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

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTERDAY.)
JEWISH DISABILITIES.
On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the house re-
solved itself into a committee of the whole house—" To
consider the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abju-
ration ; and also to consider the disabilities affecting her
Majesty's Jewish subjects." In committee :
Lord J. RUSSELL—I am glad to say that it will not
be necessary I should long details the committee, as this
subject has eo frequently been under discussion, and as
the House of Commons, having heard the very able
statement of my noble friend at the head of the Govern-
ment, when he last year introduced a measure with a
view to the admission of the Jews into Parliament, is
already fully aware that the general principle of our
legislation is not to disqualify for legislative functions
or public offi_T any class of her Majesty's subjects on
account of their religious opinions—a principle which of
late years has been established in the case of the Roman
Catholics and dissenters, although in those instances
political reasons had in former times operated in favour
of exclusion. The house is also well aware that there is
no positive disability affecting our Jewish fellow-subjects,
and that their exclusion from this house is owing to the
construction put on the oath of abjuration, and that that
oath was not originally intended for such a purpose.
(Hear.) So little is that the case that the persons re-
fusing the oath of abjuration, namely, 40,000 of our
Jewish fellow-subjects, are in the eye of the law 40,n00
popish recusants —an instance of the absurdity of con-
sidering them to have been originally contemplated in
the framing of the oath. I shall not now enter into the
theological question, and neither do I think it necessary
to go into the reasons that exist for altering the present
oath, which on the face of it is so exceedingly absurd as
to oblige members of this house to swear that they will
not support the claims to the crown of these realms of
a person or persons who really have no existence. I
shall merely state the nature of the bill I propose to in-
troduce. The bill of last year contained a simple form
of oath not similar to that which I intro-
duced in 1848, and which might be taken by
all members of the house, but one which could
not be taken by members of the Roman Catholic persua-
sion. The oath which I propose to introduce on the
present occasion will contain the words "on the true
faith of a Christian." I introduce them because they
have a prescriptive value in the eyes of many persons,
and likewise because one of the most eminent supporters
of the Jewish claims—l mean the right hon. member for
Bucks—has expressed his opinion that they should be
retained ; but I propose tiaat in administering the oath
to Jaws these words should be omitted. (Hear, hear.)
It follows of course, and in a more logical way than in
the bill introduced by my noble friend last year, that
the Jews will be disabled from certain offices which at
present cannot be held by Roman Catholics, as I do not
propose to put them in a position superior to that of
the Roman Catholics, but to admit them to precisely the
same privileges. I may say further, that although I
do not propose by this bill to alter the oath for Roman
Catholics, because I consider that a separate question,
yet I do not think that if this bill pass there will be any
objection made to an alteration of the oath of 1829, so
as that it may be taken by Roman Catholics without
those feelings of repugnance which some of them now
entertain. But there is another question upon which I
cannot refrain from detaining the committee a few mo-
ments, because I am sure it is a question which will
naturally arise. It so happens that in the short session
of 1847 which took place on the suspension of the Bank
Charter Act, on the 14th or 15th December 1 introduced
this very bill, or rather a precisely similar one, for the
admission of the Jews into Parliament. That bill, and
all similar bills, have been rejected in the other House
of Parliament ; and it may be asked what prospect is
there now that the present bill will in another place
have a fate different from that of its predecessors
(Opposition cheers.) To that question I should answer
that I have framed the bill in the most conciliatory form
possible; that this house has at all times, with one ex-
ception, affirmed the principle of religious liberty in
favour of the Jews; and that last year the majority was far
greater than it had ever been ; and in the whole course of
legislation I have found that repeated decisions of the
House of Commons,ratified by increasing majorities,have
always had in the end the greatest weight with the other
House of Parliament. But yet Ido not wish to conceal
from the house my ultimate intentions on this subject.
In the course of last yearl was informed by my hon. and
learned friend the Attorney-General that the act 5 and 6
William IV. entitled this house to frame a declaration
to be taken by members in place of the oath, should they
think fit, and on hearing that opinion from so distinguished
an ornament to his profession as the Attorney-General 1
thought it right to have the question examined by a se-
lect committee of this house. The house agreed to the
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
and two members of the legal profession, who bad been
subsequently added. My right hon. friend the member
for Droitwich had prepared a motion which ho 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 with 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 concarrence not only of the right hon.
member for Droitwich but of the right hon. member for
Bucks, and of the noble lord the member for Lynn,
together with the Lord Ad'vccate 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-
posel 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 couutry the courts below are hardly
competent to decide, and that as it would he impossible
for them to entertain the question of whether a mem-
ber had been duly elected, it is not competent for
then to decide whether our oaths have been properly
taken. Such was the spirit in which the House of Lords
acted in the ca-e 3 of the Weesleydele 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 Lords, that they were per-
fectly competent to decide, after her Majesty had by
letters patent created a peer, whether
In thetberthat samepe er
way had
Ia
right to he received. (Hear, b
believe that the Howe 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 questh nat present, I shall bring in the bill, and
endeavour to obtain for it the consent of tbo 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 Christians, 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 hastings 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
placed in the background. In 185 d, 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.
M. Gibson forestalled 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 t ) 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 glancss 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 seat the Jew in defiance of the
House of Lord., but he has adverted to that which
was one of the most extraordinary schemes that was ever
submitted to Parliament. The noble 100 d eupposee that
there is an act of Parliament which will enable this
house, not only in defiance of the House of Lord-, but
in defiance of he corrts of la iv, iii c tee this bill shoula
00t pass, t o admit the Jews to seats is the Coreinone
House of Parliament. Now, I must confess that any.
thing more extra irdinary, to my mind, than the disco-
very of an act of Parliament which had been overlooked
for many years, and which was supposed to make a short