JEWS. (Hansard, 12 March 1850)

§ MR. W. P. WOOD
, in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice, said, he would not detain the House at any length. The matter which had given rise to it was notorious, and it was unnecessary for him to enter into any detail on the subject. The House was aware that the city of London had returned to this Parlia- 810 ment, when it first met, a Gentleman who was unable to take his seat in that House in consequence of certain oaths which were necessary, or which were supposed to be necessary, to be taken by Members at the table before taking their seats. That Gentleman afterwards, in consequence of a Bill (introduced and passed through the House by a considerable majority) being rejected in another place, resigned his seat, and the same Gentleman was again returned by a large majority of the electors of the city of London. As one of those electors, and having been called upon by several others of that great body (under other circumstances it would be great presumption on his part to do so), he had taken upon himself to submit this Motion to the House with a view to have a full inquiry into all the circumstances which might be requisite for the purposes of the House arriving at a conclusion on the subject. It was a matter which it was quite impossible to withhold from the consideration of the House for any lengthened period. Nobody could suppose that a Gentleman who was twice returned by such an important constituency as that of the city of London, and who hitherto, for reasons so well known, had been unable to take his seat in the House, would be permitted to remain in that situation without a decision being come to one way or the other with reference to his position. It was not for him (Mr. W. P. Wood) to prejudge the question, his object merely was to have a Committee of Inquiry appointed, and he rested his proposition on a precedent he had found in the journals, with reference to the case of Mr. Pease, when he claimed a seat in that House on making an affirmation, instead of taking the oaths in the form prescribed by the latest Act of Parliament on the subject—the 6th George III. Upon that occasion Mr. Pease was not allowed to take the affirmation until a full inquiry was made on the subject; and he would precisely adopt the course then taken, making only such changes in the form of the Motion as the peculiar circumstances of this case rendered necessary. The form of the Motion in Mr. Pease's case was— That a Select Committee should be appointed to search the Journals of the House, and to report such precedents and such Acts, or parts of Acts of Parliament, in relation to the persons called Quakers taking their seats, and making a solemn affirmation where oaths ought to be taken. The Motion he had to present to the House 811 was the same, substituting the word Jews for Quakers. He believed those inquiries would produce important information to assist and guide the House in arriving at a determination as to the steps to be taken with regard to the peculiar situation of the city of London at the present moment. If there could be unanimity on the question between both Houses of Parliament, then a Bill to remove all doubt would be the proper course to be taken; but at the same time he felt it was of great importance that the privileges of the House, of which they had been at all times so tenacious, should not be needlessly invaded. He thought it would be quite impossible to assume that there was no intention of bringing forward any Bill for the purpose of settling this question. No one could suppose that the whole matter of the election of Baron Rothschild for the city of London should be determined without inquiry, or that he should be ex-eluded from the House, or allowed to remain in his present position, or that the city of London should be permitted to be imperfectly represented, without a step being taken to ascertain the exact nature of the oaths which by law could be required to be taken by him before he could take his seat. The nature of these oaths depended upon a vast variety of circumstances; for there were no less than nineteen Acts of Parliament bearing on the subject, Und he could not say that there were not more. It would be also important to consider the mode in which Mr. Pease was admitted as a Member of that House, in order to come to a just conclusion upon the subject of oaths. It was only within the last few weeks, however, that he had learnt the exact mode in which that Gentleman had made affirmation—namely, by a form which omitted the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." That Gentleman was admitted, it appeared, not in conformity with any express Act of Parliament, but by a resolution of the House; and it would be important, therefore, to consider the various Acts of Parliament which bore upon the question. It would also be important to consider the mode in the various other religious denominations were permitted to take oaths at the present moment. The 1st and 2nd of Victoria, chap. 105, was declaratory in this respect; but it would be advisable that a further inquiry should be instituted. With regard to that declaratory Act, it would be necessary that the Committee should consider what was the exact state 812 of the law as to the taking of oaths by persons not professing the Christian religion; and it would be essential to ascertain, as a matter of evidence, what was deemed a binding mode of administering an oath to Members of the Jewish persuasion. He contented himself with making this short statement, as he did not think it necessary to argue the justice of the case at this moment. But, in justice to himself, he might say, that he had not brought forward this question simply on his own responsibility. He had consulted lawyers of the highest eminence on the subject—Gentlemen who had sat on both sides of the House, and they all concurred in the opinion that the question of admitting Jews to Parliament was a grave one, which he, therefore, felt Parliament ought to decide upon without delay. He should, therefore, beg leave to move— That a Select Committee be appointed to search the Journals of this House, and to report such Precedents and such Acts, or parts of Acts of Parliament, as relate to the question of Jews or other persons being admitted to take their seats in Parliament without being sworn upon the Holy Gospels: and further, to inquire and report in what manner Joseph Pease, esquire, on taking his seat in this House in the year 1833, made Affirmation to the effect of the Oaths required by Law to be taken by Members before taking their seats in this House; and also, to inquire and report in what manner Jews and other persons not professing the Christian Religion are permitted to make oath in Courts of Justice and other places whore an Oath is allowed, authorised, or required to be taken.

§ MR. ARKWRIGHT
did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman had made out any case at all. He stated that a Gentleman had been returned for the city of London, but that that Gentleman had never come to the House to take his seat; and that was all they knew about it. They did not know whether he was a Jew or not.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
, as one who had paid some attention to this subject, should like to be informed whether it was proposed that this Committee should be empowered to take evidence?

§ MR. P. WOOD
apprehended that that was a question for after consideration, although he presumed that the Committee would assume the usual right of calling witnesses before them.

