sir, there is a further proof in what the parliament
of this country required at the time when it did wish for
a religions profession. There was a time, it was dining
the Commonwealth, when it was thought advisable, but

it has not since, to obtain a posit►ve profession of faith
from members of the Commons House of Pa►liament. It
was then enacted that the following declaration should
be made : " I, A B, do in the presence of and in the
name of Alm►ghty God, promise and swear that I wiil,
to the utmost of my power in my place, uphold and
maintain the true reformed Protestant Christian re-

ligion, and the authority thereof as contained in the
Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, and
to encourage the profession and the professors f the
same." Now, is this the sort of declaration that par-
liamert would have enacted if they had wished really
for a declaration of faith. If they had wished for any pro-
fession of that kind, there was a direct mode of doing
it, and if honourable gentlemen who have raised a =-
test with respect to any alterations in the oaths wish to
bring this matter to a fair decision, they should propound
some positive declaration of Christianity by which their
principle could be effected, a principle which they have
always declared to be the principle of Parliament, but
which is not and never has been. (Hear.) Then, I con-
tend from all these things ; from the origin of the oath
in the time of James L ; from the enactment of the Oath
of Abjuration in the time of William 111. ; from the law
exempting the Quakers in certain case, and the Jews
from the Oath of Abjuration ; and lastly, from the posi-
tive declaration contained in the Act of the Common-
wealth ; from all these circumstances I contend that it
clearly appears that the words "on the true faith of a
Christian" form no part of the oath, but that they are
part of the form and ceremony introduced to make
the oath more binding on Roman Catholics, but
which are much out of place at present. I con-
ceive, therefore, nothing can be clearer than the pro-
position that the words " on the true faith of a Chris-
tian" are not part of the substance of the oath. I come
-next to the question in what manner is that which is
not part of the substance of the oath to be omitted when
the Jew comes to the table of the Louse to be sworn ?
Now, sir, with regard to that subject, is it to be said
that this house has not the ability or the power as a
single house of parliament which is possessed by the
judges of the land. Practically, we have the power,
if we thought fit to exercise it, by stating in a resolu-
tion that the words "on the true faith of a Christian"
are not part of the substance of the oath, and that Baron
Rothschild, being admitted to the table, shall take the
oath in the form binding on• his conscience—namely,
without these words. (Cheers.) But it is a ques..ien
whether we should not lose by that step—whether we
should net be exposing ourselves to the contest that
may arise with the Lords. On looking through the

arguments which have been used by learned men
upon this subject—on looking at the arguments that
were used in a most able speech of Sir William
Page Wocd when he was a member of this house,
no .v one of the Vice-Chancellors, on the subject,
I find that though he used arguments which I
must say are convincing to my mind with respect to the
nature of the oath itself, I confess do not find in any of
the speeches ,a solution of the practicable difficulty in
which we should be involved if we attempted to make
the change by resolution. Sir W. Page Wood said, on
one occasion, that there were many questions in which
the house might decide differences of law, and that we
ought not to be deterred from it by the fear of coming
into collision with another place ; that may be so, but I
conceive there is no case similar to this where that course
could be followed. Well, thee, sir, it appears to me, in
the present state of this question, that if we could obtain
our end by a bill in a different form from any that has
been introduced ; if we could obtain the assent of both
Houses of Parliament to a delaration upon this sul ject
—a declaration which I believe would be in entire con-
formity with the law—it would be a far better mode 6f
ending this question than using our extreme powers by
admitting Baron Rothschli, of our own decree and
authority, to take the oath at the table with the
omission of these words. (Hear, hear.) I have stated at
the beginning that it must depend upon the government
in a great degree whether there shall-be any chance of
carrying this measure. I cannot think that, with a
majority of 140, and the support of the country, which
the ministers say they have—and • I believe truly—that
the opposition of the House of Lords cannot be over-
come. It has been overcome in so many instances, such
as the settlement of the Roman Catholic question, the
corn law question, and many others, that I cannot be-
lieve that it would fail to be overcome in this instance.
(Hear, hear.) I remember perfectly well there was a
strong objection on the part of many members of the
House of Lords to a bill that we passed here with re-
spect to the temporalities of the Irish church, and many
persons expected that the bill would be thrown our.
