The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-11 00:00:00

EVENING, JULY 11, 1857.

because the appeal :vas male as much to Jewish sympathy
as to Christian, and the word was s'ruck out. Would not
that happen in the Li-ghdlture? ThoJew•would object to
the word Christians being used, and that he (the Earl of
Derby) would call unchristianibi,g the Legislature.
waF s d I that infidels could ent -r the Legislature. So they
Could if they forswore them Halves-, but that the Legisla-
ture.cnuld not guard against, but it could declare that
all who entered the Legislature should do so on a ChriE!-
tian declaration. Her Majesty's Government have
thought proper to lake a course which mi4ht embariaes
many of their lordAips. He so far approved of the biP
in so far as it amended the oath. He had been told that
a Roman Catholic deputation ha'l waited upon the noble
1-)rd at the head of the Government, requiring him to
alter the oath with regard to tho-Roman Ca.tholics. The
answer of the noble lord was that he could not do that
—ho could not amend the position of the Cath die, but
he -did not mind making the Jews' position worse.
(Laugl,-Vr.) r ,
The Duke of NORFOLK—Nothing of the sort. .

The Earl of DERBY—At all event's the noble lord
declined to accede to the request-of the deputation. The
course which the Government bad taken was to attempt
to force the House of Lords. Hie noble friend had hoped
that no declaration would be mettle with regard to main-
taleieg the independence of the House of Lords. Now he
(the Earl of Derby) hoped ti-at their lordships would not
shrink from maintaining their indePendeece on this occa.
sion. No doubt there were occeeions when it was nem..
nary to act in opposition to that which they felt was ab.
stractedly right. Teat could only 'be justified when
there were formidable dangers to be apprehended, such
as in the ea... 6 of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, or the.
• Reform Bill, and he might, perhaps, add the repeal of
the corn laws. He believed that upon this subject their
lordships' minds were made up, and he trusted that they
would reject the compromiseeand contradictions which
were contained in this bill. It was on these grounds
that he ventured to move that the bill he read a second
time that day six menthe.
Lord LYNDauRsr said that no one admired more
sincerely than hiniself the eloquence of the noble lord.
If splendid declamation could settle the question it
would have no chance.' But ho had been too long
familiar with that house to expect that the question
would be settled on such grounds. The oenfidence
he felt in the liberality and independence of their
lordships, and, above all, in the principle of justice
on which the measure was founded, encouraged
him to enter freely into the arguments which had been
urged against it. As to the facts on which the case de-
pended, they might be stated in a very few words. Re
would go back to the revolution of 1888. That great
event caused at the very outset of the reign of King
Willirin a change in the eyetem of oaths. An oath o 1
allegiance of a most cumbrous form and an oath of su-
premacy had been enacted in the reign of James IL
The oath of allegiance, which contained for the first time
the words, "On the true faith of a Christian," was
passed in the reign of James 11., and was in the begin-
ning of William's reign repealed, and the oath was put
in that simple form in which it was handed down to the
present time. He then came to the other oath—that of
supremacy. That oath had two parts, the one positive
and the other 'negative. The first asserted the supre-
macy of the Crown ; the other denied that any foreign
prince or potentate bad any authority within these
realms. During the latter part of the reign of William
111. the only oath necessary was the oath of allegiance.
In the first year of William the crown was settle