§ MR. MACKENZIE
was at a loss to conceive the necessary connexion between the inquiry with regard to oaths taken by Members of Parliament, and the oaths and affirmations taken in courts of justice.

§ MR. P. WOOD
said, that he rested a considerable portion of his Motion on the case of Mr. Pease; and with respect to the affirmation in that case no record had been kept.

§ SIR R. PEEL
said, that on two several occasions he had given his cordial support to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in attempting by law to remove the impediments which obstructed the admission of Jews to Parliament. Had the noble Lord proceeded, in the course of the present Session, again to move those impediments by legislative enactment, there was no Member of that House who would be disposed to give a more cordial support to that Bill than he (Sir R. Peel) would. He understood the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford to propose a Committee to make an inquiry which should not prejudge the question at issue. If that were the understanding he (Sir R. Peel) would offer no objection to the appointment of the Committee; but this he must say distinctly, that there was no hon. Gentleman who had voted strenuously against the admission of the Jews who would watch with greater jealousy than he would watch any attempt by the House of Commons to supersede the authority of the House of Lords. He would not argue the subject now, but he hoped the House would altogether suspend its judgment, and not consider that the case of Mr. Pease was at all a precedent, or an admission of the right of other Dissenters to sit in the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that there were other matters which ought to be considered. He (Sir R. Peel) was ready to enter into a consideration of them; but so far as the single case of Mr. Pease was concerned, he conceived that there were enactments which clearly distinguished the case of the Quakers from other Dissenters from the Established Church, and that that case, taken alone, did not constitute a precedent. What might be the other precedents alluded to be would not inquire. It would be premature to do so. The high character of the hon. Gentleman, both for learning and integrity, justified the House in believing that he would not submit the Motion if he did not think it necessary. Still, he (Sir R. Peel) must say again that after having twice voted for the admission of the Jews to Parliament, there was no Gentleman in that House who would watch with greater jealousy than he would, lest any interference 814 should be attempted by the House of Commons with the House of Lords.

§ MR. J. S. WORTLEY
said, it was not his intention to oppose the Motion. Though he had on every occasion supported the Bill for the admission of the Jews to Parliament, he confessed that he felt none of the power of the House of Commons. Whatever the decision the proposed Committee might arrive at, it could not conclude the question, because no decision, even of the House, could withdraw that question from the decision of the courts of law, it being competent to any person to institute proceedings in the courts under circumstances of the kind, and proceedings of such a nature might revive former unfortunate conflicts.

§ LORD J. RUSSELL
did not conclude that the House, in appointing this Committee at all, passed any judgment with respect to the question itself—namely, whether a Jew could take a seat in that House, by taking an oath in any other form than that usually taken by Members of the House. But he thought it of great importance that there should be a Committee upon the subject. It appeared to him that the question as to the Acts of Parliament, as well as to the manner in which the House interpreted them in the case of Mr. Pease, was of very considerable importance. How it was that Mr. Pease should have made an affirmation in the manner in which he did, and that afterwards an Act of Parliament should have been passed, he believed in the same Session, appointing the mode a which that affirmation should be made, he never could tell. If the House was justified in adopting that course, and had acted according to law in admitting Mr. Pease on making an affirmation, it surely could not have been necessary afterwards to have passed an Act of Parliament upon the subject. He stated this as a matter of doubt only, without arguing the question. He thought this and several other points might be cleared up by a Committee. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last, that this question might be brought before a court of law, because there were penalties and disabilities which could not be adjudicated upon anywhere else. But it did not appear that the Committee was to give any opinion as to whether a Jew was able to take an oath in any other form than the one usually taken, by which the House would be bound. Supposing the Committee should 815 be decidedly of opinion that Baron Rothschild could not take his seat upon any other form of oath, still he (Lord J. Russell) thought the information which such a Committee might obtain would be extremely useful.

§ MR. ANSTEY
thought that the concluding observations of his right hon. Friend the Member for Buteshire should not go forth without comment. He differed entirely from the right hon. Member. He was of opinion that the decision of the House would be final, and that no court of law was competent to question it; not because of that undefined and un-definable thing called Privilege, but because such was the law. There was their common law jurisdiction over the trial of elections to their House. There was their statutory jurisdiction. In both, the decision was final. Then there was that statute which was declaratory of the common law of Parliament, and not only so, but likewise invested with a sanction and authority scarce inferior, in the opinion of some constitutional lawyers, to Magna Carta itself—he meant the Bill of Rights, by which it was provided that no man should be questioned in courts of law or elsewhere, for his vote, or speech, or act within the walls of Parliament. It should be remembered that the penalties were of two kinds, money penalties and Parliamentary penalties; and the House of Commons was the sole judge as to the latter. If, then, the House were to decide that Baron Rothschild might, or rather that he ought to take his seat, and that he would not incur the Parliamentary penalties by so doing, no court of law would venture to decide that that Gentleman, obeying the mandates of the House, would incur the pecuniary disabilities: if they were to do so, they would be acting in strict defiance of the Bill of Rights and the law of Parliament. For these reasons, he thought it quite clear that such a decision would conclude the question, and that there could be not the slightest hazard of conflict with other jurisdictions. In the face of their resolution, no jury would be bold enough to charge, and no jury base enough to find, against them.

§ MR. WALPOLE
did not rise for the purpose of promoting any discussion on the present question, but he wished to say that he agreed with the right hon. Member for Tamworth in thinking that the whole matter ought to be fairly and fully examined. Any inquiry as to Quakers or 816 any inquiry touching affirmations in courts of law, had, in his opinion, no application to the question relating to the right of any person to take his seat in that House. There was a very general desire that a fair and impartial Committee should be appointed, and for the appointment of such a Committee he should vote.