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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF LORDS.-(YESTERDAY.)

The Lono CII4NCELLOB took his seat on the woolsack
at. five o'clock.

Lord LEIGH presented a petition from Birmingbam
in ft4our of the Oaths Bill.

Lord WINCHELSEA presented petitions against
the bill.

The 'Marquis of. Lansdowne, Earl Granviil-, Earl
Fortescue, Earl of Albemarle, and L')rd Brougham pre
seated petitions in favour of the removal of Jewish Disa-
bilities.

- OATHS BILL. ,
Earl GRANVILLE, before moving the second read-
ing of this bill, moved that the oaths of abjuration now
taken by their lordships-should be read by the clerk of
the house. -

Mr. EDMONDS, the Clerk of the House, then read the
oath of abjuration. , •_.
- -

Ear, G-RANVILLE thee moved the second read-
ing of the bill, tied Paid it devolved upon him to dis-
charge a duty which be felt was one of great difficulty.
Ile was afraid he should be accused of presump-
tion in re-introducing a subject on which an
.opi-
rico had been so recently pronounced. The 4ject of the
bill was to amend-the meths now required to beefairen-ea-
oaths which all their lordships had taken, :arid which had
just been read by the clerk—oaths which he believed to
be incongruous and anomalous. It was proposed by, the
present measure to simplify and amend those oaths.
He believed it was impossible to avoid coming to any
other conclusion than that their lordships at present
took an unnecessary oath, and thereby com-
mitted a most serious offence by taking the
name of God in vain. The oath which it was proposed
to abolish was that in 'which they swore to protect the
Crown from a family which all knew no longer teested.
(Hear.) That was a vain oath, and therefore ought not
to be taken. There was no doubt a collateral advantage
to be obtained by the proposed measure, namely, the
admission of- Jews to Parliament, which they had
hitherto been deprived of owing to their con-
Fele :Vous scruples. He did not think it fair or
just that they should apply the accidental addition of
certain words to the oath to the purpose of excluding
the Jews from Parliament. He bad no hesitation in
characterising such a proceeding to be a system of per-
secution which was intolerable, as it was set against
a section of the population which was distinguished for
their loyalty to the Sovereign, for their conscien-
tious adherence to their religieus opinions, and
for all the qualifications which constituted good citi-
zens. He called upon their lordships to sanction
this measure on the ground of toleration, on the ground
of right, because he believed it contrary to :the Constitu-
tion to exclude persons from the exercise of their civil
rights on account of their religious opinions. He was
utterly at a loss to understand why the admission
of a few Jews to Parliament, sent there by purely Chris-
tian constituencies, could in the slightest degree uncnris
tianise the Legislature—(hear, bear)—and he there-
fore trusted that their lordships would not
allow themselves to be led away by that specious
cry. So far from the admission of the Jews unchris-
tianising the Legislature, he was quite of the contrary
opinion ; he thought it would largely strengthen both
its principles and character, by displaying the utmost
toleration towards our Jewish brethren. The noble lord
then proceeded to answer the objections that bad been
raised against the principle involved in the bill, and
warned their lordships against being moved by a spirit of
independence of the other house in voting against this
bill. He then referred to the distinguished support
which the measure obtained, and said he firmly believed
that the people of England were in favour of the bill.
If the bill went into committee he would state the rea-
sons why he thought it desirable to retain the form of
oath now proposed, and the question could then be dis-
cussed, and any proposal made by noble lords as to
further alteration of the oath, would receive the atten-
tion of their lordships. It had been stated that their
lordships would seize with avidity any attempt to
show their independence of the other house, and were
able to do this with impunity, because the great ma-
jority of the House of Commons were not supported
by the passionate appeals of the public out of doors.
He did not think such a feeling would have any influ-
ence with their lordships. There were occasions when
the House of Peers might interpose between the Com
mons and the people by giving time for calm consider-
ation, which the delay of measures might give an op.
portunity for. In the case of this bill, the cool and
deliberate judgment of the people of England was in
favour of the measure, and, in support of that opinion,
be referred to the great majority of members of the
House of Cornmens recently returned to Parliament,
who had voted in favour of the bill, and which included
two of the most able friends of the noble lord (Lord
Derby), who formerly held office in his Government.
