Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

present mode, and he pointed out the many difficulties attending the devolution of all political disputes to arbitrators. The advance of civilization had mitigated the horrors of war, and he saw no reason why, in its further progress and development, war might not be stigmatized generally as barbarous; and, so far as related to the maintaining of peace by not pertinaciously insisting upon points in which our national honour was not

involved, he agreed with the spirit of the motion.

Captain Harris opposed the motion, and attributed to the mover and his party a design, though it might be sincerely well meant, to denude the country of its defences.

Mr. Cobden having replied, the House divided, when the previous question was carried by 176 against 79.

CHAPTER VIII.

ADMISSIBILITY OF THE JEWS TO PARLIAMENT :-The subject of Parliamentary Oaths is discussed in a Committee of the whole House-A Resolution moved by Lord John Russell is carried, and a Bill founded thereon is brought in-Debate on the Second Reading-Sir R. Inglis moves that the Bill be read a second time that day six months-Mr. F. Peel makes his maiden Speech in favour of the Bill-After a long debate the Second Reading is carried by 278 to 185—On the Bill going into Committee, Sir R. Peel declares himself in favour of the Admission of the Jews to all Civil Offices-Remarks of Lord John Russell-Amendments are proposed by Mr. Vernon Smith, Mr. Bankes, and other Members, but rejected-Debate on the Third Reading, when Mr. Law moves again the rejection of the Bill-Speeches of Mr. Sheil, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Napier, Mr. W. P. Wood, and Lord John Russell—— The Third Reading is carried by 272 to 206, and the Bill passed— In the House of Lords, the Second Reading is moved by the Earl of Carlisle-It is supported by the Duke of Cleveland, the Archbishop of Dublin, the Earl of Shrewsbury, the Duke of Argyll, and Lord Brougham -Opposed by the Earl of Eglintoun, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of Exeter and Oxford, the Earls of Winchelsea, Desart, and Nelson-On a division, the Bill is lost by a majority of 25. -MARRIAGES OF AFFINITY:-Mr. J. Stuart Wortley moves for leave to bring in a Bill to Legalize Marriages with a Deceased Wife's Sister -Leave given-A protracted Debate takes place on the Second Reading-Speeches of Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Cockburn, Mr. Roundell Palmer, Sir George Grey, Sir R. Inglis, Mr. Napier, the Lord Advocate, Mr. W. E. Gladstone, and other Members-The Second Reading is carried by 177 to 143-The further progress of the Bill is much delayed, and at a late period of the Session, Mr. Wortley is compelled to abandon it. -Miscellaneous Legislation:-Lord Brougham's Bill for the Consolidation of the Bankrupt Law-Mr. Disraeli moves for a Select Committee to consider the State of the Nation-His Speech and Views respecting the depressed condition of the Country-He is answered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer-Sir Robert Peel vindicates his own Commercial Policy-Speeches of Mr. Baillie, Mr. Roebuck, Mr. Plumptre, Mr. Slaney, Mr. G. A. Hamilton, Mr. Hume, the Earl of March, the Marquis of Granby, Lord John Russell, and Mr. Muntz-On a division, Mr. Disraeli's motion is negatived by 296 against 156-Close of the Session-Parliament is prorogued on the 1st of August-The Royal Speech-Review of the Proceedings of the Session-Conclusion.

[ocr errors]

A

T an early period of the present Session Lord John Russell renewed his attempt, though not in the same shape as in the preceding year, to effect the admission of persons of the Jewish faith into the Legislature. On the 19th of February the noble Lord moved that the House should go into Committee for the purpose of considering the oaths of Members of Parliament. He stated that he proposed no alteration in the oath now taken by Roman Catholic Members, which was settled in 1829, and with which the country was generally satisfied. He then reviewed the three oaths taken by Members-those of alle giance, supremacy, and abjuration. The first of these had become a sort of mockery, as since 1807, when Cardinal York died, there had been no descendants of James the Second in existence. He proposed to do away with this oath. The oath of abjuration was only the oath of allegiance developed so as to give a special safeguard against the temporal power of the pope. Lord John Russell read its present form. One paragraph in this oath had, however, caused such doubts in the minds of two or three Members that they had declined to take their seats. He (Lord J. Russell) thought the interpretation which raised the scruple an incorrect one, but it was sufficient reason for an alteration that the doubt existed. The bearing of the oath of abjuration on the Jews arose from the concluding words, "" on the true faith of a Christian." These words were intended as a sanction only, and they ought not to be continued with regard to Jews; for the House had no right or claim to exclude any subject of the realm from Parliament, unless

his doctrines and opinions made him unfit or incompetent to perform the duties of legislation. Neither of these allegations could be made in respect to the Jews; and their exclusion came therefore to be a pure and unmitigated case of persecution.

Lord John Russell proposed that the Roman Catholic oath should remain as at present; and that the oath for other subjects should be in these terms-being nearly in the words of an oath penned by the Commission, which reported to Lord Lyndhurst in 1845.

"I, A. B., swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and that I will maintain the succession of the Crown, as established by an Act, entitled An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject;' and that I do not believe that the Pope of Rome, or any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state or potentate, hath or ought to have any temporal or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this realm: and that I will defend, to the utmost of my power, the settlement of property within this realm, as established by the laws. And I do make this recognition, declaration, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God."