There was a man then who led the conservative party,
'who united graat authority to a long life of glory and
distinction, and the greatest wisdom and prudence, and
by the advice of that man a great many of the Lords, who
would have formed a decided majority of the house, re-
frained from opposing it, and the bill was carried into law.
With respect to another measure, to which I have al-
ready adverted, and which was brought in when I had
the honour of being a member of her Majesty's councils
—namely, the repeal of the navigation acts, which my
right hon. friend below me, the Secretary for the Colo-
nies, will well remernLer, for he was the person who had
the honour of carrying it through this house, the govern-
ment declared that they had made up their minds to ac-
cept a defeat on that question as a vote of want of confi-
dence, and the bill•was carried. Yet I candidly believe
that to this day it was the particular wish of a portion
of the House of Lords that the navigation laws should
not be repealed. There was upon that subject opinions
as hasty and strong as some of those which are professed

upon this question-of the admission of Jews into Parlia-
ment ; but, after all, they are more prejudices or fancies
than any real or settled convictions. Well then, sir, with
regard to the authority of this house, I beg leave to quote
a statement that was made by Chief Justice Fortes-
cue, which has been referred to often of late years.
With respect to the privileges of this howe, when the
Chief J ustice was asked with respect to one of your pre-
decessors in the chair, sir, whom it was proposed to ar-
rest—(a laugh)—he said : " Chief Justice Fortescue and
all the judges say that they ought not to be called upon
to answer that question, for it pertains to the privileges
of Parliament, and Parliament is so high and mighty
that it may make law, and make that not law which is
law. This is a question of privilege, and it hath afore-
time been adjudged that the determination and know-
ledge of the privileges of. Parliament belong alone to the
lords of Parliament itself." Such was the declaration of

discussion. (Cheers from the ministerial side below th:l '
gangway.) If he comprehended .those cheer-, it was
time that the two sides of the house understood each
other. (Cheers and counter cheers.) The noble lord had
made-some remarks upon the power of Parliament, and
had quoted the opinion of Chief Justice Fortescue upon
the point. 'But if it were meant to b 3 said that the
power of the House of Commons was the power of Par-
liament, the sooner it was avowed the better. (Cheers
and counter cheers.) There was a time when such a claim
was set ua by the house, and the result would appear in
the journals of the house. The first resolution appeared
on t .e 4to of Jan. 1643, when it was resolved that what- i
ever was enacted and declared by the Commons in Par-
liament should have the force of law. The next resolution
was on the 6th of the following July, is which it was re
solved that the House of Lords was useless a,nd dangerous;
and on the following day a third resolutioa was agreed
to, resolving that the office of king was useless, dangerous,
and burdensome. ifs would rather that fifty Jews had
seats in Parliament than that the House of Commons, by
tampering with the constitution, should enter upon such
a course. One other remark of the noble lord he must
notice, and that was with reference to the case of Lord
Wensleydale. The noble lord, in the way which he hal
of treating such matters, treated the question of the ad-
mission of Lord Wensleydale into the other house and
Baron Rothschild into that house as identically the same.
The fact was, that the House of Lords had Ihe privilege,
when a peer presented himself with his patent, of deter-
mining therefrom his right to take his seat. So, the
House of Commons had the privilege, and exercised it
unchallenged, in its election committees, of deciding
upon the right of its members to take their seats, when
their ti•le thereto—which was hived upon the legality
of their election—was impeached. But to snake the case
of the two houses parallel they must suppose that ihron •
Rothschild being made a peer chimed to tike his seat
in the House of Lords. In such a case he did not hesi-
tate to say that that house would not have a right to
admit him. (Rear.) He trusted that the house would
refuse to read this bill a second time.
Mr. DILL WYN remarked that the hon. gentleman
who had read theca such a lecture to the house upon the
dangers of tampering with the constitution was himself
the author of one of the most democratic proposals that
had ever been made in that house—viz , to confer the
suffrage upon all men in the militia. (Cheers and laugh-
ter.) He (Mr. Dillwyn) was as little desirous as any
one to tamper with the constitution, but he did sincerely
desire to see the constitution moulded as it had hereto-
fore,-from time to time, been, its order to meet the re-
quirements of the age. He believed that-he and these
who had acted with him had kept to that object in the
course which they had taken. Iu search through the
library of the house for precedents in point upon the
subjee-, he had found one which went very el isely to
the matter before them. He referred to the case of Mr.
