Commons Sitting of 9 June 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Appellate Jurisdiction (House of Lords).
2° Oxford University.
3° Oath of Abjuration; Excise; Small Debts Imprisonment Act Amendment (Scotland).

REFORMATORY ESTABLISHMENTS— QUESTION.
VISCOUNT NEWPORTsaid, that as the course to be taken by more counties than one depended upon what were the intentions of the Government with respect to Reformatory Establishments, he begged to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any increased allowance for the maintenance of juvenile criminals committed to such establishments?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, the question had been brought under his consideration some time ago, and he undertook to arrange with the Treasury what would be considered a fair and reasonable allowance for it to make towards the maintenance of reformatory institutions. In settling the question, however, a difficulty arose in consequence of the different rates of expense gone to by different establishments, and which stood in the way of their arriving at an immediate conclusion. Still, the principle which he thought ought to be acted on was, that the Treasury should appropriate, for the maintenance of the inmates of those institutions the same amount as would have to be expended had
1162
they been sent to prison and maintained there at the public expense.

INCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND)—QUESTION.
COLONEL GREVILLEsaid, he would beg to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney General for Ireland if it was his intention to bring in a Bill in the course of the Session to continue the Encumbered Estates Commission?
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he must beg to remind the House that at the very earliest date in the present Session he introduced a Bill, having the double object of enlarging and making permanent the system at present in operation in Ireland for the sale of estates, as well as the introduction of other large reforms into the Court of Chancery. The Bill, however, had been referred to a Select Committee, and from that cause, in conjunction with the advanced period of the Session, it would not be practical to carry the Bill through during the present Session. He was aware of the great anxiety which prevailed on the subject, and he likewise believed that it was the unanimous opinion that the system of the Incumbered Estates Court should be continued. He was, therefore, prepared to advise Her Majesty's Government to introduce a Bill to maintain the jurisdiction of the court without intermission for another year.

THE RETURN OF THE TROOPS— EXPLANATION.
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he wished to correct a mistake which he had fallen into on Friday night. He stated on the part of his hon. and gallant Friend (Sir M. Berkeley) that a message had been received to the effect that the Princess Royal had arrived at Malta with a battalion of the Guards on Board. He feared that in that statement he had misled the House, for since then another telegraphic despatch had been received, explaining the actual state of the case as follows. The St. Jean d'Acre had arrived at Constantinople, and left for Malta on the 5th, with a battalion of the Guards on board. The Agamemnon had arrived on the 6th, and left the same evening with a battalion of the Cold-streams, while a battalion of Rifles had arrived there on its way home. The Princess Royal was at Constantinople taking out her lower deck guns, in order to go on to the Crimea for troops.

CIVIL SERVICE COMMITTEE— QUESTION.
MR. KENDALLsaid, he would beg to ask the Chairman of the Civil Service Superannuation Committee (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether he could inform the House when the Report of the Committee would be laid upon the table, and what had been the cause of the delay?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the Civil Service Committee had completed the evidence on the principal branch of the inquiry, and had decided before proceeding with any more evidence or coming to a conclusion, to refer the evidence to actuaries, to give an opinion as to a question of calculation by which they thought their judgment would be guided. The report of the actuaries had not yet been received, and therefore the Committee were not at present in a condition to pursue their inquiry.

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES—QUESTION.
MAJOR REED: Sir, seeing the hon. Gentleman the Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. Baillie) in his place, I beg to ask him if, after the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet the Member for Hertfordshire (Sir B. Lytton), confirmed by that of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, as to the inexpediency of entering upon such a question at present, it is his intention to raise the discussion of which he has given notice on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply on the Army Estimates?
MR. BAILLIE: I beg to state that it is my intention to call the attention of the House to the question of which I have given notice, as soon as possible after the receipt in this country of the official accounts relative to what has passed in the United States. If those accounts should reach England previous to the bringing on of the Army Estimates, I shall do so then; if not, upon the earliest subsequent occasion.
MR. DISRAELI: I may take this opportunity of inquiring from the noble Lord the First Minister, whether he has now received direct information of the retirement of Her Majesty's Representative from Washington?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, Her Majesty's Government have received no information upon which any reliance car be placed.

