The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-05 00:00:00

LONDON, MONDAY EVENING,

Pease was admitted in that way by resolution, and an
Act afterwards passed declaring not what the law
was, but what it should be. That course
ought to have been pursued here. The Baron should
have been seated, and afterwards a declaratory Act
passed and tendered to the other House, to enable them
to confirm the decision. However, he was quite pre-
pared to take his Honourable Friend's amend-
ment as it stood, and he should certainly vote
for it. But, with regard to the speech of his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Attorney• General, he must confess
that he was more than ever deeply involved in the
mazes of astonishment and perplexity. How such a
resolution as the first could have proceeded from the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman he was at a loss to under-
stand, but being heralded by such a speech as they had
heard from him was still more surprising. What did
his Hon. and Learned Friend say ? The case,
ho said, was unprecedented, and therefore the
conclusion he bad come to was to disfranchise
the Honourable Member for the city of London. The
Hon. and Learneed Gentleman, however, was not always
of opinion that a Jew was bound to prove his right to
enjoy the privilege cf his fellow-subjects, for in 1847
the lion. and Learned Gentleman told the House of Com •
moos that the onus of proof rested with those who denied
the right. Now the opinion of a poor barrister like
himself, whose professional income did not exceed 300/.
a year, might be worth very little, but the decision he
had come to was the result cf mature deliberation, anti
though it might be erroneous it was sincere. His opi-
nion was that the Baron ought to be allowed
the benefit of the doubt, and to take hie seat. But what,
said the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. " Why," said
he, "I am called upon to expound the law, and you
must take it upon my exposition; but then I must tell
you that the law which I so expound is monstrous and
absurd." Now, suppose a client was consulting the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman upon a point of law, and
he gave such an opinion as that it struck him
forcibly that the client would immediately
seek another professional adviser. Now that
was precisely the position in which the House
was placed by the extraordinary speech of the Honour-
able and Learned Attorney-General, and they had to
choose between the law laid down by him and
that laid down by those who were called the friends of
Baron Rothschild. Well, then, what did the latter
say? Why, they said that there was no precedent
like this case, and therefore they had no right to
make one. They said Baron Rothschild was free, and
therefore they had no right to disfranchise him.
They- said it was at the best a doubtful
point, and therefore let their own Member
have the benefit of it. Now, which was
the more reasonable course of the two ? He
paused for a reply, but be thought the
House would decide in favour of the Baron.
His friend did not tell them that their law was mon-
strous and absurd, but said the Hon. and Learned At-
torney-General, if you pusue that course, you will
lay the Baron open to heavy penalties; but no
court of justice would venture to inflict any
penalties upon him when they were told that he took
his seat not only under the sanction of the House,
but in obedience to an order of the House.—(Hear.)
No court of justice would for a moment dream of ques-
tioning that decision ; but if there was any danger of
that, would the House be more considerate
lor Baron Rothschild than be would be
for himself? Baron Rothschild said he was
willing to take the risk. Did the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman (the Attorney-General) mean to say that'
his mind was perfectly clear that the oath
of abjuration could be tendered to any
Member of that House at all without an alteration
being made in the terms of it by the decision of that
House? That was one of the points which he had to
determine. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman quoted
statutes which had no force—statutes of William 111.
and George I.—but what did he say of the
asatute of George 111., under which alone
the oaths taken at the table could be administered to
any Member ? Two important events bad happened
since the oath of abjuration bad passed, which mate-
rially altered the case; the princely Stuarts were no more,
and George the Third had long been gathered to his
fathers. The aid of Parliament had therefore ceased to
.be applicable, and the cath could not be administered at
this day. Tho Hon. Gentleman concluded by stating,
that whether the Hon. Member for Montrose proceeded
to a division or not, his vote should be given against the '
monstrous and unconstitutional resolutions which bad
been proposed by her Majesty's Government.