by act of Parliament, but it was not thought requisite to
take any oath. But in the twelfth year of William, in
consequence of the death of Queen Mary and the Duke
of Gloucester. a new settlement became neoessary, and
the crown was settled in the House of Hanover. No
oath however, was even then thought necessary, except
the oath of allegiance and the negative part of the oath.
of supremacy. In the last year of William, James 11.
died, and his son assumed the title of King of England.
He was supported by the French monarch. Steps were
taken to enforce the elsini, and then it was that the pre-
sent oath of abjuration was established to prevent the
claims upon the Crown efts e descendants of James
That oath had come down to ae, but.the cause had
ceased, and the simplest plan would seem to be to repeal
the oath, and to leave the other two oaths as they stood
in the reign of King William. This was the natural
course of things, the cause of the oath having passed
passed away. By the bill before them, the oath of supre-
macy and allegiance, as in the reign of William 111. was
re-enacted, but an additional clause was introduced
confirming the succession to the Crown. Now, if that
was not necessary. in the troublesome times of William
111., how could it be necessary in these tranquil times I
But, in deference to the opinions of certain persons, this
clause had been introduced into the bill. The three oaths
were thus amalgamated into one. What possibly objec-
tion could there be to such a course It was said that
they ought to add to the oaths as they existed in :
the time of Kirig William. Why, it should be asked ?
What were thewords they wished to add ? " Without
equivocation,'" and "on the true faith of a Christian."
Those words wera'oaceintroducell to meet a tontingency
which bat long passed away, as more binding on the
Roman Catholics. If they were to be inserted in the bill
for that object it had ceased. The Roman Catholics
were not obliged to take the oath at all. The words had
been deliberately expunged is the reign of King William.
It was a folly to talk of inserting words which had
now no applicatioh. But it came to this—that the •
words were to be inserted for the purpose of excluding •
the Jews from Parliament. What was the posi-
tion of the Jews ? His noble and learned friend said
they were aliens. They were not aliens, they never had •
been aliens. The Jews that came over in the reign of
Chitties 11. were aliens, they were born, abroad, but to
say that the Jews of the present day, who were born in
England, were aliens, Was contrary to the law At the
close of the seventeenth, century, the opinion of the law
officers of the Crown, Lord Talbot among them, was
taken, and it was decided that they were not aliens ; that
they might hold lands like any other persons. If these
men were to be excluded from the natural right of citi-
rens, they should introduce a bill expressly for that •
purpose. The Jews bad. a right to have their claims
examined by the Legislature and by the Crown.
This would be the constitutional course. Instead of
which it was sought to exclude them by a aide-wind,
and that too not of the entire legislature, but by that
branch which was not the direct representatives
cif the people. This was not a constitutional
course. One of our most eminent legal authorities
had said that if the Jews were to be excluded it
should not be by a side-wind but by a direct act of Pale
liament. He could not make up his mind es to the reasons
by which their lordships should put in -these words.
They cool I not put them in to exclude the Catholics or
the natural horn subjects of England. They should ex-
elude those by a direct art, and if they did otherwise it
would be au unconstitutional curse of proceeding. It
was said that the Jews had always been excluded. Why,
they were never thought of. The argument came to
this, that if they bad been thought of they would have
