Arkansas true Democrat., 1857-06-23
Jews in Parliament


 Once more the world is soon again to look upon the spectacle of contest between the two branches of the British legislature, upon the question of the admission of Jews to the lower house. The House of Commons has itself al- ready four times declared its readiness and de- sire to accord It; and the people of the great metropolis of England have as often, and in the hrmest manner, expressed their determina- tion that so it shall be.
 The only obstacle to the admission of CIV to sit and vote in Parliament arises. says a received Parliamentary authority from the words, upon the true faith of a christian,'' at the end of the oath of abjuration. This oath It is necessary to swear, ln number of other cases besides that of taking seat in Para- ment In most of the former-if not all of them-the obstructive clause has for some time been abrogated ill favor of Jews. Some bun- dred and thrty-ive years ago, one law provid- ed for this under certain circumstances: shortly atterwards-in the thirteenth year of the reign oi George the Second, that is-another extend : ed the operation of the provision, or more strictly, perhaps, rendered the principle more widely applicable. In 1S46 an act was passed exemptlng Jews from the necessity for taking It, on admission to municipal offices. In 1847 that struggle commenced, which we may hope to see ended during the present session, for similar provision on admission to the House of Commons. Baron Lionel Nathan de Roths- child was, in that year, elected to Parliament but made no attempt to take his seat In 1848 the Lords rejected bill providing for the amendment of the oath and in l949, the bill to meet the exigences of the case having been again rejected in the Lords by vote of 95 to 1O he accepted the Chitern liundreds--or re- signed. 4 writ being issued fora member to fill hlS place, he was reelected; but still he would not at once take the oath-which of course, prevented him from taking his seat In 1850 he presented himself for the purpose of taking the oath. lie required to be sworn on the Old l Testament, as the form most binding on his conscience. This was allowed and he took the oathS ot allegiance and supremacy, which do not comprise the obstructive formula. On con- ing to the oath of ahuration, which includes if, he omitted it, Gas not binding on his con- science" He was thereupon directed to with draw, and the House passed a resolution that he was not entitled to take his seat. In 1853 the question was again brought forward in Par lament In the House of Commons motion for committee of the whole was carried by 234 to 2O5, and the bill was eventually passed; but again the Lords rejected it by 164 to 115. From the last named period Baron Roths- child retained his position as member elect, but without taking his Scat until the late gen. eral election. He was then once more return ed, and on this. occasion pledged himself that If again prevented from taking his seat he would resign his trust into the hands of his constituents. The electors, resolute in their designs, ln reply assured him. that in this event, they would yet again elect him.
 Here the matter for the present rests, except m so far as 1t Is affected by the declaration of Lord PaImerSton, that he will call upon Par lament to pass, during the present session, a blll winch shall remove the disabling clause hls undertaking seems to be universally m. der"tood among the liberal journals of England ! as equivalent to all assurance that the measure will De passed. And, indeed, to us here, it could not but appear marvellous should it not be. It Is to be introduced as a ministerial mea- sure, by premier who stands more strongly supported than even Sir Robert Peel, in his best days of free-trade fc0ore; it Is insisted on with determination and patience most re- inarkabe, by one of the most powerful, iutiu- ertIal, resoiute and temperate constituencies in the world; It has been opposed to the utmost verge to winch opposition can be pushed with out exciting tumu!t, if not iusuwection 1t must nave the most earnest and sincere support of a party who might on other questions differ iron. ! H., whom the credit for all previous efforts in con necton with the measure are due; it's safety and eligibility, sufficiently manifest to every unbiased reasoner, have been proved by the example of this country, and even by analo- gous ones in England herself; 1t can have mo- thing like true reasoning or liberality brought | against it,
 Quakers Moravians Separatists, and others, as the authority to which we have already re- l ferred informs Us, have long been permitted to make affirmation instead of taking oath; and what Is there that should render Jews less trustworthy on that oath which they consider most sacred aud bidding, than others on mere affirmation? For all social purposes--in civil and criminal law, In municipal administration, III commercial affairs, in Colonial government the question has already been triumphantly responded to by the experience of Great Bri- tam herself. A mean and dangerous answer must the House of Lords give if they venture to repeat the bigoted one they have thus far insisted on, III opposition to that which alone, 1t IS evident, Is the right one.
 Of what the House of Commons will do, we | believe, there Is not room for the slightest l doubt. They will certainly pass the measure 1 by large majority. The Lords may possibly venture ion again rejecting 1t; although upon | considering all the circumstances of the case and especially the small majority by which they did so n 1853, we cannot think it probl- bIe. II they should, the result must undoubt- edIy be most disastrous to their prestige and in- ! huencr The resignation of the ministry a ! popular excitement which would scarcely be St;llcd by the concession of this one demand and new creation of peers, are among the contingencies they would undoubtedly have to contemplate should they now venture upon such a manifestation of perverseness We be- 1 ljcve they are too tar-seeng for this--or rather we are of opnlon that the lessons they have l been gwen during the past twenty-five ycars oi the impotence of their obstinacy against de- 1 termnned public opinion, will prove sufficient to deter them from forcing this subject any fur tnef towards eXtremities.
 The telegraph, then, may soon announce to us that another of the examples set by our young country, has, after most protracted 1 strug5 le-at once dscreditable to those who have rendered it necessary, and highly honora- bIe and glorious to those who have foug ht it against them-been followed by old Great Bri- tan the powerful, the boastful, the civilized, the yet but little tolerant. We confess that we anticipate the intelligence with anxious joy not more for the importance cf the measure it. self, than for the assurance its enactment will afford of yet others to follow it; too slowly, perhaps, as!--but still confidently to be hoped | lor.-Louisiana Cou1e,.
 Oregon and Slavery.
 | Although there are no slaves Ill the territory of Oregon, and but few blacks of any sort, it l seems that the people there are discussinp the