Mr. DISRAELI then rose and said—The previous
discussion which has taken place this session respecting '
the seat of the Hon. Member for the city of London,
and ,the deliberations upon it, appear to me to be
of so strictly a legal character, that I have refrained
obtruding myself on the attention of the House. But,
Sir, the resolutions which have been placed
on the table to-day have departed from that limited
character which future resolutions proposed to our
consideration have professed. The resolutions
which the Learned Attorney-General has brought
forward are, one of law and another of po-
licy. I therefore think the House will excuse
me if, under these circumstances, I venture to make a
few observations as to the position in which the Hon.
Gentleman the Member for the city of London, who hss
not taken his seat, finds himself, and also as to the posi-
tion occupied by the House. The course which has been
pursued by the Member for the city of London, by the
electors of the city of London, and by her Majesty's
subjects professing the Jewish religion, in their attempts
to obtain an amelioration of the grievances which
they feel, and the disabilities under which they
are placed, this year differs from that course
ahich they have hitherto pursued. I understand this
arises from the impatience—he would say natural im-
patience—which the electors of London and her Majesty's
subjects professing the Jewish religion feel at the posi-
tion in which they now find themselves. But I
- /vomit
ask the House here to consider whether that position,
grevious as they may feel it to be, is the consequence of
having pursued a constitutional course to release them-
selves from those grievances, or whether it be in con-
sequence of having; deviated from that constitutional
course which they had hitherto pursued? Now, Sir,
with respect to Englishmen professing the
Jewish religion, I am bound to say that no class of
religionists in this country have less cause to complain
of the spirit of the community, or of the temper of
the Legislature, than Englishmen professing the Jew-
ish religion. When I remember, Sir, what was
the position of such men a very brief period back—
hardly a quarter of a century ago—when I contrast that
position of social degredacion and political dis-
, ability with the position which they now oc-
cupy and enjoy, I am proud and gratified
by the contrast; and I am bound to say that it is one
which is far more favourable than that which any other
body of her Majesty's subjects not professing the
religion of the state could have relied upon in so
brief a space of time. The Roman Catholics.
for example, were for a much longer period disqualifiet
foiethe possession of any offices and enjoyments and many
more rights than the Jews were. Every class of Dis-
senters also had to undergo a more prolonged and
more severe struggle than Englishmen professing
the Jewish religion in order to obtain those rights which
they now eujoy ; and, Sir, I think at a moment like the
present when we admit the impatience and naturally the
impatience evinced by the electors of London at not imme-
diately accomplishing the results which they desire. I say,
Sir, I think it is expedient to take a calmer and more
comprehensive view of the circumstances of the case
ihan the electors of the city of London. and taking
that more comprehensive and calmer view,
I arrive myself at a result much more favourable to the
enlightened spirit of the community, and temper and
moderation of the Legislature of this country, than some
opinions which have been expressed out of
this House and in this House on the
subject. But, Sir, if Englishmen professing the
Jewish religion have little cause to complain of the
bieotry of the country in which they live, or the want of
toleration in the spirit of the ago in which they
exist—have they a fair quarrel with the con-
duct of another branch of the Legislature, vvinoo
conduct in these discussions has been eubji cted
to some criticism which, on examination, I think will be
deemed not only harsh but unjust. It is barely three
years ago, when, after a prolonged discussion in this
House in consequence of Baron liothschild,being elected
for the city of London, a Bill was passed which rernovsd
disabilities which prevented that Gentleman taking his
seat. It received the solemn and deliberate consideration of
the House of Lords, but it was not passed by that House
A Bill was certainly proposed which made great altera-
tions ; that Bill received a full and temperate discussion,
and it was objected to, not by a majority of a
startling amount. The Government brought in another
Bill, and it was discussed with mitigated hostility in the
House cf Lords, and he wanted to know what had
taken place in that House to cause the reprobation
and the language that had been used with respect to it.
