The Sun.
London, England, 1857-05-15 00:00:00

OATHS.

The house went into committee on oaths, when
Lord PALAIERSTON moved that the Chairman be
directed to move the house, that leave be given to bring
in a bill to substitute one oath for the oaths of allegi-
ance, supremacy, and abjuration. His lordship first
apologised to the noble lord (Russell) for taking
this subject out of his hands, and said that
his excuse for so doing was that the
carrying of such a measure would be facilitated by the
Government taking it in hand. This was a most fa-
vourable time for callingattention to this subject, because,
the house having been re-constituted, every member must
have fresh in his mind the terms of the oath which
they must feel contained many things it was better to
omit. A man by it pledged his future well-being for
the discharge of certain duties in this house, and
the more solemn the act the greater the respon-
sibility, and the more necessity was there for their
being adhered to. There were things in the oaths
now inapplicable to the days in which we live, and the
persons by whom they were taken, and were revol ing
to the feeling. (Hear, hear.) He intended no change
in the Roman Catholic oaths, but only in those taken
by persons of other denominations. The bill ho proposed
was of a twofold object. It would relieve the
Christian from the - necessity of taking oaths repug-
nant to his reason and feelings, but by so doing he
proposed to put au end to the only now remaining rem-
nant of former prejudice and exclusion and thereby ad•
wit Jews to Parliament. He proposed to abolish, in ad
cases in which by law is was required, the oath of
allegiance as it now stands, and the oath of supre-
macy and abjuration, and to substitute for
the three, one single oath—(hear)—that shail contain
certain portions of these oaths, and leave out what
was unfitting, such as abjuring the Roman Catholic re-
ligisn, for which now there was no ground on which
they could be called one to take it, and abjuring
what no Protestant nor any Roman Catholic of the
present day believed. He proposed to sweep away
that relative to the descendants of James the Second, as if
he died only three years ago —(laughter)— as
well as the latter part of the oats, relative to taking
the oath without. equivocation, &c., and on the true faith
of a Christian. He saw no reason why the Jews should
be excluded from that house, being men of great wealth,
and having a great stake in the country, which must of
necessity give them an interest in the Government.
Of late years civil and religio.us liberty bad been carried
to a great extent, this being almost the last ceremony
that 'remained of bygone days. He denied that the
country would suffer in a Christian spirit from the
admission of the Jews, for whilst he had heard
of many Jews turning Christian., he had never known
of Christians turning Jews. (Laughter.) By admitting
the Jews to Parliament, they would be putting a finish-
ing stroke to religious toleration, and he hoped the house
would ultimately carry this bill by a large majority.
Sir. F. THESIGER did not intend to oppose the
introduction 'of the bill, but he should in the next
stage give it is decided opposition, as the object
of it was to admit Jews into Parliament
As this was a Government subject ho was
in hopes the G ,vernment would have acted with con-
sistency, and made this a portion of the great Parlia-
mentary Reform Bill of next session, and in accordance
with which promise many hon. gentlemen had declined
to proceed with motions relative to reform this
session. He was at a loss to know why the Jews were
to be made an exception, unless some urgent demands
had been made on the noble lord. (Laughter) He
reviewed the course that had been adopted for the past
10 years with referenee to the admission of Jews into
Parliament.