been excluded. In this case the facts were all con-
elusive against such a supposition. Then a noble friend
of his said that, without these words, they would
unchristianise the legislature. How unchristianise ?
Did the Christianity of the country depend upon an
oath I. (Hear, hear.) lie should be glad if his noble
friend could have put himself in communication with
those great men by whom our Revolution had been
effected. What reception would he have met with
from Somers, Halifax, ( r the other great men of that
day if he had used such an argument 1 They would
have turned their backs upon the argumentaridieulous.
Did William 111. or his Parliament unchristamise the
Lee iedature Was his Parliament lees Christian than
the Parliament governed by Beliegbroke—a professed
Deee-, ; or than the Parliament of Charles 11. Was
the Parliament of James, when theists words were in-
serted, more Christian than William The words when
considered in this light became a mockery. His, noble
friend touched upon another point which bad been
urge d against the till. He said teat it was inconsistent
in a Ceristi n legislature to admit the Jews. Now, this
was ono of the great arguments on the other side. A
Legislature ought to represent the country. Were
there no Jews in•the country ? Were there no subjects
of her Majesty ? If this Christian country contained
people, what inconsistency
some Jews amongst its
was there in the Legislature including Jews in the
same proportion ? A representative body ought
to embody the constituent body. Were nth the
courts of justice Christian ? The municipal cor-
porations Christian ? Were these less Christian now
that Jews were admitted among theta I A Christian
court and a Chris Van corporation might be and had been
presided over by a geuticman of the Jewish persuasion.
If it was a principle that Jews were not to form part of
the Christian Legislature, let them see how that prin-
ciple bad been acted upon. Above Ell things principles
should he consistent. What was the course they bad
pursued ? They had persisted- in framing a constitution
for Canada. Many of the light rev. prelates were pre
sent, that had that constitution before them, and framed
it according to their own views. Yet it did not exclude
the Jews. Was noc the legislation of Canada as Chris-
tian as our own ? (Hear, hear.) A Peeele of the Jew-
ish persuasion sat in that legislature, and were among,
the most distinguished members of itu body. How
were they to reconcile them with the present argument ?
But it might be said this was an oversight. Let them
then go to Auetralia. Was not Australia Christian ? Were
they to value Christianity more in one part of tile empire
than another I They had framed a constitution for Ails•
tralia—did they there exclude the Jews I He might al-
lude to New Zealand and the Cape of Good Hope, and
elsewhere, where an attempt was made tonclude the
Jews. The house had a constant consciousness that they
ought not directly to proclaim their principle, so they
endeavoured to establish it by a side wind. An argument
had been introduced elsewhere by an excellent Irked of
his, in the House of Commies, and the proposition was
received with cheers. It was this, that the question was
one not of religious liberty, but a queston of power. Let
them analyse this. ' What was, in this sense, religious
liberty ? • It would mean nothing more than religious to-
leration. Would any due here define religious liberty to
be religious toleration I That doatrine had been long et-
ploded. The doctrine of th'e present day .was, that the
opiniOhs of no man, unless they involved dangerous doc-
trines, ought to exclude him from civil office... A .bill
introduced by the learned lord on the woolsack, 'pro-
claimed by the preamble the principle that no man should
be excluded by-his creed from civil employment. The
bill was submitted to the law commission of the Crown,

