§ SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he wished to put a question to his noble Friend the Member for the City of London on a subject of considerable importance, and which had occupied a large share of the attention of that House. A Bill had been introduced during the course of the present Session to remove the restrictions which prevented Jews from Sitting in that House, and, after receiving the sanction of that House, had been rejected by the House of Lords. A Bill had also been introduced into the other House of Parliament by a noble and learned Lord of great weight and authority, having for its object to substitute for the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, one form of oath which was thought better suited to the Circumstances of the times; and that had also been rejected. His noble Friend had, on a previous occasion, in reply to a question put to him by an hon. Member, stated that it was not the intention of the Government, during the present Session of Parliament, to introduce any similar measure for the attention of Parliament, and therein he (Sir G. Grey) thought they were exercising a wise discretion. He wished now to ask the noble Lord, whether, considering the unsatisfactory state of the law as it at present stood, it was the intention of the Government, during the next Session, to introduce a measure for the purpose of altering the oaths to be taken by Members of Parliament, either as a separate measure, or as part of that scheme of Parliamentary reform which it was understood the Government would propose?
§ LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, he thought that the state of the law on this subject was such that no man could deem it to be satisfactory. In the case of a Gentleman who had endeavoured to take his seat in that House, there had been a decision of a superior Court of law. One of the learned Judges had expressed, on that occasion, his opinion that it was not illegal for a Gentleman to take his seat in that House without using the words, "On the true faith of a Christian;" and another learned Judge dissented from that opinion, and said that it would be much more satisfactory for Parliament to declare its meaning, and not to exclude Jews by an enact- 292 ment which was not intended to refer to them at all. Since then it had been endeavoured to place the law on a more satisfactory footing, but no legislation had as yet taken place on the subject. He had thought, considering what had already taken place on the subject, and also the state of public business, that it would not be advisable to bring the subject before the House again this Session; but he should feel it his duty, during the next Session of Parliament, to bring in, a proposal, either in a Bill relating to the state of the representation generally, or as a separate measure, which would not only have for its object the relief of the Jews, but would be framed in a manner to alter the general form of oath, which, as it existed at present, appeared to him to be only consistent with ridiculous intolerance or practical absurdity.