—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman, it was true,' had
been returned again for the city of London by an over-
whelming majority, and if after such a demonstration
the House of Lords had objected to the Bill, he admitted
that it would have been to blame.—(Hear.) It ought to
be remembered that the late triumphant return
of the Baron Rothschild had not been brought forward
as a data in the House of Lords, and if it had, he had
very little doubt different results would have taken
place.—(Hear, hear.) It the second election of the
Baron Rothschild was, as he admitted it would be, a sig-
nificant demonstration of public opinion on the subject,
was not that an additional reason that the Bill should
have been again brought forward, and the opinion of the
/louse of Lords taken upon the subject?—(Hear, hear.)
He thought the natural impatience felt by the city of
London had no foundation against the community or the
House of Lords; but that if any persons were responsi-
ble for the situation in which the city of London was
tthheot Higohutstehe of
course
placed, it was her Majesty's Government.—(Hear,
hear.) He had thought it his duty to make
thete observations upon the Position which
Lords
this
hadupi occupied
been
nthpeu question,pursued
h
because he
branch
of the Legislature had not been looked upon in • a just
light.— (Hear, hear.) Now, with respect to the reselu-
doss that had been proposed by the Attorney-Ge-
neral, he felt bound to make a few observations.
The first resolution w as declaratory f the law, not,
felt hound
pro-
ceeding.—(Hear.) The other resolution was a resolu-
tion pledging the House on a subsequent occasion and in
a subsequent session; that, certainly, to say the least of
it, was not a very politic proceedinee—(llear, hear)—
and was one that ought not to be adopted except
in a case of extreme necessity.—(Rear, hear.) Now,
• where, ho would ask, did the necessity for such a pro-
ceeding exist?—(Hear, hear.) Where was the neces-
sity for the House to take such a course? He would
venture to say it was
not
to be found in the community
—that it was not the temper of the community that
had been the great impediment, nor was it the
temper , of the House of Lords—(Hear, hear)
that House had considered the
subject to the test of
their abilities, and they had come to that d'eci,ien which

they considered just. The case was clear to them, they
had a novel and important proposition before them, to
which they gave an impartial and solemn consideration
on two instances, and although they rejected
the measure they never rejected it by an
overwhelaining or an overbearing majority, but upon
the last occasion by a majority diminished in numbers.
—(Hear, hear.) So far as the temper and community
of the Legislature was concerned, there was nothing to
discourage those who believed they were pressing a just
claim, nor was there anything to justify the impatience
which had been naturally shown by the electors of Len-
don.—(Hear, hear.) Then they came to the fact which
no one could deny, that it was the conduct of the Go-
vernment which had brought the House of Com-
mons to a proposition that was made as if
it were the opinion of the Government that there
was no other means of extricating them from
the difficulties and embarrassments in which they now
found themselves.—(Hear, hear.) The House of Com-
mons then was to take the most unusual—not to say a
most unconstitutional course, and one which none
but the gravest circumstances could vindicate or justify.
—(Hear, hear.) And new for myself (centinued the
Hon. Gentleman), speaking only for rnyeelf, especially
upon this question, I decline to take that course ;
I shall not vote for either of these reso-
lutions. ( Cheers. ) I leave the law as I
find it, and if there be any necessity to change the law
I call upon the Government, who have expressed on
more than one occasion an unt quivocal opinion upon this
subject as regards a matter of policy, to remedy the
grievance which they have acknowledged.—(Cheers.)
I want to know what excuse can be made for Govern-
ment for not having the moment Parliament met
introduced a Bill upon this subject. if it was desir •
able in 1848 er 1849, it was much more desirable
in 1850, after the recent election for the city of London.
—(Cheers.) If the first election produced such an effect
as to induce the Ministry to believe the city was ripe
for legislation merely, the second election for the city of
London renders that course much more imperative and
clear, and onel abort which not a moment ought to have
been lest.—(Cheers.) I may be told that there was a Com-
mittee formed to inquire into the nature of the oaths taken
by Members of Parliament, and that Government, until
they received the result of the labours of that ComraitTe,
were incompetent to advise Parliament upon the ques-
tion.—(Hear, hear.). Does the Government mean to say,
then, that they have been acting upon imperfect infor•
mation upon a subject of such importance, of such
peculiar delicacy and interest. Have they rushed into
the House of Commons without duo deliberation and
research, and counselled the Legislature on the subject.?
