The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-16 00:00:00

EVENING, AIA Y 16, 1857

bers of this house are men eminently distinguished for
the intellectual qualifications which would fit them for a
seat in the Legislature of this country. Is itobjected that
the Jews have no property and no stake in the country,
aed that they are, therefore, persons who would be ut-
terly heedless of the nature of those laws to which Par-
liament may assent ? \Ve all know, happily for them-
selves, that the very reverse is the rise. (A laugh.)
Many of them are men of great wealth—men who have
a large stake in the country—and who have, therefore
no motive to assent to any legislation which will not
conduce to the welfare and prosperity of the empire.
(Hear, hear.) Why, sir, I must confess that since I
have been in the office I have the honour to hold,
circumstances have occurred which have caused me to
feel considerably ashamed of the present state of the
law on this subject. When the country was in need
of large sums of money in order to carry on the public
service with efficiency some great capitalists came for-
Ward--as my rght hon. friend the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer can tell you—and upon terms not less honotirehle
to themselves than advantageous to the public, provided
those means which we required. While making the ne-
cessary arrangements, however, we could not but feel
that the very men who had been instrumental in render-
ing such important service to the country were precluded
by an arbitrary and unjust law from occupying seats in
this house. (Hear.) Of late years the principles of civil
and religious liberty have made great progress. We have
swept away those unjust enactments which placed the
Protestant dissenters in a position of inferiority as com-
pared with the rest of their fellow-countrymen. We have
also swept away those ut just enactments which excluded
our Catholic fellow-countrymen from taking part in the
deliberations of tbis house. The exclusion of the Jews is
the last remnant of prejudice and intolerance with which
we have to deal. What is it that you fear from admitting
Jews to Parliament ? Are you atraid that the admission
of a few Jews will shake the Christian religion ? Why,
sir, I have heard of many Jews becoming Chlistiane,
bat it never fell to my lot to bear of a Christian who be-
came a Jew. (Hear, and a laugh.) The progress of
mankind is governed by laws which admit of no retro-
gression. Thu Old Testament prepared the way for the
New Testament, but the New Testament will never lead
us back to the Old. Of what then are we afraid ? We
cannot for a moment suppose that the introduction into
the house of a few persons professing the Jewish religion
will at all affect the Christian character of the country.
I am convinced that such members, from their know-
ledge and intelligence, would render us material assist-
ance in our deliberations ; their position as men of consi-
derable property would be a guarantee for their interest
in the welfare of the country ; and by admitting them
to Parliament we should carry out that system of liberal
legislation for the establishment of religious liberty
which has of late years made so mime progress. I
trust, therefore, that the house will give its most
sorious attentiouto this subject. Many members of the
house are unfettered by pledges, and are free to act upon
their own judgment. Ido trust that this measure will
be carried by a large majority of the house ; and then, if
the opinion of the house should be stamped upon the bill,
in approbation of the principle it contains, I cannot but
indulge the sanguine expectation that those obstacles
which elsewhere have hitherto impeded the realisation of
the ardent wishes of my noble friend the member for the
city of London may give way to an irnpuhe proceeding
from a new Howe of Commons, and that at last we may
have the satisfaction of giving the finishing stroke to that
which his been too long delayed, but which I hope will
now be conceded. (Great cheering.) The noble lord
concluded by moving to bring in a bill to substitute one
oath for the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjura-
tion.

Sir F. THESIGER—It is not my intention to oppose
the introduction of the bill proposed by the noble lord ;
but, inasmuch as its avowed object is the admission of
Jews to Parliament, and as my sentiments upon that im-
portant subject have undergone no change, I shall feel
it to be my duty in its next stage to offer to the bill my
sincere and earnest opposition. (Cheers.) The noble
viscount at the head of the Government has made a
graceful apelogy to the noble lord the member for the
city of London for taking this question out of his hands;
and I wish, as this has now become a Government mea-
sure, that for the sake of consistency the noble viscount
had adopted the same course with respect to the present
bill which he has pursued with regard to all other mea-
sures relating to Parliamentary reform, (Hear.) The
other evening the hon. member for East Surrey proposed
a bill for the abolition of the property qualification of
members. The noble viscount permitted that bill to be
introduced upoa the understanding that it should be
carried no further, and waived all discussion upon the
subject, because, he said, by common consent all ques-
tions relating to Parliamentary reform were to be post-
poned until the next session. (Cheers.) That was a bill
for the abolition of the property qualification. The pre-
sent is a measure for the alteration of the oaths qua-
lification—(hear)—and if the one is connected with Par-
liaraentsry reform, so also, I think, must be the other.