Pease. He would venture to call to the attention of
the house the statements which upon that occasion were
made by Mr. Speaker's predecessor, Mr. Sutton, a
gentleman connected by birth and antecedents with

the conservative party in the house, The right hon.
gentleman said: "I was sure that the house would
feel, as it has felt, that not only the law and privileges
of the house, but also the personal interest of the hon.
member, were concerned, and thorefore it was necessary
that a deliberate construction of the law as it existed
should be obtained. That deliberate construction can
only be pronounced by the houseitself." He hoped that
after that quotation hon. members on the liberal side of
the house would not be accused of taking a revolutionary
course. He was desirous of avoiding collision with the
House of Lords—he thought all collisions undesirable—
(a laugh)—but he thought that the course he. proposed
offered the best possible means of avoiding it. The late
House of Commons in going bef A.° a court of law, en-
tered upon a weekend undignified course, and one which
in any case must have ended in their discomfiture. Sup-
pose that the case of Jewish admission bad been carried

Chief Justice Fortescue, a declaration made when this to every court in succession, and decideditavourablyir,
house was using, I will not say powers beyond the Lords would stiil have the lest word as the final
its rights, but greater than it has ordinarily sought court of appeal, and there was no doubt but that they
to enforce. An hon. gentleman, who spoke the would reverse all that had been done before. This was a
other night, seemed to suppose, in refe-rence to the very grave question, one that seriously affected their pri-
decision of the House of Peers in the case of Lord vileges. He wished to take every step before he resorted
Wensleydale, that I disputed the competence of the to what was calledon the otherside a revolutionary mea-
House of Lords to decide the question. I did not sure, and therefore he would in the present instance,
dispute their competence in any way, but at the vote with the noble lord the member for London.
same time, considering that Lord Coke had given • Mr. PALK opposed the motion.
it as his opinion that life peerages might be created, and Mr. GILPIN said that this question had long since
that Lord Redesdale had declared that a life peeraLe ceased to be a question of Jew or no Jew, and had become
carried with it the right to a seat in parliament—l must one of political principle and of civil and religious liberty,
say that it was going to the utmost extent of the privi- being also, secondly, but hardly secondly, a qeestien of
leges of the house, when a peer came with a patent the privileges and liberty of the House of Commons.
granted by the advice of the Lord Chancellor, aid pre- When the right hon. member far Cambridge University
sented that patent, to refuse to that peer admittance to talked so loudly of the privileges of the House of Lords,
the house. (Cheers.) The House of Lords have so heseemed to leave the privileges of thellouseof Commons
exercised their privilege. I have no doubt they exercised out of consideration altogether. He (Hr. Gilpin) asked
it upon a conscientious conviction, after examining the the hi,use to consider whether they were from ten years
authorities—which were examined by some of the most to ten years to go on submitting to be roughridden, for it
learned members of the house—that such a power was came to that, by the other branch- of the legislature.
vested in tiera. BA I must hell that it is somewhat The right hon. gentleman said that the house was in
grating—finding that the House of Lords can exercise an extraordinary position, but who had placed it in that
teat power without question, the government not pro- position? He (Hr. Gilpin) should say the right, hon.
posing (and being well advised, as I think, in such a gentleman's self and colleagues. And when the right
course), to bring the question before courts of law—it is, hon. gentleman spoke of the constitution of the country,
I repeat, somewhat grating to us, it is somewhat grating he (kit. Gilpin's) reading told him that it was never in-
to my constituents of the City of London, to be told tended that two integral portions of the con titution—
that we have not the power of introducing a member of the Sovereign, as represented by her Ministers; and that
our house legally elected, and allowing him to take his house—should be subservient to the will of a third. An-
seat among the Commons of England, as by his due other hon. gentleman talked of infidelity, but what he
election be has a right to do. (Cheers.) It is impossitih, meant was infidelity to his own peculiar views. Ortho-
I think, that the House of Commons can continue much dory it seemed was the hon member's dtxey, and hetero-
longer in this state—(cheer)—which I cannot but con- duxes, was any other man's doxey. (Laughter.) It re-
sider to be a state of degradation. (Cheers.) I there- minded him of the lines of Thomas Hood :
fore ask the house to allow me leave to introduce this " A man who cries church, church, at every word,
bill ; I ask this that members may see the bill, and may Is not more pious found than other people.
