RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 6 June 1859)

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
I now beg to move, in accordance with the Act of Parliament,—

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
I now propose the subsequent Resolution, which is in these terms:— That any Person professing the Jewish Religion may henceforth, in taking the Oath prescribed in an Act passed in the twenty-second year of Her Majesty to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words" and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
Mr. Speaker, the House is now proceeding in accordance with the Act of the 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, and in accordance with the Report of the Committee appointed at the close of the last Session to ascertain the course of proceeding under that Act. I was a Member of that Committee, and therefore I probably may be more cognizant of what passed therein than some other Members of the House. The Report of this Committee was presented so lately as the 11th of April last, and the Standing Order founded upon it was not adopted by the House till the 14th of April, many hon. Gentlemen who were Members of the last Parliament, and many more who were not, are probably not aware that it was ascertained by this Committee that each newly elected House of Commons on its first assembling must decide for itself whether those who do not profess the true faith of a Christain shall have seats within its walls; and it was specifically decided that this question should not be raised until the fourth day on which Members come up to take the oaths; and for this obvious reason, that had this question been proposed on the first day of our meeting the House would not have been in a position to adopt the Resolution which has been moved by the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, which is decisive of this question so far as the House of Commons and the present Session is concerned. Sir, it is well known that I feel strongly that this House should be Christian by its constitution; that it is the representative of a nation Christian by a vast majority of the inhabitants of these islands; and that it is also in accordance with the constitution of this country as established—or re-estab- 16 lished—at the Revolution of 1688 that the House should be Christian, all the leading functionaries of the State are Christian, and until very recently this House has been Christian. I will not go into the large question which has been so often and so long debated in this House; I am sure that the House will not think it improper in me, entertaining these strong convictions, however unworthy I myself may be to take such a part, still to declare my opinion that the House by its whole constitution should remain what it has been for so many years—Christian; because if we admit those who reject Christianity, we have no longer the power in our corporate capacity of appealing to the great code of Christianity as forming our rule of right as distinguished from wrong. I feel that I must not travel into many matters connected with this question, hut I wish to impress upon hon. Members who come here for the first time that they have now to decide for themselves and for the House this question, which has been so long debated—that is whether this House shall remain based on the constitution as that constitution was established in 1688? Persons who entertain revolutionary opinions cavil at that establishment; and I feel deeply upon this question, because it involves that establishment to its very base. What was the policy of the Monarch who was then ejected from the throne? James II. issued a declaration that no peculiarity of religious belief, and no want of religious belief, should disqualify any man from employment under the Government. That was done at the instance of Jesuit advisers; and the reply to that declaration by the nation was the ejection of himself and of his family from the throne; although in that revolution the last vestiges of what was called "the Divine right" of the Monarch were swept away, the nation supplied its place by securing that the whole constitution of the Imperial Parliament should be in accordance with the character of the Sovereign; that thus the whole Imperial power should be Christian, fundamentally and in all its details. Sir, when we reflect upon how this country has prospered since that period, some 180 years; how free from turmoil we have been, how safe has been our freedom among the shocks which have overturned the Governments and constitutions of other countries, I cannot divest my mind of the belief that it is not merely the inherent characteristics of the people that have 17 given that security; and if there is a God who governs the world, we must believe this in that particular organization of our institutions is entailed a blessing upon this country; and it shall not be for the want of my vote at all events, that that which I believe to be calculated to insure the continuance of this blessing be removed from the constitution of this country. I will not detain the House much longer, but I cannot help adverting to one fact. I beg the House to remember that at this moment the Liberal mind throughout Europe is stirred towards the principle of nationality. The desire is that the various nations of the world should be governed as nations by recognizing their natural limits and their peculiarities of descent as the limits of their respective Governments. But what are we asked to do here? I speak not of the individual with disrespect; but we are asked to seat a person here, in the British House of Commons, who declares himself to be an Austrian Baron. I know not whether Baron Lionel do Rothschild bears that title with the sanction of Her Majesty; but I must say that on examining the rolls of the last Parliament, towards its close, I was surprised to find that that hon. Gentleman had thought it becoming, that his name should appear on that roll with an Austrian title attached to it. There have been distinguished men in this House entitled to bear foreign titles—Sir Thomas Fremantle and others—but I never before knew a person appear in this House by a title derived from a foreign State. It may be an inadvertence; but it marks this fact, that one who is a Jew by race and religion does not regard with the same feelings the nation in which he lives as do those who are Christians, and who are identified with that nation both by birth and by religion. The truth is, that a Jew by his religion is bound to consider himself as neither an Austrian, nor a Frenchman, nor an Englishman, nor a Neapolitan, nor a German; and in all these nations you will find members of the Rothschild family. He is of a nation of which the present state of existence is a signal miracle, and I cannot help feeling that the hon. Member when he enters an Austrian title upon the rolls of this House, verifies the saying, that a true Jew can be really of no nation, but of that nation which is a standing miracle of the justice of the Almighty in its present scattered condition. I will not further detain the House. I cannot assent to 18 the Motion which has been proposed by the noble Lord the Member for London. My conduct on this question has been actuated by a sense of duty, and as long as I have a seat here I shall vote against this infraction of its Christian character. As long as I have a seat in this House I will ask those also who entertain the same convictions to vote with me. And I cannot think that our protest deserves to be termed intolerant, bigoted, or uncharitable; for what we ask is simply this, that the moral rule adopted for the conduct of this House in its corporate capacity shall be the rule of Protestant Christianity; if you condemn us as intolerant, bigoted, or presumptuous, you condemn the religion to which we adhere, and which we would see prevail as furnishing the code of morality for our! guidance as an English Legislature. I warn you that this Act which you are now called upon to sanction is deeply and widely unpopular. You may meet with cheer's from the inconsiderate, but I tell you that the feeling which lies deep in the breasts of the people of England is one of regret that, in what they consider a wanton exercise of liberality, this House should be tempted to discard that great code of morality which is their guide in the government of their families and in all the relations of life, and should depart from that recognition of the Almighty which is common to all Christians, and without: which to us He is an "Unknown God."