which returned it with soine of its provisions altered,
but with the preamble unaltered. It.was well known
that' Christians were not allowed to hell chines in the
Turkish dominions. Ilia noble friend the ambassador
at Constantinople remonstrated with tile Turks, and
told them that their exclusion was not in conformity
with justice, and the Turkish Government yielded.
Their conduct had received the full approbation of Par-
liament. And were they net to act upon the same
principle themselves?' If they were to suffer their pre-
judices and intereets to interfere, they wool I be charged
with gross hypocrisy. (Hear.) No one pretended to
say that, in Hilt of talent, incormation, cr in other re-
spects, the gentlemen of the Jewish perisua,ion were not
equal to others. We had put them upon their trial.
They harl acted as magistrates, as members of muri-
cipal ceuncils, and the result bad been satisfactory.
But he had beard it. often argued, both there and in
the other house, horn could a Jew vote on questions
religion ? Of course they could not interfere in ques-
tions of doctrine. But he would give a more sate' factory
answer. Ile remembered when the same argument was
raised against the .admission of Roman Catholics to
office—it was more Ilausible in that case. He himself
had taken part in the discussion, and be remem-
bered the' impression this argument made on his own
mind. It was then said that the Roman Catholics were
nroselytia_rs—that they endeavoured to subvert our re-
ligion—that they were subject to a- foreign p itentate.
All these were weighty arguments, but they declared
that the great principles of reason and jasties should
triumph., They did triumph ; the bill passed ; and all
the fears turned out groundless. For the Jews, did they
wish to make converts ? Did they not respect our reli-
gion Were they subjects of a foreign sovereign 1 Ire all
these cases it was qii.te the reverse: It was twenty-five
)(rrs since a similar measure was introduced, in a
speech of great talent, by a learned friend of hi-, of
whom he might say, that there never was a more
sincere friend of oivil and religious liberty.
Since that time, in •successivo Parliaments, the
motion had been carried by increasing, majorities. He
found in those majorities men of high talent, great learn-
ing, great philosophers. On the last occasion—at the
dissolution—the subject was presented to the different
constituencies of the country, and in the metropolis a
member of the Jewish faith was returned by a majority
above that of -the noble lord who had fought their battle,
The noble lord would consider this a mark cf the strength
of its cause. On the recent division the majority nearly
doubled that of any former occasion. These things were
not to be lightly considered. The relative duties.of the
two houses were these—the one representing directly,
the other circuitously, the people; it was the duty of
that house to serve as a check against the rash, unwise,
and hasty decisions of the other house, and to give time
for consideration, but he had never considered that house
should be the continuous barrier against advancing legis-
lation tleat must lead to a conflict, and in tbat conflict
unless they were backed by a great majority of the peo-
ple they must once more succumb. lie had been for
more than 30 years a member of their lordship's house,
and had taken an active part in all the measures for the
ex:;ension of religious freedom, of some of which he bad
been the originator. He was, therefore, justified in the
course he was pursuing. Let them not lag behind the
other parties in 'the State, but assert their former poei-
tion, and stand forward, as they had ever done, the bul-
warks of civil and religious liberty.
The Earl WpTCHELSEA gave his most. cordial sup-
port to the amendment.
The Duke of SOMERSET said that all the alarms
which had been raised on questions affecting civil and
religious liberty had tended to the material prosperity of
the country. When the Catholics were emancipated,
there was an outcry of this nature, but subsequent events
had shown how.tallacious it was. He believed there
was as little apprehension with regard to the results of
the present bill, the objects of which had been before
Parliament for 25 years.
The Duke of NORFOLK said that, however the bill
might be framed, be considered that it embodied the
principle of the admission of Jews-into Parliament. Of
that principle he entirely approved, as one of justice and
expediency. It was in accordance with the establish-
ment of that principle that he owed the privilege he
possessed of now addressing their lordships. At the
same time there were many objections to the bill, which
he should seek to remove in committee.
Lord DUNGANNON said that if a measure of this
sort ever passed, he should suspect that the foundations
of the Christian faith would be destroyed.
Lord CAMOYS,as a Roman Catholic peer, gave his
cordial assent to the bill.
Lord DE VESCI thought that the measure could
never he productive of any political evil either to the
Church or community in general, and he' should there-
fore support it. He thought that the Christian character
of the Legislature must depend not upon any particular
form of oath, but upon the Christian profession of the
Sovereign, and the other two branches of the Legis-
lature„ The attempt to mako the legislative assem-
blies of this country Christian by any particular
form of oath, appeared to him to be quite a supeilluous
precaution. (Hear, hear.) He should feel bound to
vote for the second reading of the bill.
Lord St. VINCENT opposed the bill.
Lord DUFFFERIN supported it.
The Bi-hop of LONDON could not consent to give a
silent vote on this question. There was a strong feel-
