The Sun.
London, England, 1857-12-11 00:00:00

nomination of a committee, and the question was therein
thoroughly debated. No witnesses were examined, but
the question was thoroughly sifted by gentlemen belong- ,
ing to the legal profession. The result was unfavourable
to the position taken up by the Attorney-General, but at
the same time the hostile majority was a very narrow
one, consisting of one original member of the committee
pod two members of the legal profession, who had been
subsOquentlY added. My right hon. friend the member
for Dion;Ssich had prepared a motion which he wished to
propose, but which, owing to the course taken by the
committee, could not be introduced. His moiion was to
the effect that the two Houses of Parliament were in-
cluded in the act of Win. IV., but that it was not expe-
dient to use the power then given unless no other con-
stitutional course should appear to be open for the
attainment of the object. Now it was not ray duty, not
being chairman of the committee, to express any opinion
or to take any part in its discussions, but certainly had I
been called on to give an opinion, my opinion would have
exactly coincided witk that of the right hon. gentleman.
Such being my opinion, it is unnecessary now to reopen
the argument. I will only say that the argument was
stated by the Attorney-General with all his usual
lucidity and more than his usual earnestness, and that
it met with the concurrence not only of the right hon.
member for Droitwich but of the right hon. member fur
Bucks, and of the noble lord the member for Lynn,
together with the Lord Advocate and many other
distinguished members of this house. It was likewise
supported in a speech of great ability and acuteness by
the hon. and learned member for Boston. Fortified by
these opinions, and convinced by the argument of the
Attorney-General, I said I should not think it right to
let the question drop altogether without placing before
the house, whether or not they should adopt the pro-
posal of a declaration in place of an oath, in the case of
members who object to the words of the oath of abju-
ration. It is not for me to say how the house will de-
cide, but I must confess my own opinion to be that we
have been perhaps somewhat to blame in allowing the
seat of a member of this house to be discussed in courts
of law. My belief is that this is a question which by the
constitution of this country the courts below are hardly
competent to decide, and that as it would be impossible
for them to entertain the question of whether a mem-
ber had been duly elected, it is not competent for
them to decide whether our oaths have been properly
taken. Such was the spirit in which the House of Lords
acted in the case of the Wensleydale peerage. They may
have been right or they may have been wrong in their
decision, but nobody has disputed that it was in the
competence of the House of Lards, that they were per-
fectly competent to decide, after her Majesty had by
letters patent created a peer, whether that peer had a
right to be received. (Hear, hear.) In the same way I
believe that the House of Commons can decide whether
a member, having taken an oath or declaration is com-
petent to a seat in this house. That, however, not being
the question at present, I shall bring in the bill, and
endeavour to obtain for it the consent of the whole Le-
gislature ; but for my part I will not waive the rights of
the House of Commons stated by a high legal authority.
(Hear, hear.) I beg now, sir, to move that leave be
given to bring in a bill to substitute one oath for the
three now In use, and to relieve by its provisions persons
professing the Jewish religion from their present disa-
bilities.
Sir F. THESIGER —I believe the noble lord under-
stands that it has been arranged that no opposition shall
be offered to the introduction of this bill, the noble
lord having engaged not to ask for a second reading
until after Christmas, and I must suggest to such hon.
friends as agree with me on this subject, that, considering
the various former bills for the admission of the Jews,
it is much more desirable we should wait and see what
is the particular measure about to be introduced, in order
that we may be enabled the more satisfactorily to deal
with it. I cannot help congratulating the noble lord
on his having resumed his natural position on this ques-
tion. In 1847, when the noble lord was first returned
for the city of London with Baron Rothschild, and when
he gave that pledge from the hustings that he would in-
troduce a measure for the relief of the Jews, the ques-
tion seemed to belong of right to the noble lord ; but on
the last two occasions on which the question was sub-
mitted to this house the noble lord has been rather i
placed in the background. In 1856, whether it was that
the young and zealous advocates for the admission of
the Jews were dissatisfied with the slowness of the
movements of the noble lord I cannot tell, but then Mr.
hi. Gibson f n'estalled the noble lord, and such was the
exuberance of his zeal, that be proceeded to the extremity
of desiring entirely to get rid of the oath of abjuration,
and the noble lord's duty was limited merely to correct-
ing the zeal of his associate, by introducing in commit-
tee an amendment by which the oath of abjuration was
preserved. During the last year the noble lord fought
under the banner of the noble lord at the head of the
Government, but I believe that was more from policy
than humility, for the noble lord was thus enabled to
move the whole machinery of Government, and to wield
all its weight and influence in support of his daring pro.
ject. The noble lord now appears again in front of the
battle on this question, and, I am happy to find is again
treading in constitutional paths—(hear, hear)—although
not without some sly glances at those indirect and
crooked ways which have been occasionally attempted
for the purpose of forcing the Jews into this house.
The noble lord does not now threaten us with a
resolution that shall scat the Jew in defiance of the
Hon • of Lords, but he has adverted to that which
was one of the most extraordinary schemes that was ever
submitted to Parliament. The noble lord supposesthat