form an ooinion as to whether or not it will solve the A dew is not a most religious bird
difficulty. Ido not think that hon. gentlemen opposite Because it caws from every lofty steeple."
have a right to flatter themselves that this question is to He did not think that any religious principle was in-
be allowed to sleep for the next ten years. (Cheers.) I volved in the liberation of the Jews, for the fact was that
think we are bound to pursue it in one form or another, the Jew was excluded for his conscientiousness. Let him
(Hear, hear.) Let us do so with as much moderation only swear "on the true faith of a Christian," and no
as we can. We have already shown much modera- one could refuse him admission. (Hear.) A collision
tion—(cheers)—the City of London has shown with the Lords was of course to be deprecated, but there
much . patience ; but I do not think that it is a was one thing still more to be deprecated, and that was
period in which we ought to adopt a precedent that the freelyoilected representatives of the Commons of
showing that, whatever may be the powers of the England should allow their majorities to be over-
House of Lords, whatever may be the powers of the other ruled, and their principles to become a dead letter, be-
branches of the Legislature, the House of Commons is cause there was an adverse majority iu the Lords. The
utterly powerless on a question of grave public policy, hen. member alluded to the absence of p ipular excite.
on a question relating to civil and religious liberty, on a meet on this subject; this was certainly a new doctrine
question involving the highest principles of law—that coming from a quarter which had always deprecated sub.
upon such a question we are utterly impotent and have mission to popular excitement. (Hear.) fie (Mr, Gil-
nothing to do but to sit down with degradation. (Cheer...) pin) did not mean to undervalue the force of public opi
The noble lord concluded by moving for leave to bring nion collected at public mean gs, but he thought the
in the bill. wisest way in reference to a question of principle would
Mr. WALPOLE regretted that the noble lord should be not to wait until a pressure from without took
have asked the house for leave to introduce a bill which away the grace of free concession. But the fact was
was substantially the same as a measure upon which in that the question resolved itself into a question of
that very session Parliament had already decided. The earnestness or want of earnestness on the part of the
noble lord said the house was in a peculiar position. By I Treasury Bench. If it were once understood that
whom was it pieced in that position ? (Cheers and court- I the noble lord at the head of the Government
ter-cheers.) He believed that the noble lord himself was was determined to carry this bill, the bill would be car-
not blameless upon that point No rule was better known ried. (Hear, hear.) It was for the noble lord to say to
or more universally recognised than that when Parlia- the upper house.
went had once in a session decided upon a question, that I " Princes and peers may flourish or may fade,
question should not again be argued during the same A breath can make them, as a breath has made."
session. If a member possessing the w eight and xperi- Let him make -them understand that their numbers might
erns of the noble lord violated that rule in favour of a be increased, and then depend upon it the bill would be
measure in which he left interested, was it to be suppesed carried without any such txn-cise of the prerogative.
