OATH OF ABJURATION (JEWS). (Hansard, 30 May 1850)

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
Sir, in introducing the subject of the oaths to be taken by Jews, it is not my intention to make any statement at present. I do not think the House will object to give me leave to bring in a Bill on the subject, seeing that it has twice passed a Bill on the same subject, and appointed a Committee to inquire into the present state of the law. What I propose is, that there shall be a Committee of the whole House, and that leave be given to me to bring in the Bill; and on moving the second reading of that Bill, I will state the reasons on which it is grounded, and why I think it is desirable to legislate upon the subject. There is so much uncertainty with regard to the law, that some persons think it will be a matter for consideration whether persons professing the Jewish religion cannot come to the table on as good grounds as persons belonging to the Society of Friends; I am decidedly of opinion it would not he right that that course should be taken. It is most desirable that both Houses of Parliament should have an opportunity of discussing the question, and considering in all its bearings what were the intentions of the present oath of abjuration, and the course to be taken; and it is to give full consideration to the subject that I shall move for leave to bring in a Bill to regulate the mode of administering the oath of abjuration. I move now— 488 That this House will immediately resolve itself into a Committee, to take into consideration the mode of administering the Oath of Abjuration to persons professing the Jewish Religion.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
assumed that the Bill which the noble Lord proposed to introduce would raise the same question as to the Christian character of that House as the Bill discussed on a former occasion. He had not the least wish to detain the House by provoking discussion at the present moment; but he must express his regret, after the strong proof which the noble Lord had just had of the religious feeling of this country—a feeling not lightly to be tampered with—that he should think fit to disregard the satisfaction with which the decision of the Upper House had been received. He would merely conclude by warning the public that they were about again to see introduced into that House a question the discussion of which every one who felt deeply upon such subjects must lament. It was most lamentable that there should be a doubt as to the propriety of retaining the Christian character of that House; and, humble Member as he was, he gave notice that when the noble Lord proposed the second reading, he would move that it he read a second time that day six months, in the full confidence that he would be supported by the same deep feeling, to the existence of which the division that had just taken place bore convincing testimony.

§ MR. PLUMPTRE
would second the proposal of his hon. Friend. He protested against the measure in any shape, and against the Christian character of the House being altered, and would take every opportunity of giving his decided opposition to the measure. Resolved—That the Chairman be directed to move the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the mode of administering the Oath of Abjuration to persons professing the Jewish Religion.