—(Hear, bear.) Is that the policy of the Government? I
am in the correction of the gentlemen learned in the law,
from. Mr. Attorney-General to the Hon. ani Learned
Gentleman who had been so frank upon the extent of
his practice this morning—(A laugh)—and even in
the presence of all these learned gentlemen, and
of all these gentlemen of the long robe, I
venture to say that however extensive may have been
their researches—however profound might have been the
investigations of the Committee over which the Honour-
able and Learned Gentleman the Member for Oxford
presided, they did not succeed in producing a new fact,
or in eliciting any new result to those which had been
arrived at by those who had given any previous study or
investigation to the subject.—(Loud cheers.) Well,
then, Sir, I consider it a mere mockery on
the _ part of the Government to pretend their
project of legislation was - retarded: because they
waited the results of the investigation of the Com-
mittee on oaths. I shall use no violent language upon
the subject; but I say, the Government having brought
themselves into this condition, we ought not to do any
thing to extricate them from the consequences of
their own misconduct, or the consequences of
their unfounded clamour; against the constitutional
proceedings of another branch of the Legis-
lature a clamour, not only unfounded, but
absolutely most unjust, and one which It believe
the candid, and just, and generous people of this country
will never countenance, and never approve (Cheers.)
I have taken the liberty of making these few observa •
sions. I have, as the House will perhaps con-
descend to remember when the question of the
removal of the disabilities of Englishmen pro-
fessieg the Jewish religion has ever been
brought before the House—l have recorded my vote in
favour of their removal.—(Hear, hear.) I have been
accused sometimes of not accompanying the exercise of
the suffrage with any observations on the subject itself.
I remember the Noble Lord the First Minister, not very
courteously, and certainly not in a hearty manly way,
reminded me last year that my vote was a silent one.
Now, if I thought anything I could say could accomplish
what is so dear to my heart and c,,nvictions my
vote would not have been a silent one, but, inasmuch as
I believe my opinions upon the subject were not shared
by a single Member on either side of the House, I
thought it was but good sense and good taste that, alter
having unequivocally expressed the grounds upon which
my vote was given, I should have taken retuge in si-
lence, which at least could not offend the opinions or
prejudices of any gentleman.—(Cheers.) Those
opinions, however, I now retain; they are
un-
changed, and if it were not presumption to speak of
human opinion being unchangeable, I would express my
belief that they never will be changed.—(Cheers.) If
this were a Pagan country, I can easily conceive and
comprehend how the claims of Englishmen being Jews
should be politically resisted, and to a certain degree
with a show of reason opposed.—(Hear, hear.) But,
Sir, it is a Christian country, and because like
every other ChriAtan country, it owes its Chris-
tianity to the agency and influence of the House
of Israel, I cannot believe that the course which is pur-
sued at present by the Legislature of Englafid is a just
or wise one—(Cheers)—end though I may abstain some-
times from dilating upon feelings arid views which may
not be prevalent or popular in this House, I will never
retract them, and even now shrinking from offending the
feelings of any one, I will express my hope that full and
complete justice will speedily be done to the descendants
of a race which we acknowledge to ho sacred, and the
professors of a religion which we admit to he divine.
Sir R H. INGLIS did not think it necessary to follow
the Hun. Gentleman the Member for Buekinghamshire
in his elaborate defence of the House of Lords, or his
briefer attack upon the Government; but his Hon.
Friend must forgive him for saying that, like himself,
his opinions upon this subject were unchanged,
and es far as human opinions could be,
unchangeable. These opinions he had entertained ever
since be had held a seat in the House. It mattered In t
to him from whence these resolutions came, he should
I treat them as he found tbem.—(Fiear, hear.) The British
Legislature bad never sat except under Christian sand-
tion. The question in the case of the;Quakers was a
question of difference of Christianity. .But the ques-
tion was different now. If the House admitted Jews
tlwould admit those to legislate fair
our our Christian Church who
themselvesu
feel it a gr, at affront to be described as
[tr( )
Christian its assembly,would
ould countryfteh
members of our Church and our Christian Government.