that other hon. members would not follow the precedent? Mr. NE WDEGATE said that this question had al ways
There were many subjects upon which different members been treated us a religiousquestion. When Baron Roth,-
took great interest—an interest which was shared by child presented himself at the table the words of inspire-
large bodies of persons oat of doors. Many took a great tion were tendered to him, and the house remembered
interest in the question of the endowment of Maynooth ; h,w he rejected Christianity. (Oh, oh.) On that occasion
others were deeply interested in the ballot; others in the he (Hr. Newdegate) ventured to put a question as to the
repeal of taxes, and the abolition of church rates, or par- form of the resolution, and the answer was that there was
liamentary reform. To all these questions the abrogation nothing in its form requiring it to be rererred to a Colll-
- that rule which the noble lord proposed would be aP- mutes of the whole house. Now, he had since referred
plicable as much as to the subject of the present bill, to the standing order, and he found it say " That no bill
The noble 1 ird might object, and urge that this measure relating to religion shall be brought in until it has been
was not the same as that which had been brought in by considered in committee of the whole house." He asked,
the noble viscount (Palmerston). But though in letter then, bad the house been following a proper course for
this might be so, in spirit the two measures were identi- the last ten years in considering a religious question
cal. The noble viscount urged the passing of this bill on which had not previously been referred to a committee
grounds of civil and religious liberty ; the noble lord of the whole house. He must of course how to whatever
had rested the claims of his upon the unjust exelusion should be the decision of the house, but his own conviction
of the Jews on account of their religion. Passing, how- was that the noble lord, in introducing this bill, was vie-
ever, by this. objection, he should oppose the introduc- lating the standing orders of the house. He could tell the
tion of this bill—if upon no other ground at least upon house what was the urgency for this measure. Baron
this, that it would bring the house into direct collision Rothschild, at the late election for London, pledged him-
with the House of Lords, in which case the degradation self emphatically not to present himself again to the elec.
and humiliation of the House of Commons would be tors should the bill be rejected, and the noble lord was
more severe than it had been. There was yet another therefore aware that if something was not dune this session
objection to the introduction of the measure in the late- the Baron was pledged not to persevere in a course of an-
ness of the period of the session at which they had ar- noyanee to the Houeo of Lords. That was his (Hr. New-
rived, and the great mass of public business which stil degate'e) interpretation of the urgency of the case, and
awaited the consideration of Parliament. They had to he was sorry that the noble lord should lend himself to
discuss several bills of the highest importance ; they had the wishes of a portion of his constituents, in order to
to go into supply ; they had to discuss one of the most bring about a collision between the two houses of Par-
important events which had ever come before that house, 'lament. It was said that such a conflict should be pre-
an event which affected not only a constituency, but the cipitated solely in the interest of Baron de Rothschild.
whole empire. With these great questions before them, The noble lord endeavoured to raise a doubt as to the
ho would put it to the house whether at the end of July question of law—whether the words "on the true faith
e ilord
d to
askedshow thefor
it was a fitting moment for the introduction of a measure of a Christian" were or were not of the essence of the
like this. Without therefore entering upon the merits of oath. He (Mr. Newdegate) would read the opinion on
housete bill,
thhaetthat point of those who must command respect. The
noble lord had quoted Baron Alderson, but he had
ought not to be granted. But though he did not intend omitted to note the result to which that learned judge
thoughtthe
leavehe
whichh had stated
the sufficientnokl
to discuss the 'merits of the question, there were some arrived after full consideration of the whole case, viz.,
remarks of the noble lord which ought not to be passed that if the words were mitten the oath was not taken
by. The noble lord had told them that the words, "on at all. The opinion of Lord Wensleydale and the Lord
the true faith of a Christian," were not part of the cub- Chief Baron were to the same effect. How flimsy, then,
stance of the oath. (Cheers from below the gangway on was the pretence of the noble lord, that it was necessary
the Ministerial side.) Those gentlemen who cheered. to introduce a declaratory act, when the courts had dis-
were perhaps not aware that when this view was main- tinctly declared that there was no doubt about the law
tamed by the Vice-Chancellor Wood, the noble lord of the case, but that the words, "On the true faith of
himself ably answered the learned judge's argument. a Christian," did constitute an essential part of the
Since that time, however, the subject had been before oath. He protested against the attempt now being
the highest tribunals of the country. It had been ably made to mislead the house into the belief that no prir -
argued before them, and everything bad been stated ciple was violated by this attempt to coerce aco ordinate
which the ingenuity of counsel could suggest. The re- branch of the legislature: (Hear hear.) The House
cult arrived at was this—the judges of the Court of Ex- of Lords represented the best feelings of the country ;
chequer, by a majority of three to one, and the judges of if it were nut so it could not have resisted the various
the Exchequer Chamber, unanimously decided that the successive measures of the House of Commons on this
words were an essential part of the oath. (Hear.) But subj •
ect ; and if any attempt were made to arouse popu-
yet the noble lord came down to the' house and stated lar excitement in reference to it, the religious feeling of
that the words were not an essential part of the oath. the country would awake, tes it did awake io 1754, in
Lord J. RUSSELL explainedthat his assertion was that resisting such an attack upon the Christian character of
the ground of the judges' decision rested upon their not the legislature. (Hear, hear.)