(Cheers.) Why, therefore, it there is a common under-
standing that we are to have no discussion upon the
subject of Parliamentary reform, the present bill sleoull
not share the fortunes of all the other measures and
be postponed until the next session I am at a loss to
imagine. For what reason are the Jews to be so pecu-
liarly favoured I Are their demands so urgent upon the
noble viscount that he cannot resist them ? (Laughter.)
I cannot help thinking that the noble viscount has been
forced by some pressure into his prominent position upon
this occasion. Before the elections took place a deputa-
tion from the city of London waited upon the noble vis-
count and requested him to introduce a measure for the
admission of the Jews, and to make it a Government
question. The noble viscount was unwilling to give any
pledge upon the subject, and I have reason to believe I
that his reluctance and hesitation were not unservice-
able to the noble lord the member for the city in the
manly and successful appeal which he made to that
constituency. (" Hear," and a laugh.) The noble vis-
count, however, is IDW committed to this measure. If
he looks back he sees no possibility of retreat. I know
well the resolution end perseverance of the noble vis
count when he has made up his mind, and therefore I
have undertaken in attempting to oppose a measure
which is brought forvard under the auspices and which
is to be supported by all the weight and authority of the
noble viscount. Tire noble viscount has had a consider-
able advantage in the experience of the last 10 years in
framing his measure in such a shape as he thinks will be
most likely to secure its ready acceptance. I have taken
a rather prominent part in the st ruggle upon this question,
and I think it will be neither uninstructive nor uninte-
resting if I should glance at the different measures which
from time to time have been introduced, enabling the
house to see how at the beginning the advocates for the
Jew were ready to admit the Christian character of
this asserrib'y, and how at last they have advanced
to demands which have a tendency utterly to supplant
and destroy it. (Cheers.) It is not known to those
who have not paid attention to the subject under how
many disabilities the Jews laboured as late as the year
1830, when Mr. R. Grant introduced his bill for their
emancipation. They extended to their exclusion from
civil and military offices, from corporation posts, and
from a wide circle of civil employments. No one, I hope,
will believe that I have the least desire to revert to such
a state of things, but I have always considered that the
condition of the Jews at that time furnishes one of the
strongest answers which could be given to the suggestion
we hear made from time to time that Jews are prevented
from sitting here by the accidental insertion of certain
words in an Act of Parliament passed -for a different
object. (Hear, hear.) The disabilities to which I have
referred were gradually removed between the years 1830
and 1847 ; and the first attempt which was made after
that long period to introduce the Jews to Parliament
came from the noble lord the member for the city of
London, immediately after his return for that consti-
tuency with Baron Rothschild. I know that the noble
lord is unwilling to have it supposed that his exertions
upon this subject, which have been consistent and
etraightforwrerd, had any connexion whatever with his
return with Baron Rothschild ; but the fact is that, al-
though the noble lord was in high office during the greater
part of the period between 1830 and 1847,it never appears
to have occurred to him that the fitting time had arrived
for proposing this measure until the coincidence took place
of his return with—l may not say by—Baron Rothschild.