He concluded by urging upon their lordships to give
a second reading to this bill as an act of simple jus-
tice.
The Earl of DERBY said there-were two totally diffe-
rent subjects before their lordehipe. The one as to the
expediency of admitting members of :the Jewish nation
into this Christian Legislature; and the other, the alte-
ration of the oaths which were taken by members of the
Legislature. The noble earl who had just spoken alluded
to the first as being a merely collateral advantage, but
he (the Earl of Derby) ventured to say that was not the
principle upon which the Governmett had considered
this bill. (Hear.) They had, no doubt, considered it a
primary advantage. He would not follow the noble earl
at length into his arguments with regard to the position
of the Jews. There could be no doubt that, scattered as
they were over the whole world by Divine decree, they
hoped, at some future day, to recover their nationality.
They were a nation within another nation, and in
this' country they were entrusted with the adminis-
tration of the laws,• but they were refused in
this country to be makers of the laws. Though
amongst us, they were not of us. They had interests,
their greatest principles were altogether alien to us.
They were aliens in blood, in religion, and in language,
as had once been said with regard to another class. The
arguments upon this subject had been urged over and
over again, and most of their lordships were of a mature
age and must have come to a conclusion upon this iub•
ject. The whole case lay in a nutshell. There was one
argument which he was surprised had been again that
night introduced—that the denial of certain rights was
a remnant of persecution. The noble earl bad omitted
to state what were meant by rights. The Jew had no
right to claim as a right the power to legislate.
That was a privilege and net a right, and had always
been surrounded by conditions. As to the argument
about the words "on the true faith of a Christian"
not having been intended to apply to the Jews only
when these words were first adopted, the Jews were
not allowed to be in the country at all. They
had been banished for 250 years before. At that time
the Jews were petitioning to be allowed to come into the
country, and ;,therefore it was futile to argue that the
words were not intended to exclude persons from Par-
liament who were not allowed to come into the country.
Why, there was overwhelming evidence that the mind
and the intention of the legislature was, that no Jew
should be allowed to sit in Parlia -sent. For many years
afterwards they were treated as aliens, and up to a very
recent period it was necessary for a person to sit in
Parliament that he should bold a landed qualification,
and up to 1846 it was, doubtful whether a Jew could
hold land at all. Was it wonderful, then, that no
specific clause could be found excluding the Jew,
when by the common law the Jew was excluded
from all these privileges. Why, io 1828, when the Test
and Corporation Acts were passed, the wcrds "on the
true faith of a Christian" were retained avowedly for the
purpose of excluding Jews, and yet we were to be told
that those words, as far as a seat in Parliament
was concerned, were merely an accident. But if it
was pers cution to say that a man should not sit in Par-
liament, surely it was persecution to say he should not
be Lord Chancellor. If the Jew was entitled to all the
rights and privileges of citizens, why should he be ex-
eluded from the highest offices ? There were other offices
from which he ought to be excluded which were not
named in the bill. He (Lord Derby) would not feel com-
fortable in seeing a Jew as Chancellor of the Exchequer
(laughter)—aud yet, under this bill, a Jew might be-
come a Chancellor of the Exchequer. He might become
First Lord of the Treasury, and by this bill he would be
debarred from giving advice to the Crown on the sub-
jeat of Church preferments. In this case, now, if a Jew
became Prime Minister, who was to advise the Crown
on these•subjects ? Ile would like to know the real
history. of the clause containing these exclusions.
When the bill was in the Hen-e of Commons, it was
euggested that these clauees should be introduced,
when the noble level at the head of the Government,
in his off-hand way, said that this was not a bill of pains
and penalties, and the Government would oppose such a
suggestion, and yet within a week he came down and said
that Government, on reconsideration, intended to intro-
duce
the clauses, Now, that was playing fast and loose
with a great question. His noble friend bad asked him
what he meant by the term unchristianise the Legislature.
Now, he did not know that he had used that expression;
but be theuslat it was clear what was meant. A strong
instance of what was meant occurred some years ago.
An appeal was made to the country on behalf of a cha-
rity,the appeal was addressed to the Christian sym-
. atb and
yof the country. A. well-known Jewish gentleman,
well knowufor his charity, objected to the word Chrietiau