considering thems lees at liberty to dispense with w ord Mr. COX assured the hon. gentleman that he had
forming part of an oath imposed by an act of Parliame. t.s no desire,. in voting for the admission of Baron
Mr. WALPOLE would satisfy the noble lord by re- Rothschild to unchrietianise the House of Commons.
ferring to the authority of a statute passed in the reign The question was one of civil and religious liberty.
of Geo. 11. upon this subject, and relating to the cold- Having granted emancipation to the Roman Catholics,
nies. That statute runs thus :—" Whereas the follow- and abolished the Test and Corporation Acts for the re-
ing words, upon the true faith of a Christian,' are con- lief of the dissenters. It was no more than simple justice
tamed in the oath of abjuration as part of the oath, be that when a constituency elected a Jew as their repre-
it enacted that when any of his Majesty's subjects of the sen.ative in parliament he should have the right to take
Jewish persuasion shall be required to take such oath, his seat, and carry out the duty to which he bad been
he may omit these words.' Thus, the noble lord would delegated. (Hear.) He had prepared a resolution,
see teat the Legislature had treated these words as es- which he had intended to move by way of amendment to
sential parts of the oath. In another portion of his the noble lord's motion, declaring that the house had
speech the noble lord, in substance, said that in his opi- the right to alter the oath as it might see fit, and that
mon the house ought not to leave this matter as it stood upon any member appearing at the table to be sworn,
—(cheers)—but ought to take some step immediately and objecting to the words "On the true faith of a Chris-
either by bill or .by resolution—(cheers and counter tian," the clerk should be directed to administer the oath ,
cheers)—to settle the question which was then under omitting those words. Some of his hon. friends who

agrecd-with him on the general qufst'on did not coa-
cur in the propriety of his submitting this amendment,
and he was theref4re teluctan;ly induced to abandon the
intention. It was-said that such a proposition was rV . •
!utionary. (Pear ) Bit was t'ae house inast..?r of its
own proceedings or not ? (dear.) Had the house the
right to alter the oath ? (Ones of "No, no," from the
Opposition.) Why, they had altered the oath. (dear.)
They had altered it on their own responsibili'y to facili-
tate the admission of Quakers

An HON. MES/BER.—No ; under the authority of
a e atu.e.

Mr. COX contended that if they were ccmpetent
to alter it in the case of the Qtakers by omitting the
words " So bele me God," they were equally competent
to direct the omission of the words "Oe the true faith of
a. Christian" in the case of the Jews. (Hear.) He re-
greeted that the noble lord proposed to bring the house
iota collision with the House of Lords—not that he
eared for such collision, far the two houe33 had been in
collision keretofore. Tony were in collision fcr two or
three sessions on the Reform Bill, and be was not aware
that either the country or the House. of Commons suf-
fered from it in the end. He was sorry to say that the
House of Lords was too far behind the age. ("Oh," and
laughter.) It was the House of Commons that repre-
sented the voice of the people, not the House of Lords,
and let collision come when it might, the House of
Lords must in the end give way. (Hear.)
Mr. LIDDELL, as one of those who had given his
vote in favour of the admission of the Jews, and who
was prepared to t.ke the same course again on -e very
fitting occasion, wished te explain why he could not
suppert the proposition of the noble 1 .rd. He considered
it a flaw in the constitution to allow a person to be
elected by the constituent body, and then for the tl-cted
body to shut their doors against him when he came to
take his seat. It was time that this unseemly contest
between the electors of London and the elected should
terminate. (Hear, bear.) But he looked with more
anxiety upon the conte-t between the two branches of
the legislature, and therefore he could not make up his
mind to support the noble lord's proposition. He
thought the noble lord had chosen a most inopportune
moment for agitating the question. He should like to
know what there was in this measure that.was likely to
be more palatable to the other house than the bill which
they had so recently rejeoteit? He did not see why the
House of Commons should not take the responsibility
upon itself of laying down a rule to admit those members
it chose to admit. There was but one reason against
it, and that was the question of penalties ; but that
might be got over by a resolution declaring it to be a
breach of privilege for any person to take an action at
law against a member admitted by the house to take
his seat. There was a precedent for a resolution of that
kind, but there was none for the course proposed to be
taken by the noble lord of reviving in the sane session
a question already settled by a decision of one branch
of the legislature. He could not stultify the vote he
had already given in favour of the admission of the Jews
by voting aga:nst the noble lord's bill ; and as he esul4l
not vote for it, for the reasons he had stated, he should
not vote either way.