(Cheers and laughter.) Let us now see what was the mea-
sure which the noble lord first thought it right, after a
mature deliberation of 17 years, to introduce to this
house, It was etnpbatically, if I may use the expression,
a Jew BM. It was a bill to provide a particular form of
oath for persons belonging to the Jewish persuasion, and
the noble lord at that time thought it so inconsistent that
Jews should hold certain high offices in the State, that
he introduced provisions to prevent a member of the
Jewish persuasion from holding the office of Lord Chan-
cellor, the office of Lord Lieutenant, and some offices in
the Ecclesiastical Courts, and also from presenting es
officio to any livings. That bill passed this house, but was
rejected by the House of Lords. In 1849, We noble lord
brought forward another bill of a rather different descrip-
tion. It provided a new form of oath for all the Christian
members of this assembly. The oaths of allegiance, su-
premacy, and abjuration were repealed, and this common
form of oath was to be substituted, contain ing the words
Upon the true faith of a Christian," 'and I remem-
ber wed that my right hon. friend the member for Ox-
ford University expressed his gratification at finding
that the noble lord had preserved these emphatic words
as part of the oath to be taken by the Ch ristian members
of tbis house. (Hear.) It was provide d that a Jew, in
taking the oath of abjuration, should o mit these words.
There was no exception with respect to particular offices
in that bill, because it was wholly unnecessary, inasmuch
as the common oath was to be taken ou.ly as a qualifica-
tion for sitting in Parliament, and of course all those
high offices to which the former bill tederred could not
be held without the holders taking the old oath, includ-
ing the oath of abjuration, with the words—_" Upon the
true faith of a Christian." That bill also pressed this
house, but was rejected by the House of Lords. In 1850
the noble lord made a very considerable step in advance.
He introduced a bill which provided that in all cases
persons of the Jewish persuasion were required to take
the oath Of abjuration, they should ()wait the words—
" Upon the true faith of a Christian." Mere was no ex-
ception, as in the first bill of 1847, of t ,hose offices to
which I have referred ; and the consequi one was that,
supposing that measure had received the sanction of the
Legislature, it would have been compe cent to Jews to
bold tire highest offices in the State. (U *an) The noble
lore), however, was compelled in the 'month of July to
drop that bill, and then some very 'unjust suspicions
having, it seems, entered into the to inds of the ad-
vocates of the Jews, they determin ed to take the
matter into their own hands, and a very extraordinary
recite appeared in this house. Baron Rothschild ap-
peared in the home, and claimed to take the oaths on
the. Old Testament. Tier house came to the absurd deci-
sion thae. he might do so, though the oaths embrace the
words " on the true faith of a Chtistii tin ;" and the prac•

tical absurdity of the decision the house came to was I
soon apparent, for when the baron came to the words
"on the true faith of a Christian," he ouliAed them,
observing "They are not binding on my conscience."
The not.le (Lord J. Russell) felt that those words were a
part of the oath, and refused to be a party to any indi
lect attempt to get rid of them ; and, therefore, pro-
posed and carried a resolution that Baron Rothschild
should not sit arid vote in the house until he had taken
the oaths as required by law. In 1851 the noble lord.
brought in a bill similar to that of the previous year,
leaving it open to the Jews to obtain any of the high
offices referred to. That bill was rejected ih the House
of Lords, and then Alderman Salomons —lately returned
for Greeuwich—claimed, under a resolution of the house,
a i ight to take the oaths on the Old Testament. Ho went
through the oaths, omitting the words " on the true
faith of a Christian," kissed the book and then at once
took his seat. He was directed to withdraw, but re-
fused to obey the Speaker's mandate. A resolution
was passed that be should withdraw, and immediately
he reappeared and resumed his seat. Again the re-
solutioo was passed that be withdraw, aid again he
refused to obey, until he was removed by the Ser-
geanteat-Arms. In the course of the discussion
Alderman Solotnons asked the noble lord (Lord John
Russell) if he would prosecute him for the penalties in-
curred in taking his seat. The noble lord replied that
be shou4.l not, but that the alderman woull have no
difficulty in finding a friend to do so—(a laugh)—which
he did ; but any idea of mating it a mock trial was
thwarted by the honour of the plaintiff's counsel ; and
the result was that it was settled by the judgment of the
Court of Exchequer Chamber that the words "on the
true faith of a Christian" are an essential part of the
oath. (Hear.) In 1852 the noble lord advanced another
step, or rather stride. He introduced a Reform Bill,
which he was compelled to abandon in the course of the
session, and in that bill he inserted one oath to be taken
by all members. In 1853 he introduced his bill with that
form of oath which had been contained in his abortive
Reform Bill ; and from the circumstance that it was to
be taken by all members of the house—Protestant and
Rsman Catholic—it nece=sarily involved in it a partial
recognition of the Royal supremacy. That did not strike
the house, and the bill was passed, but was rejected by
the Lords. In 1854, however, when a second bill was
introduced, attention was directed to this point, and the
bill was rejected. Whether disheartened by this defeat,
I know not, but the noble lord made no attempt in 1855
to bring in his bill, and a measure introduced into the
House of Lords by Lord Lyndhurst failed. Again the
advocates of the Jews became distrustful of the noble
lord opposite, and chose to take the matter in their own
hands ; and in 1856 Mr. Milner Gibson introduced a bill
which certainly would have made "clean work" of the
question, by abolishing the oath of abjuration altogether.
