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

MAYO ELECTION.

Col. FRENCH gave notice that on Thursday nex% he
would move the issue of a new writ for the county of
Mayo.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-TESTAMENTARY
JURISDICTION BILL.

Lord PALMERSTON said it might be convenient to
the house to know that he proposed to take supply on
Thursday evening. The committee on the Testamentary
Jurisdiction Bill, which stood for that evening, would be
postponed to that day week.
Mr. CAIRD said that as he did not wish to stand in
the way cf the house, he would postpone the notice which
stood iu his name until after that of the noble lord the
member for London—(hear, hear) —provided other hon.
members did the same, and would allow him to come
after the noble lord.

Mr. MACKINNON postponed his motion until the
11th of August. (A laugh.)
Mr. STAPLETON and Mr. GREEK also gave way.
OATHS VALIDITY ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

Lord J. RUSSELL then rose to bring forward his
bill, but was interrupted by
Mr. NEWDEGATE, who said be wished to pot a
question to the Speaker before the noble lord proceeded.
On every previous occasion when a bill had been intro-
duced for the purpose of altering the oaths to be taken
by members, a resolution on which to found the bill had
first been proposed and agreed to in a committee of the
whole house. It was true the present bill of the noble
lard was nominally only a bill to amend the Act 1 and 2
Vic., c. 105, but it was, in point of fact, a bill to alter
the oaths to be taken, and for the earns object and pur-
pose as the 7 or 8 other bills that hal been introduced in
as many previous sessions. He had never known any
one instance in which the ordinary practice of the house
had been departed from, and he begged to ask the
Speaker whether, as the bill of the noble lord had the
same object as these other bills, he ought not, in com-
pliance with the standing order which required all bills
relating to matters of religion to be moved in a commit-
tee of the whole house, to follow the same course as had
been adopted on previous occasions with bilis for the
same purpose and object ? The act which the noble lort
now proposed to amend had been introduced into the
other house by Lord Denman in 1838. He (Hr. Newde-
gate) had not been able to ascertain whether there was a
similar standing order in the House of Lords, but he found
that on bringing up the report of the bill several clauses
were struck out which would have accomplished the ob-
ject the noble lord had now in view.
The SPEAKER was about to reply, when
Lord J. RUSSELL said, before you answer the ques-
tion, sir, I beg to explain to the hon. gentleman and to
the house that I do not propose to make any alteration
in the oaths. Whenever I have done so I have always
done it in a committee of the whole house, in compliance
with the standing order. The proposal which I have to
make tc-night does not alter in any way the oath to be
taken ; it only affects the manner in which these oaths
may be taken ; it rather resembles the bill with regard
to the oath to be taken by Qaakers, which did not alter
the oaths, but the mode of taking them. _

The SPEAKER said—Looking at the notice of the
noble lord, and considering his proposal, as far as I am
able to understand it, and the form in which it stands
upon the order book, it does not appear to me to be
irregular for the noble lord to introduce this as an
amending bill in the manner in which he proposes.
Lord J. RUSSELL Hereupon rose and said—Sir, I
now propase to go on with my motion. I would proposo
to bring in a declaratory bill, declaratory of what I con-
ceive to be the existing, law, declaratory of what I be-
lieve to be the general principle of the law of this coon-
try, and denniug the law as it should be administered

