The Jewish advance. (Chicago, Ill.) 1878-1881, 1879-07-04

member Of Parliament in the Liberal |
interest for the city Of London, with
Lord John Russell and two other menl-
bers, He was already Il m"u,Jcr OF
Brooks and the Reform. Parliament
that year met early famine in Ireland
and general depression i'll trade made
a November Session necessary, and one
Of the earliest debates was ON il rcsou-
ton Of Lord John Russell. Prime Min
lister and member for the City. affirming
the eligibility Of Jews to all functions
and Offices to which Roman Catholics
were admissible by law. Lord John
Russell showed historically that the oath
of abiuration had no reference to the
Jews. He referred to the popular pre-
judice which induced the AdlniniStra-
ton Of 1888. after passing an Act for
the naturalization of the Jews, to come
down in hurry the next year for the
purpose of repeating it, and after carry
ing his resolution by 253 to lS6, he am
nounccd his intention of introducing
Bill on the subject Lord John was
afterwards blamed by some for not rest
ing content with resolution for a sus-
pension OF the Standing Orders of the
House, such as that by which the Qua
ker Pease was admitted, and his Bill,
although passed by the large majority
in the House of Commons, was rejected
again and again by the Lords The de-
bate on the resolution was memorable
for the appearance on the Whig side ON
that question of Mr.. Gladstone then
newly elected Tory member for the Uni
versity Of Oxford, whose support Of the
Premier was the more remarkable be-
cause his colleague in the representation
Of the University, Sir Robert lnglis, was
the most vigorous opponent Of the pro-
iected measure of religious toleration.
Mr. Gladstone had opposed the last Bill
for the removal of the Jewish Disabili-
ties but when he did SO he foresaw
that if we gave the jew municipal, ma
gisterial, and executive functions, we
could not refuse him legislative powers.
Another member expressed the repug
nance with which he would see jew
Premier DR. Disraeli, then the Tory
member fsg Buckinghamshire, voted
aita IL Wigs, and appealed to the
House 10 neF! 2rm a great act OF national
inspee arc 70 discard, the superstitions
o# III, Hez Ages which were infuenc-
ing .a 81 oppose it. The Earl of
AIun,,vi, ,,o a Catholic, supported the
resolution Lord Ashley (now the Earl
Of Shaftesbury) opposed it but Lord
George Bentinck Joined Mr. Disraeli in
supporting it. The Act, however, was
not passed till 1888. In the meantime
Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was
elected again and again. In lS49 he had
been Il member for two Sessions without
having taken the oaths, when he ac-
ceptcd the Chiltem Hundreds, point
OF Parliamentary practice noted by Sir
Erskine May. 4 new writ was issued
for TIE city of London and he was again
returned, and continued to be a member
without taking the oaths but being
again returned in succeeding Parlia-
ments, he accepted the Chiltem Hun
dreds second time in 1851, and on the
BIRD Of Jul new writ was issued for
the city of London and he was for the
fifth time returned During his period
Of probation as the unsWorn represen-
tatiye of the city of London, Baron de
Rothschild sat below the bar, and when
notice was taken Of the presence of
strangers still retained his seat The
constitutional doctrine enforced by Sir
Joseph Jckylls case in 17l5, that a
member is capable Of sitting on a com
mttec although he has not been sworn
at the Clerk table, also received CON
frmation from Baron de RQthsehild's
experience. In May, 1853, the House
called Baron de Rothschild, who had
now continued member for II years
without taking the oathS, to the commit
tee appointed to draw up reasons to be