There are parts of that oath which are rather precious to
Protestant minds. (Hear.) It contains the only recog-
nition of the Act of Settlement. (Hear.) The noble lord
himself shared that feeling, and found himself in a most
peculiar position—he was unable to take a leading part
in advocating the admission of Jews into the house,
I and was obliged to defend the constitution from the at-
tack made upon it by the attempt to introduce them
through the abolition of the oath of abjuration ; and in
committee on the bill he introduced words equivalent to
that oath. It is rather hard upon the noble lord that
again the question is wrested out of his hands by the
noble lord at the head of the government. The noble lord
has explained the form of the oath he intends to propose.
I am not aware of the reluctance of members to take the
present oath of which he spoke. There certainly are
words in it which I object to, because they are obsolete.
But what the noble lord ought to do, as a fair way of
dealing with that question, would be to remove from the
oath of abjuration that obsolete portion of it, and then
leave this question as to the admission of the Jews to be
dealt with as a separate question upon its own grounds,
as in 1847. The noble lord did not desire that on this
occasion we should enter into the argument. But be
might have spared us his reproaches about "prejudice"
and "intolerance." (Hear.) The noble lord has his
prejudices. We have ours ; but that is not intolerance.
(Hear.) There are those who feel deeply on the subject,
and who have no notion that in upholding the exclusion
of the Jews from this house they are guilty of any ill-
tolerance. (Hear, hear.) The noble lord said that it
was a question of " civiland religious liberty." It is not
a question of liberty at all. Those words have a stimu-
lating effect, and create emotions which very frequently
pass for arguments. It is not a question of liberty—that
is of freedom from restraint ; it is a question of political
power. The question is whether persons who do not
profess Christianity are to possess a portion of that su-
preme power which now belongs to a Christian legisla-
ture. Sir, I join with the noble lord in entreating that
hon. members will give their serious attention to the
subject. Tney will find from the observations I have
given that, eager as they may be for the admission of the
Jews, it is necessary to be cautious that in accomplishing
that object they do not trench on ear honoured institu-
, tions. (Hear, hear.)

Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, after what has been said by
my noble friend at the head of the Government, and by
the hon. and learned gentleman. opposite, it is natural
that I should wish to say a 'ew words. I assure my noble
friend that so far from finding fault with him for taking
this subject into immediate consideration and bringing it
under the view of Parliament, I agree with these who
advised him to do so, because the question will stand the
best chance if it has the weight and the influence of
Gove.rnment in its favour ; and so far from wishing to
introduce it myself, ac it has a better chance in the hands
of the Government, and I am only anxious that it shonld
stand the best chance of success, I cannot envy him the
honour of bringing it forward. The hon. and learned
member (Sir F. Thesiger) has given a history of the
various measures which have been brought forward on
the subject—a history which may be useful, as there are
so many new members in the house, and of which I will
only say that I hope he will soon be in a position to
complete it, and to say "that in 1857 a new attempt
was made by the noble lord then at the head of the Go-
vernment—(a laugh) —and be carried with him a great
majority in the House o, Commons, the weight of which,
with the influence of Government, was so successful that
the House of Lords then conceded the measure, and an
act passed for the admission of the Jews into Parlia-
ment." The hon. and learned member alluded to the
connection of my advocacy of the question with my re-
turn for the City. But I first obtained the seat in 1.811,
when Baron Rothschild was not a candidate, and secured
it in 1557 when be wits a candidate with others, and
where, I am 'nappy to avow, that I received the support
of many who hold the political views of the hon. and
learned gentleman. (Hear.) The bon. and learned mem-
ber detailed the various measures which were brought
forward ; the explanation of which is that we were will-
ing
to concede as much as possible if the main object was
secured, and in order to smooth the obstacles which