THE TIPPERARY BANK—QUESTION.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he would beg to ask the Attorney General for Ireland whether Her Majesty's Government had had their attention called to certain observations of the Master of the Rolls last Tuesday on the case of the Tipperary Bank? The Master of the Rolls was reported to have said:
"He could not help expressing his great surprise that the Government had allowed this case to go on so long without interfering. Having regard to the English shareholders, he had no hesitation in saying that if the Government remained longer quiescent—if they did not at once hand the matter over to the first law officer of the Crown—they would be guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. It would be proved to the satisfaction, he felt convinced, of the entire English and Irish public, before he delivered his judgment, that the most nefarious frauds had been committed, and if the Government neglected their duty by passing the matter over they could not complain if the public were to say they had been conniving at what had been doing."
He wished to ask whether the Government intended to take any steps in accordance with, or in consequence of, the opinion of the Master of the Rolls?
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, he must beg to apprise the hon. and learned Gentleman that on Friday last he saw in a Dublin newspaper, which had been indirectly transmitted to him, observations similar, as he believed, to what the hon. and learned Gentleman had just read. Immediately upon reading the judgment, acting upon his own responsibility, he communicated with the Crown Solicitor to ascertain when the learned Judge was to deliver judgment, conceiving that he would not have made observations so strong if there had not been good grounds for his doing so. As yet he knew nothing of the case beyond those rumours which met the public eye from time to time in the newspapers. But the course of the learned Judge was quite clear, namely, to order the documents in the case to be handed over to the Crown Solicitor, to be laid before him (the Attorney General) for his direction. He had, therefore, as he said, put himself in communication with the Crown Solicitor, and had directed him, if the evidence assumed the character hinted at by the learned Judge, to inform him, in order that he should be enabled to act promptly and decidedly, and put the law in force against whoever were the guilty parties.

OATH OF ABJURATION BILL.
Order for Third Reading read; Bill read 3°.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGER: I rise, Sir, to move to leave out all the words from the beginning of line 8 in page 2, and to insert the words of which I have given notice. It is with extreme reluctance I trespass once more upon the attention of the House with reference to this often discussed and all but exhausted subject. If I could bring myself to believe that it was a question of trifling importance—if I could ever feel any indifference to the subject, or permit myself to act upon the suggestions of my own ease and comfort, I should undoubtedly abstain from occupying further time with its consideration. But the more I consider the question, the more I feel the great importance of it, and I am therefore anxious to make one more effort to arrest a step which, according to my view, will be of the most serious detriment to the public interests of this country. I cannot hope to command the attention of the House, for I have nothing of novelty to say to it. All I ask is for its patience and forbearance, of which I have, on former occasions, received a very large share. Sir, it is unnecessary for me to explain to the House the character and nature of the Amendment which I propose; it is sufficiently intelligible. Its object, which must be apparent to every one, is to bring back the oath of abjuration substantially to the form in which it has existed without objection for 150 years, omitting from it those portions which have been objected to upon the ground of having ceased to be of any effect; and I think there are considerations which ought to induce the House to accept the Amendment which I now beg to propose. In considering the question, it may be useful to take a retrospective glance of the circumstances which have brought the question into its present position. From the earliest period of the existence of the Legislature down to the year 1830 it never entered into the imagination of any one that a person not professing the Christian religion could be a Member of the Legislature. In the year 1830, Mr. Grant first brought forward the Motion to relieve the Jews from the disabilities under which they laboured. And I should recommend to Gentlemen who are in the habit of asserting that it is merely by the accidental insertion of certain
1166
words in the oath that the Jews are excluded from the Legislature, to read the account of the various disabilities which are described by Mr. Grant to have existed no longer ago than twenty-six years from the present moment; and it will be found that those disabilities extended to their exclusion from almost every civil office and employment. Mr. Grant was not successful in his first attempt, but he renewed it with more success at a later period—namely, in the year 1836. From that year, however, down to the year 1847, there was a cessation in the agitation relative to the question, although in the intervening time various Bills had been passed relieving the Jews from disabilities and admitting them to certain privileges, amongst others to corporate offices. But in the year 1847 the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) was returned for the City of London with Baron de Rothschild; and in pursuance of a pledge which the noble Lord gave on the hustings, from that time down to the present almost every year has been marked by some attempt, directly or indirectly, to introduce the Jews into the Legislature. The oath of abjuration was that which furnished what might be called the stumbling-block to the admission of the Jews; and, therefore, in the course of all their discussions it invariably was made the object of attack and animadversion. Undoubtedly there were objections to that oath, arising from a portion of it having become completely obsolete, there being no person in existence to whom it could apply. Unfortunately neither party felt disposed to do that which, I think, ought to have been done—namely, to omit those objections which were patent to all in the oath. Those who were in favour of the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament felt that there was some danger in touching the question at all, for fear of placing that portion of the oath on which they relied in jeopardy. Those, again, who were desirous of admitting the Jews into the House were unwilling to abolish the oath, because by so doing they felt that they would lose a standing argument as to that oath presenting the only impediment for the admission of the Jews. Under these circumstances, neither party was desirous of advancing. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Manchester (Mr. M. Gibson) taking advantage of this state of things, to use a familiar expression, made himself master of the position. He, there