ing that the religion of the legislature was involved in
this proposal to remove the disabilities of the Jews. For
many years past he had paid considerable attention to
the subject, but lee was not able to convinc4imself of
the force of any argument founded upon that opinion.
(Hear.) It had been said that the prayers at the com-
mencement of the legislative business could not be con-
tinued if the Jews were to be admitted into Parliament ;
but he had not heard that ?fly objections had ever been
made by Roman Catholic members to the use of these
prayers by those whom they considered to be heretics ;
and if that large body of persons did not object to
the use of such prayers, what ground was there for
supposing that it would be necessary to ab sndon
them of the appearance of one or two Jews in Parlia-
ment. He had seen no reason whatever to suppose that
this measure would lead to the michrietianisiog the Le-
gislature, but it was impossible to epntend that this coun-
try was now less religious than it was 25 years since,
when we commenced to remove the most grievous of the
disabilities from the members of the Jewish profession.
The simple ground on which he should give his vote in '
favour of the bill was that of justice, and believing that
the presence of Jews could not prevent their lordships
from expressing their opinion without restraint on Chris-
tian subjects, he looked upon their admission to one or
other of the branches of the Legislature as an act of jus-
tice. He should vote in favour of the second reading of
the hill.
The Archbishop of CANTERBURY regretted that he
felt compelled to c nue to an opinion directly opposite
to that at which his right rev. brother bad arrived with
respect to the admission of Jews into the Legislature.
There was no vote which he gave with greater reluctance
or pain than that which it had been his duty on several
occasions to record against the bill for enabling them to
take part in the legislation of the country. In coming
to this conclusion he was actuated by nothing like a
spirit ,of persecution, but was influenced only by &strong
conviction that a Christian country ought to be governed
by a Christian legislature. (Hear.) Entertaining this
conscientiois opinion, he should feel it his duty again to
reoersi his vote in oppesition to the further progress of
the measure. (Hear.)
The Eael of ALBERMARLE supported the bill, and
instanced the good effect which had resulted in America
from its tolerant policy respecting the Jews ; and, among
other things, he stated that half of the Jewish popula-
tion of Bavaria had left that country, and had thus en-
riched America, and beggared bigotted Bavaria. It
soul f be well for this country that it should not be found
in company with such a miserable and petty State as
Bavaria in our treatment of the Jews.' (Hear.)
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY- had al ways been op-
posed to the admission of Jews into Parliament, and
was still of the same opinion ; but could notgive hlsvote
against the second reading of a bill which proposed to
get rid of such absurd and almost blasphemous oaths as
those now required to be oaken by members of Parlia.
meet. Feeling, as he did, so strong an opinion on this
subject, he would, at all hazards and all risks, vote in
favour of the bill, for the purpose of effecting a change
in the absurd oaths now required by law to be taken,
reserving to himself the right of moving or supporting
such amendments in committee as he might think fit,
respecting the words which precluded the Jews from
holding a seat in Parliament.
Lord BROUGHAM contrasted the conduct of the
noble lord who had last spoken, in deciding to sup-
port the second reading of the bill, with that of the noble
lord who had moved the amendment, who, holding strong
opinions as to the absurdity and outrage on common
sense and decorum perpetrated by the misting oath,
had still thought fit to give a negative to the whole
bill, rather than seek to effect amendments of de-
tails in committee. What was complained of by those
who supported the bill was not that the Jews bad not the
right to take part in the Government of the country, but
that these persons, being eligible in other respects, were
declared upon religious grounds to be ineligible for the
offices which they would otherwise have a right to hold.
He entertained very strong opinions in favour of this
proposal, and he trusted that their lordships would sanc-
tion the second reading of the bill. It had been said
that if the bill were to pass it would un-Christianise the
Legislature. If their lordships were to reject this bill,
their position would no doubt be a most gracious one;
but what would become of their colleagues in legis-
lation—the House 'of Commons—if this theory were
true. They had by a very large majority un-Christianised
themselves., and they must be, he did not like to say,
the high road to perdition. 'God forbid that he shouldn
send anybody on such a course—(a laugh)—but her
lordships would still be in a most comfortable and their
state if they passed the bill. What
because, too,
of the great importance attached to the words,
Christia-
nity
true faith of a Christian," as a bulwark to the
of the country, when it was a fact that Roman Ca-
tholic peers and members of Parliament were not called
upon to state in their oaths that they were either Catho-
lic or Christian. (A laugh.) The omission of the words,
"on the true faith of a Christian," in the early history
of the oath, furnished strong evidence that there was no
intention to exclude the Jew, and this point the noble
earl who seconded the amendment had entirely omitted
to notice in one of the most judicious—(a laugh)—and
skilful speeches which he (Lord _prougham) had ever