Mr. AYRTON, as one of the constituents of Baron
Rothschild, said he was prepared to justify the opinion
which he had expressed at the election, as quoted by
Mr. Newdegate. When the baron heard of the decision
of the House of Lords he wished to resign immediately;
but he (Kr. Ayrton) desired him to do no such thing,
but to abide by the course recommended by his friends.
He now held his seat at the wish of many of the elec-
tors, in order that the question might be thoroughly dis-
cussed. (Hear, hear.) He (Kr. Ayrton) was prepared
to support the bill, though aware that the house bad
the power t proceed by resolution. Icdeed, he hdi
that the house was the only tribunal which could deter-
mine on what conditions persons elected should take
their seats there. This was fully established by what
are called the Aylesbury resolutions, which mainiained
the right of the house to determine all questions of this
kind, unless they had previously abdicated that right by
consenting to an act of Parliament. (Hear, hear.) Sup-
pose Baron Rotta'aill were to adopt the course which
Mr. Salomons had pursued, the house would have to
consider how it should proceed, and to guide itselt by
the decisions of the courts. The house would have felt
bound by those decisions ; it was now a settled point
that the words " On the true faith of a Christian" were
an integral part of the oath. Such being the law, if the
house proceeded by resolution, they could only resolve
that Baron Rothschild was not entitled to sit. (Cheers
from the Opposition.) He deprecated further discussion
of the question, unless it were proceeded with iu an
earnest desire to legislate, and such desire should be
made manifest to the other house of Parliament.

Mr. PACKE said a resolution would draw the house
into a collision with the courts of law, and the bill cf
the noble lord would lead to a collision with the House
of Lords, and both were to be seriously deprecated.
Lori PALMERSTON—I shall support the motion
of the noble lord for bringing in this bill ; at the same
time, as the description of the bill is not very complete—
(hear, hear)—l shall reserve for future consideration to
what degree we shall think it right to support it in its
future stsgts. I need not tell the house that I and my
colleagues, equally with the noble lord, desire to settle
satisfactorily this question of the admission of Jews into
Parlament, and the oniy question is as to the best and
most likely method of arriving at that resalt. In
assenting to the bringing in of the-hitl we reserve to
ourselves the power to act as we shall deem it consistent
with our duty when we see what the provisions of the
bill are. But 1 ?oking to the present period of the
session, and the many important measures •till pending.
lat afraid that I cannot undertake to postpone Govern
meat business fur the purpose of pushing this bill forward
to the exclusion and preference of other business. With
this explanation of my intentions, I very cordially agree
to the motion of the noble lord. (Loud laughter.)
Mr. GLA.DSTONE, after stating that be had boon
unaele to be present to vote for the amendment of the
honourable member for York to the bill which was .re-
jected by the House of Lords, said ho viewed with the
greatest apprehension, mistrust, and dislike, any step
which was likely to bring about a political crisis: He
had voted in favour of the Jews and Catholics, and he
thought they would do wisely to trust to the progress of
their principles, to the good sense of the House of Lords.