—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir R. Inglis) would remind every
Member in that House, that on his single vote might
depend that constitution which had never sat except
under Christian sanction, and the question whether that
constitution should continue to be bound by Christian
sanction. Believing as he
this nation, and that they should
(Sir Robert Inglis) did
of our common Christianity
would net undervalue it,— asthat
twhaast t
hteh the
birthright pro fes s profession
not lighly.sell that
.birthright fur any such advantage,—
and)le Baron Rothschild might furnish
what,l theyAttorney-General)
torn.
evvyer.Ge
etnoe payra
i) forin that
expressing advantage
ev he
jet
whi
chile
t(hSeirnlto.nlonagrl;
to their deliberations, still when he (Sir le. Inglis)
considered
Friend
rasi(nt e
regret that some delay should be
could not agree with his Honourable and Learned
opposed to the admission of such a man.
He would oppose anything
which should have the effect
of making that House anything but what it was now, a
Christian Legielauture,
of which every Member must
profess himself a Christian, or -else be unable to take
his :eat. Under these circumstances he should feel bound
to oppose the proposition which was laid on the table.
Mr. ROEBUCK: said that he was pretty well con-
vinced that whatever might be said the question was
now settled.—(Hear, hear.) Though ho had come to
that conclusion, and was pets) well satisfied as
to the result, he could not say that the mode
which they would arrive at those results would reflect
much credit on the House. The qnestion before them
was no longer a mere legal question—it was a question
of policy, and he must protest against the mode in which
that policy was sought to he carried out. The Horse
was no longer sitting in a judicial capacity, but they
were deliberating on a voluntary proposition on the part
of the Administration. It was a proceeding on the part
of the Administration. It was no longer a Bill pro-
pounded by the Member for the City, but a re_
solution propounded by the head of her Majesty's
Gavernment; and they could not, with common
honour, fail now to pursue the proposition of
the Attorney-General. It must be propounded in this
House in the shape of a Bill; it must lee carried through
that House, and carried through the House of Lords
successfully, or the honour of the Ministry would be
forfeited. When Baron Rothschild was first returned
for London, feeling a great interest in the.eettlement • f
the question he (Mr. Roebuck) had pressed to bring it
to a speedy issue. The answer was that the matter was
in the hands of his colleague the Noble Lord at the head cif
the Government. Well, a Bill was brought in, but the Bill
did not pass. Woll, the matter was delayed, and the
answer he always got to his remonstrances was that the
Bill was coming in time, and he was told not to be im-
patient and in a hurry. But at the time he prophesied
chat the Bill would not come, and bade them mark his
words at the time. He knew that the Government
would never dare a difficulty.—(Hear, hear.) When a
question was important, and
i excited immediate and great
interest, it became an open question in the Cabinet; but
when matters swam smoothly it remained a Ministerial
question. It was the duty of the Noble Lord to have
propounded that Bill, and to:have gone through
they eluded the and
with it.
Member for Oxford's Com-
took it quite as a God-send.
whenßinui tt t as
es t longh
I%e,
als
proposed,
ns theyand
Learnedtuhl d(
y,question;
Will, then, after the required precedents were found, and
the report was laid on the table of the House, what, was
the conduct of the Noble Lord? Promises were made,
and those promises had been broken,—(Hear, hear.) At
last, when the House was tired of all legislation, and bu-
siness of all sorts had been postponed until a future
sees on, what did the Learned Attorney-General take
upon himself to do? He said there was a monstrous
state of law, and that, mind, was not the.d there was
description
which they gave but which he gave—he sta
a monstrous state of law, and the sooner they got rid of
it the better. He would ask the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman whether he believed that that House was a
fit tribunal to decide upon a question of law? And
would task whether, as a matter of policy, there was no
w
other course open to him than the one he had taken? It
admitted that there were doubts on the correctness
of the conclusions which had been come to, but there
were no doubts as to the facts; and yet he asked them
to assume to be what they were not fit to be, judges of