there le an act of Parliament which will enable this
twine, not only in defiance of the House of Lord 4, but
in defiance of the courts of law, in case this bill should
not pass, to admit the Jews to seats in the Commons
House of Parliament. Now, I must confess that any-
thing mare extraordinary, to my mind, than the disco-
very of au act of Parliament which bad been overlooked
for many years; and which was supposed to make a short
cat to the object, could hardly be found in the whole of
sur parliamentary annals. The noble lord has fully
adopted it, but it was to the Attorney-General that the
bright idea first occurred that an act ofParliament which
had hitherto escaped the vigilance of everyone might, in
default of legislation, serve the purpose of the noble lord.
I can imagine the pleisure of the hon. and-learned gen-
tleman when this new light fleshed across his eye. I can
imagine the haste with which he hurried off to the
noble lord, crying "Eureka!" but I hope not ersetly in
~he condition of the person who first used the exclama-
tion. (A. laugh.) The noble lord has intimated that he
may find it necessary to use the discovery of his hon.
and learned friend, and to revert to that act of Parlia-
ment on a future occasion, in case he should not succeed
,a a constitutional manner in obtaining the admission of
Jews into Parliament; but I think and hope that the
noble lord will pause before he adopts a course which
will be accompanied by so much danger, and by the cer-
tainty of a collision with the courts of justice, in which
it is undoubtedly not very likely that this house will
come out of the contest with any great credit. The noble
lord fancies he finds a precedent .for this course in the
prodeedings of the House of Lords with respect to the
Wensleydale peerage, but surely the noble lerd forgets
the important distinction that exists between the two
cases. The oaths required by this house and by the
House of Lords on the admission of a member are im-
nosed by act of Parliament, and there are penalties
attached to persons who should attempt to vote with-
out having previously taken these oaths. Now, if
the words, "On the true faith of a Christian," are
essentially and substantially part of the oath, as has been
frequently decided, not merely by courts of law, but by
the determination of the noble lord himself, then the
question must come before the courts, ond then we all
know how those courts must decide the question. The
noble lord has adverted to the gentlemen of the legal
profession who were on the committee, and to the sup-
port which they gave to his view of the case, but I have
carefully looked through the list, and I find in the mino-
rity not one single name of any member who had not for
a very considerable time been favourable to the admis-
sion of Jews into Parliament, or who were not recently
adopted converts, and we all know converts are prover.
bially ant the most lukewarm supporters of a cause.
But I turn to the other side, and I am not afraid of poll-
ing lawyer for lawyer. I find this remarkable distinction
that amongst the majority are to be found at least five
members of this house who have been in favour of the
admission of the Jews, and who have yet been so satisfied
that the construction of the Attorney-General was not
the correct one, that they would not allow their wishes
to influence their opinions, or permit them to force us
into those perilous courses which the nobie lord's speech
'aas indirectly indicated. Let us now consider the posi-
tion in which we stand. The noble lord speaks of religi-
ous liberty, and has spoken of our placing the last stone
' on the edifice of freedom of conscience and removing the
last remnant of religious intolerance. But if I understand
the proposal of the noble lord, he does not propose to
niece the last stone on the edifice of religious liberty.
Other anti-Christians are excluded by statute, and why
ghoul I not the gates of the temple of religious liberty be
opined to Mahometans and Flindooi as well as Jews ?
(Hear.) I hear a cheer which I understand to be a cheer
,if approbation, but considering the circumstances that
are daily cccurring around us, and the hostile feeling to
Christianity exhibited by Mahometans and Hindoos, it
certainly does appear to me that the present is not the
time for us to entertain a proposal of that kind. (Hear,
bear.) Of course, with regard to the Jews, I know per-
fectly well that whatever may be the animosity of the
Jews to Christianity, they are not likely to act so atro-
ciouly as the Hindoos, or to be guilty of the savage
ferocity of the Mahometan, but if his feelings of hos-
tility be equally deep is it desirable to give him power,
by means of a seat in the legislature, "to work in close
design, by fraud and guile, what force cannot eflectu-
ate ?" (Cheers.) In conclusion, the hon. and learned
gentleman implored the noble lord to pause, and con-
sider what the consequences would be of the me:vitro he
was then proposing. For his (Sir F. Thesiger's)- part
' he was resolved to maintain the position which he had
always assumed, and on every stage of this bill to resist
it to the utmost of his ability. He would do so l,ecause
he believed that by seating the Jaw in Perliament he
should inflict a fatal blow on that Christianity which
was s) intimately interwoven with every part of our in-
stitutions. (Opposition cheers.)
Mr. DILLW YN supported the introduction of the
measure.

Mr. BENTINCK thought the hill ought not to be
introduced, and he was prepared to vote against the
motion.

Mr. COX agreed with the hon. gentleman who Lad
just sat down, that proceeding with this measure was a
farce, because there was no chance of its being success-
ful. He had the honour of numbering amongst his con:
stituents a large number of gentlemen belonging to the
Jewish persuasion, and, in voting for the admission of
that class of persons to Parliament, he did not think
he was taking a course which would tend to unchris-
tianise the legislature. It had been said by one gentle-
man, that if they admitted Jews into the legislature they
might as welt admit Hindoes and Mahumedans, but it
must be remembered that they must be elected by some
constituency before they could take their seats. (Hear.)