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
I hope the hon. Gentleman will not think that I am wanting in respect towards him if I do not reply in detail to the observations which he has just addressed to the House. I have great respect for the conscientious convictions of the hon. Gentleman with regard to this and other similar questions; but this matter has been so much debated in former Parliaments, and so far as the House of Commons is concerned, has been so clearly decided, that I think it unnecessary to enter upon any further discussion of it.

§ MR. SPEAKER
having put the question, there were numerous cries of "Aye," "Aye;" and some "Noes;" whereon Mr. Speaker declared "The Ayes have it." But cries of "No" being repeated, Mr. SPEAKER again put the question, and again pronounced "The Ayes have it." Whereon the Question being resolved in the affirmative, and the Resolution agreed to, Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild again advanced to the table to take the oath. But,

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
rose and said: Sir, I beg to observe that I said "No," in the most distinct manner—that "the Noes have it."

§ MR. SPEAKER
I put the Question in the usual form, and certainly without precipitation, and I heard no negation. I am in the judgment of the House, whether when I for the second time declared that "the Ayes have it," any Gentleman in a manner sufficiently audible questioned that decision. I certainly heard none, and therefore I declared that the Ayes had it.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, that both he and his colleague certainly said "No," but he supposed the right hon. Gentleman did not hear it. Some other Gentleman who sat near him also said "No."

§ SIR G. GREY
said, that he listened attentively, and he was of opinion that no 'Gentlemen said "No" audibly; and therefore Mr. Speaker was fully justified in declaring that the Ayes had it.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
repeated that he said No" at the proper time as audibly as he could, and that his hon. Colleague had also said it.

MR. FITZROY
said, that he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman said "No" on the Question; but he did not challenge the decision of the Speaker, when he declared that the Ayes had it.

§ MR. WHITMORE
said, that he was sitting below the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), and he certainly did not bear him question the decision of the Speaker.
Then Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, Alderman David Salomons, and Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, being Members professing the Jewish Religion, having conic to the Table, were sworn upon the Old Testament; and took the Oath, omitting the words "and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian;" and subscribed the same.
Several other Members took and subscribed the Oath; and several Members professing the Roman Catholic Religion, took and subscribed the Roman Catholic Oath; and one Member, being one of the People called Quakers, made and subscribed the Affirmation required by law.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, I extremely regret, Sir, to have to protest against any decision of yours; but having consulted with several Members on these benches, as well as with my hon. Colleague, I am distinctly of opinion that we did give you adequate notice that we did intend to di- 20 vide the House on the question of the admission of Baron Rothschild to sit and vote in the House. I have also consulted a work, which is usually considered of some authority in this House—the work of an eminent officer connected with the clerkship of this House—and I find it is laid down by him that if any Member protests that the Question has not been properly put, it is in accordance with the practice of Parliament that you should put that Question again. I make this protest, Sir, with the utmost deference for your authority; but it is my conviction, along with many other hon. Members of this House, that although our dissent may, through accident, not have reached your hearing, yet, on my instantly afterwards expressing my dissent, it would have been in accordance with the practice of this House if you had accorded to us the opportunity of recording our opinions against the Resolution by a division.

§ MR. SPEAKER
In reply to what has fallen from the hon. Member, I can only regret that any decision of mine should be open in any way to question. My decision was given in the presence of the House and of a large attendance of Members; and I can only regret, if the hon. Member intended to question my decision or the way in which it was given, that he did not do so in a sufficiently audible and distinct manner, which would have left no doubt either on my own mind or on the minds of the great majority of Members who were then present.