He was a: xioue to maintain the independence of the
louse of L :rds, which he considered to be only second
to that of the House of C Ammons. He was not prepared
to give any vote, unless under circumstances of the
gravest character, which might tend to bring about a
political crisis. When he remembered that the Test and
Corporation Acts, the repeal of the corn laws, and other
great measures bad received the sanction of the House
of Lords, he did not despair of such measures as that
which they had PO often passed in that house being ul-
timately succes.ifu'. He-thought there were great ob-
jections to a resolution upon this subject. Ho thoug4
they were not to hazard a conflict with the courts of

law. If Baron Rothschild were admitted upon a resolu-
tion it would be the duty of the house to protect him at
all hazard?. If they were to introduce Baron Rothschild
teat night, they would to-roordSw have to introduce a
bill of indemnity; and how would that fare in the House
of Lords ? Now, was the hi lof the n ble lord a repeti-
tion ,of the proposal which had already been made to the
Houie of Lords ? lie did not think the case before them
was cne of such gravity as to justify them in departing
from the usages of Parliament, and setting at defiance
the usual course of legislation to send up to the other
house a repetition of the bill which had been rejected.
Ho could not, ho Never, say that this bill was a repeti-
tion of the bill which had been rejected. Sernethieg
was due both to the majority of the House of Lord?,
and the majority of the House of Commons, and there-
fore what the noble lord proposed was, that it shall
lie in the discretion of either house to decide upon
the form of the oath which the members of
either body should take. That would he a reason-
able solution of the existing difficulty. That undoubtedly
was a compromise, but it was no unfair co.npromise, and
there was not that constitutional objection to making it
to the House of Lords as there would have been in mak-
ing the prorosition again, which had been rejected by the
House of Lerde. He therefore thought his noble friend's
bill was entitled on the whole to the favourable reception
of the house.
Mr. WHITESIDE could not accurately understand
the bid of the noble lord. If this bill should pass, which
it never would, it would enable the house to direct the
clerk of the house to administer the oath in an particular
time, in a particular form of oath in one se,sion, and an-
other form in another according to the temper of the
house and not aceordi, g to the law of the land, so that a
man might be admitted to one session and rejected in
another. If that was settling the question ho did not
know what a settlement meant. But on a future occa
sion the noble lord might be enabled to give a more ac-
curate description of his measure. The hoe. member for
Finsbury, in support.of recourse being had to resolution,
had referred to the case of the Quakers, but he seemed
not to know that the case of the Qiakers was specially
provided for by statute, the 7th and Bth Geo. IV., and
if Lord Campbell could have found such a statatable
provision with regard to Mr. Alderman Selomons he
would have given full effect to it. But the courts of law
could not make the law, nor could that house make any
law. Suppose this bill should be introduced, why nothing
of it would be made for the rest of the session, and there-
fore ho could not covgraoulate the noble lord on his at-
tempts to remove doubts upon this subject.
Mr. HILDYARD said the effem of having the noble
lord's bill passed into law would be to introduce the Jew,
and what then became of the House of Lords ? No mem!
her of.the house could doubt that this was an attempt to
coerce the House of Lords.

-11.1 r. HORSMAN rose amidst loud cries of " divide,
divide." Ao attempt to seat Baron Rothschild by reso-
lution had been described as a revolutionary movement.
A precedent bad been set which hon. gentlemen opposite
ought not to ignore, and that was with regard to Lord
Wensleydale ; and he would be glad to know the die-
tinction between the present ewe and that. Throughout
the-whole of the discus ion in Lord Wenehydale's case,
the principle was laid down that each house was the sole
judge of its own privileges.
Lord J. RUSSELL replied, amid impatient calls for a
division, and observed that the hon. and learned gentle-
man the member for Whitehaven must confess that his
constituents had shown extraordinary patience, because it
appeared, according to his own account, that a clause in a
bill having been affirmed three times it was rejected by the
House of Lords for the first time in 18:54, and that he had
expressed a determination not to tolerate this act on the
part of their lordships. Yet the constituents of the Ci'y
of London had submitted to the repeated rejections of the
House of Lords for ten years, andhad exhibited fargreater
equanimityof temper under adversity than had character-
ised the hon. and learned gentleman opposite. The hon.
gentleman the member for Devonshire had said that there
wasno danger to apprehend, that there was no sedition or
tumult to warrant the introduction of the bill. This ar-
gument pot him in mind of the old couplet—
" The King to Oxford sent a troop of ho!fi,,
For 'folios own no argument but force."
The fiot that there was no disturbance, or no sedition and