heard in that house, and the effect of which he greatly
feared would be severely felt in the division en the bill.
But the Legislature of the country wag not more Chris-
tian than it was.bProtestant, but the Legislature had de-
citled on admitting Catholics to a share, and in the face
of this it was still contended that the constitution and
Legislature of the country were Protestant. (gear.) The
sacr ttnental test had been defended with as much ar-
dour as the present form of words, but before the last act
was repealed the custom of taking part in that most 1,0-
!emu of all the ceremonies of a Christian Church bad so
far degenerated that on one occasion an aged peer, when
appointed to an ffice in the king's household, was told
be must qualify for the office by taking the sacrament.
The nol.le peer went to a place of worship, and when
asked afterwards how he had got through the ceremony,
it was found that he had been present, not knowing the
differecc-., at the churching of a woman, and had not
recived the sacrament at all. (Laughter.) The reason
of the exc!usian of the Jews from the legislature had not
arisen from any demerits of their own, but simply from
the smallness of their numbers.

Tne Bishop of OXFORD said the noble and learned
lord had striven with his great powers as an advocate to
impress upon their lordehips that they were discussing
the oath of abjuration, and not the admission of the
Jews to the eleeture. (Hear, hear, hear.) Tne
noble and learneXTOrd endeavoured to put them on a
wrong scent He bad told them that the game was
in one directerm, when their lordships had seen it break
cover in another. (Cheers.) It had been suggested that
the omitted words might be put into this bill, but was
not that a transparent trap, because, if the bill were so
amended an sent back to the Commons, there the words
would be again struck out and the bill would be brought
back to the house at such a late period of the session
that it would pa.s without the proposed words. As to
elee question eef right with regard to the admission of
persons to the legislature, why did they exclude mem-
bers of their own church and the priests of the Roman.
Catholic Church ? The fact was that this was no sight,
it was a trust that was given to a man for the benefit of
the Stag, and tt ereforo upon that trust certain condi-
tions w,re properly imposed. If they admi,ted the Jew
to Parliament, how c ei:el they appeal t) a Christian
principle when that one man might say such a prin-
ciple cannot apply to me. It was once said that the
Legislature f this country was a Protestant Legisla-
ture. Could any one say that it was a Protestant Legis-
let are now ? No, they could not. Admit the Jew, and
they could not refuse to admit the Mormon, the Hindoo,
or the Mahomedan. They were now asked to.admit,
under an artifice; a pestilent imposture. A conscientious
Jew would administer honestly Christian laws ; but a
conscientious Jew would not honestly make Christian
laws ; and there was the great distinction which existed
between allowing the Jew to make the laws, and allow-
ing him to administer the.lews. It was impossible that
the Christian and the Jew could combine in honest
action. And therefore it was that he dared to face the
charge of intolerance, for be believed that they could
not, as a Christian people, allow those who denied Christ
to make their Christian laws. e
The Duke of ARGYLL denied that the Government
had raised a -false issue on the subject ; for they had
three. or four times introduced a bill going directly to
allow the Jews to be admitted to Parliament. In that
they had been unsuccessful, and therefore they were fully
justified in endeavouring to accomplish that object under
another form. The Government did not deny that
one of the main objects of the bill was the admission of
the Jews, and they had endeavoured to meet that ob-
ject in the best way consistent with the consciences of
all. It was quite impossible ever to get an amendment
of the oath if the words " On the true faith of a Chris-
tian," were retained. Thee House of Commons would
never sanction such an amendment. The accusation of
the nob'e earl opposite (Lord Derby), that the noble
lord at the head of the Government was playing fast and
loose with this matter, came with a wry bad grace from
the noble earl, who had played fast and loose with a
vital principle—not upon an Act of Parliament involv-
iog no principle, but a vital principle—when he was at-
tempting to form a Cabinet. The right rev. prelate who
had just sat down had talked about admitting the Mor-
mons. Why, according to the oath as it now stood
Brigham Young could enter Parliament without the
slightest obstruction.
The Earl of GALLOWAY said he considered the
bill amounted to a total abjuration of the principles of
Christianity, and it was nothing to tell him
that Unitarians and others obtained admission to Parlia-
ment, because they did it on their own respsnsibility.

The house then div ided—
Conteuts—Present...
Proxies...

Non-Contents—Present .:..
Proxies .

• 91
. 48
-139
. 109
64
-173
34

Majority against the bill

POLICE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
The house adjourned at a quarter to twelve.

HOUSE OF ,COMMONS.—(YEsTERDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 4 o'clock.
FRANKLIN EXPEDITION.

Mr. HORSFALL moved for an address for copies of
memorials and addresses relating to the Franklin Expe-
dition which have been recently transmitted to the Go-
vernment, or to the First Lord of the Treasury, from
the merchants of New York, the Royal Irish Academy,
the Royal Dublin Society, and other public bodies.—
Agreed to.
IRISH MILITIA REGIMENTS.

Lord C. HAMILTON asked the Under Secretary
for War if he could state to the house whether it was
intended to call out the Irish militia regiments for train-
ing during the en,uing autumn!
Sir J, Itc\.MSDEN said it was not the intention of
the Government to call out any regiment of the Irish
militia this year. The rule it was intended to follow was
not to call out any of the regiments embodied during the
late war.