The words "upon the true faith of a Christian" Lord John Russell proposed to omit in the cases of Jewish subjects. By these means, he thought the measure of religious liberty in this country would be made complete.

Mr. Goulburn consented to the first reading, so as to have the measure distinctly before the House; but he repeated his al

ready expressed opinions, that the admission of the Jews would be considered as derogatory to the Christianity of the country, while it would diminish the authority of that House; that it would be productive of serious consequences to the people at home, and would operate with still greater force on the extension of religion abroad.

Mr. W. E. Gladstone, having been referred to in the course of the discussion, rose to explain his views and the course which he should take. His before-expressed opinion had been confirmed and strengthened by reflection. He was still "deliberately convinced that the civil and political claim of the Jew to the discharge of civil and political duties ought not in justice to be barred, and could not beneficially be barred by a difference between his religion and ours." But independently of the constitutional question in regard to the Jews, he put it seriously to the House, whether the alteration which Lord John Russell was desirous of making in the oath was not an improvement, and an improvement of weight sufficient to justify even those who were most opposed to the proposal, in respect to the Jews, in giving their assent to the proposition that the House should go into Committee? The Highest Authority had informed us that our words should be few in all solemn acts having peculiar reference to the Deity he thought, on a review of the oaths, and a comparison of the number of words in them with the purpose they had in view, that they would admit of abbreviation, not only with advantage, by putting them into a more lucid, distinct, and intelligible form, but likewise with the

advantage of bringing them much. nearer that standard of propriety according to which all oaths having a solemn end in view ought to be unquestionably framed.

Several members expressed, though in brief terms, their objection to the proposed measure. Among these were Mr. Newdegate and Mr. Bankes. A division took place, by which it was resolved by 214 to 111 to go into Committee. This having been done, Lord John Russell moved his resolution, which was carried, in the following terms :—

"That it is expedient to alter the oaths required to be taken by the subjects of Her Majesty not professing the Roman Catholic religion, as qualifications for sitting and voting in Parliament, and to make provision in respect of the said oaths for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion."

A few days afterwards, the House going again into Committee, Mr. Vernon Smith moved an amendment on Lord John Russell's resolution in the following terms :—

"That it is expedient to abolish all oaths, except the oath of allegiance and fidelity to Her Majesty."

This proposition was opposed by Lord J. Russell, as disturbing the settlement of 1829, but supported by Mr. Hume. On a division, the amendment was negatived by 140 to 68.

Mr. Bankes then explained an amendment, which the forms of the House obliged him to postpone to a later stage, binding all members without distinction to do nothing injurious to the Established Church, in the same way that Roman Catholic members were bound. This proposition did not meet with much support. Mr. Newde

gate and Mr. Henry Drummond had scruples against raising the question. Lord John Russell objected, that whereas the pledge was a condition on the admission of Roman Catholic members, it would form a new restriction on members who had already a right to sit in the House.

An incidental conversation then arose respecting the interpretation of the Roman Catholic oath. Mr.John O'Connell believed that it involved no restriction on votes touching the revenues of the Protestant Church. The Earl of Arundel put a very strict construction upon it, and had felt bound to abstain from voting upon Mr. Vernon Smith's motion, as it would relieve him of the condition which accompanied his right to vote. Mr. Sheil took a view neither so lax as Mr. John O'Connell, nor so strict as Lord Arundel; and he asked for a declaratory Act to define the point on which such different opinions existed. Mr. John O'Connell called for an authoritative interpretation from Sir Robert Peel. Sir Robert Peel said that the oath was not introduced by him in 1829, but by Mr. Wilmot Horton; its adoption was the act of the Legislature, and Sir Robert thought it would be a dangerous precedent for a private individual to give a legislative construction of it. He believed that members always, in practice, put a conscientious interpretation upon the oath.

Lord John Russell's resolution was reported to the House, and adopted; and a Bill founded upon it was then brought in.

The second reading was moved by Lord John Russell on the 7th May, when Sir R. H. Inglis moved an amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. Sir Robert denied that

political power was an essential right of every subject of the realm. He also argued that the Jews had never been invited or encouraged to come to England; they came for their own personal benefit and aggrandisement; and that, although small in number, yet, as a compact and determined body, they might materially affect the deliberations of the House.

The speeches were numerous, but not interesting. That of Mr. Frederick Peel (son of Sir Robert), who addressed the House for the first time, was an exception. was attentively listened to, and very favourably received on all sides.

It

Starting with the postulate that a strong presumption in favour of the Jew is made out by the fact that the privileges and capacities of the constitution do of right belong to every natural-born subject of the realm, Mr. Peel deduced step by step the progress in this direction which Parliament had in fact made, and in the end confessed himself unable to assign a just reason why the political status of the Jews was left incomplete. He dealt with the special machinery which had excluded the Jew from Parliament, showing that it was not originally aimed at his case, and that it only comprehended it now by a fortuitous consequence. He argued that the effect of change in dechristianizing the Legislature had been anticipated formally by the admission of Unitarians and others, and was not ever likely to become more operative in practice than the dechristianizing of Corporations as an effect of the Municipal Reform Act. Deprecating the charge made by Sir Robert Inglis, that as legislators they were apparently disregarding the influence

« ZurückWeiter »