in the high court of Parliament as well as at other places

It was stated the other night, and no doubt it will be
stated again, that it was an extraordinary thing to pr,)-
pose any bill which if successful in this house would
have the effect of submitting to the House of Lords a
proposition for admitting the Jews into Parliament, a
resolve which t'aey have already declared themselves to
be opposed to.. Well, I admit that, although I can cm.
ceive I am perfectly justified in point of form, and
although the motion itself is extraordinary, yet the pre-
sent position of this question is more extraordinary still.
The house is aware that four times this house has sent
to the House of Lords bills relieving the Jews from their
disabilities ; they are aware that in the present session
a bill was sent up for that purpose, altering the oath
altogether indeed, and making direct provsion for the
admission of Jews into Parliament, and that bill was
rejected by the mej erity of the House of Lords. (Hear,
hear.) Now, sir, Ido not balers: that it has ever
occurred in the parliamentary history of this country
that a measure so approved by the House of Commons
has been so continualy rejected by the House of Lords.
(Hear.) I b I.evo it will be found that the House of
Lords have rejected measures in this way, but then they
have passed this house by narrow majorities only. No
less than three times ti e House of Lords rejected
to relieve Roman Catholics from disabilities ; but when
it became clear that a large majirity of the House of
C was favuureble to the measure, the other
house accepted it and thereby affirmed the bill of the
lietre of Commons. S:r, it may be said—possibly, it
has teen sei.l--that there was this difference, that the
1t3M311 Oath 1 C 3 in Irtlind were then so turbulent and
disaffected that they were on the eve of a civil war, and
therefore it was expedient to yield. But Ido not think
that the rijectien of your bill would be rendered more
reaecnable by your being t dcl that no argument would
convince the other house, and that notbiug but a state
of di,quietnde and uneasiness, verging almost on disaf-
fection and civil war would induce the other house to
agree in opinion with this house. (Hear.) It is, there-
fore, sir, in these a x' raorrlinary circumstances that I con-
eider some cauree mint be taken by this house. There
is another view of the subject, however, which affects
members who sit on this side of the house. It wi'l be
remembered that during the elections, whatever might
be the opinions of the people at large respecting tot eign
affairs, there was in many counties and many boroughs
an unequivocal demonstration in favour of the extension
of the suffrag e and of other measures having relation
to parliamentary reform. When the members who were
elected upon their declaration of their entire sympathy
in these wishes arrived and took their seats in parlia-
ment, they were told by the noble lord at the bead of
the Government that it was not intended to introduce
any measure upon that subject in the present session.
Accordingly not only was any general measure not pro-
posed, but various minor bills for doing away with pro-
perty qual fication, for extending the right of voting in
counties, and regulating the manner of registration
were all overthrown or withdrawn, in consequence of that
declaration. But the Government which have thus put
a stop in the present session to all motions for reform,
undertook of their own accord and of their own motion
to relieve the Jews from existing disabilities. Now that
question of Jewish disabilities, without speaking in de-
ference to those respsn able men of the Jewish persuasion
who are aggrieved by the present state of the law, does
happen to form the only remaining link of disabilities in
this country on account of religions opinions. As there-
fore the repeal of the Navigation Laws was the crowning
point of free trade, so likewise the removal of the Jewish
disabilities would be the capital and crown of religious
liberty. (Cheers.) It is for this reason therefore that the
measure in the eyes of all who value religious liberty is
of peculiar importance. Well, sir, this measure is rejected
by the House of Lords after having been carried in this
house by a majority of 140, and the question now is,
what is to be donel Hon. gentlemen opposite say, na-
turally enough, and I do not quarrel with them for it,
let us lay the question entirely aside for the present
year, and bring in a similar bill next year, and the next
year, and the year after that, having them rejected by
similar majorities ire the House of Lords. Now, I con•
tend that the majority of the House of Commons, who
have affirmed this principle of religious liberty, ought
not to allow themselves to be so baffled; and be the
measure of redress what it may, be it such a bid as my
noble friend at the head of the Government introduced,
be it by such a bill as I now propose, or be it by resole-
tion—echeers)—of this I am convinced, that it concerns
the dignity and privileges of this house more than reli-
gious liberty itself that we should met allow ourselves to
lbiettlbeaffihaeds e e (nC
thhe
ee rpe .r)o
rle
stsh n
made
bt
ycaarngnnon
argument
ddeanrii endg, t
hso
e
past 10 years on the weight of public opinion, as shown
by the votes of this house, that there is no chance of the
next
cl,loayears
abrrei nagti ng
present,us
any nueolareeser to
we
adopttherel a
iefofntehwe
Jew
course. (Hear, bear ) Considering, then, this ques-
tion to be a very serious one, I have wished to inter-
pose a measure which might not partake of the apathy
of resting content with what has been done, but with-
out going to the extreme cf a rev.clution of this house,
and thereby increa=ing the risk of a conffet with the
House of Lords. If the Government are prepared to