might be raised in the other house. But Ido not con-
cede the necessity of always proposing such a measure
in the same shape and I consider that my noble friend at
the head of the Government has done well to frame a
measure in that shape, which is an improvement on
many of the bills formerly introduced. I remember when
on a question, of which the hon. member might have
given a similar history—that of Roman Catholic eman-
cipation—Mr. Canning was reproached with not having
alt the same "securities" which he bad proposed in for-
mer similar measures, he replied, " I decline to be se-
curity-monger all my life. (A. laugh.) I have proposed
securities which you have rejected, and which I do not
again propose." So I say as to this Jewish question,
though it may have been right, with a view to obviate
objections, to refuse the admission of Jews to certain
offices, those plop )sals having been rejected, it is right
to put the measure in the shape in which it may be most
reasonable. (Hear.) The learned gentleman proposes
on some future occasion, when doubtless we shall have
a keen contest, to state his objections to the measure.
The learned member says he is one of those who have a
deep and conscientious feeling on the subject. Sir, I ad
wit that there are those who nave such a feeling ; and I
say that it is a mere feeling, and not an objection founded
on reason or argument. I have heard many persons ex-
press their repugnance to the measure, but I never heard
any one state good and solid reasons for thinking that
there would be any danger in it—or, in fact, any real and
valid objection to it at all. The learned gentleman said it
was not a question of civil and religious liberty. I con-
ceive that it is so. But the learned gentleman, not being
himself under the ban of any exclusion himself, can speak
at his ease on the subject. (Hear, and a laugh.) If, how-
ever, any measure were to be proposed for excluding all
members of the bar from this house—(laughter)—a
measure in favour of which many plausible reasons
might be given—(laughter)—as, for example, that a
great deal of time might be saved (hear, and laughter)
—we should not have the hon. and learned gentleman
say that such a measure was no infringement upon
liberty (hear, hear, and laugbte.). We should hear his
voice very loudly raised against it, and he would con-
tend that it was impossible that a legislature could
respect civil and religious liberty who excluded a most
respectable class of persons (laughter) from the privi-
leges enjoyed by other classes of citizens (hear, hear,
and laughter). Let the hon. and learned member put
himself in the position of the Jews, and fancy what his
feelings would be if he were told that in this free country,
although he might be Lord Mayor of London, he could
not sit in Parliament, nor enjoy that, the common right
of Englishmen (hear, hear). lam sure that his feeling
would be most strongly that such a state of things was
inconsistent with liberty (bear, hear) ; and I can only
say that when this measure comes on to he debated I
shall be found in my place giving it my hearty support
(cheers).
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that.tbe indifference shown
by the noble lord to the religious feelings of a large
bodyof his fellow-countrymen was so great as to amount
to a gross prejudice. Hp would not enter into the
argument of this question, but begged the house to
bear in mind that the experience of the last ten years
had shown that, notwithstanding the repeated attempts
which the Jews had made to force their way into that
as:semlly —notwithstanding their lavish expenditure of
money and their pandering to the popular tastes—they
bad not been able to excite among the Christian people
of this country anystroog feelingin favour of theiradmis-
sion. He trusted that the memb,,rs who had come to that
house for the first time would, before they gavetheir vote,
reflect that this measure was by the large majority
of the peorlo regarded as a direct attack upon the
Christian character of the Legislature, and that bet
Majesty would never be called upon to sanction an)
measure which was directed against the religion of which
she was a sworn defender. To adopt this measure would )
be to decide that the laws should be enforced by ne
sanction of religion, and that they would govern the
country by the rule of might. He warned them that if
they foil° wed such a course they must expect it to re-
sult in evils similar to those which had been -caused by
its adoption in other countries. (Hear, bear.)
Mr. LOCKE KING assured the hon. and learned