1167
upon, determined to cut the knot asunder of the difficulties, by proposing a measure to abolish the oath of abjuration altogether. That oath, however, even by those who are in favour of the admission of the Jews to Parliament, is admitted to contain much matter of the highest importance. It is admitted that it contains the recognition of the Protestant religion, as laid down by the Act of Settlement. There were many hon. Members who were startled at the notion of getting rid of the whole of the oath, and of thereby abandoning the important recognition to which I have referred. But, unfortunately, they consented to the second reading of this Bill, under the expectation that they would be enabled to alter it in Committee according to their wish. The noble Lord the Member for London by this movement of the right hon. Gentleman, found himself placed in a subordinate position with regard to this question. The noble Lord was compelled to work under the right hon. Gentleman, he having got possession of the ground, by which the Jew was to be completely relieved from the disability under which he laboured. The noble Lord objected as strongly as any one to getting rid of those words in the oath which recognised the Protestant succession. The noble Lord introduced in Committee a portion of the oath of abjuration, omitting, however, the most important parts of it, as I am prepared to show, and inserting but a small modicum of the oath of abjuration. The question then is, whether we are content to abandon most important portions of the oath which have been taken by all Protestants and Christians without exception for 150 years, and be satisfied with the tame, meagre, lifeless phraseology which the noble Lord the Member for the City of London proposes to substitute.
Now, what is the nature of this oath of abjuration which we are called upon to abandon? A very great mistake appears to exist upon this subject. It has been supposed that the oath of abjuration is only an expansion of the oath of allegiance. Now, this is an entire misapprehension. The oath of allegiance is an oath which may be taken to the Sovereign by persons of all religious denominations; but the oath of abjuration stands upon much higher grounds. The oath of abjuration says:—
"I do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare on my conscience before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lady
1168
Queen Victoria is the lawful and rightful Queen of this realm."
Is there nothing significant in this oath? Is there nothing in this portion of it which ought to be retained? The title of Her Majesty to the Throne of these realms depended upon the Protestant character of her ancestors and the Act of Settlement. If it depended simply upon a mere abstract hereditary right, we know that a certain Roman Catholic Sovereign would be at this moment, de jure, king of these realms. Now, this is not a mere idle phantom or claim which is assumed, like our claim to the sovereignty of France, and which was continued up to a recent period. It is a vital principle. It is a claim which I shall show you is admitted and acknowledged, and is only not enforced because the time has not as yet arrived when it would be convenient to enforce it. This subject has been introduced to the House before by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Napier), and it becomes peculiarly necessary to press it on the notice of the House in order to enforce the remarks I have made in respect to the existence of a de jure claim to the throne of England. In the year 1841, some years after the accession of our Gracious Sovereign, Archbishop Cullen, now the Pope's legate in Ireland, published a selection from the Papal bulls for the use of the College De Propaganda Fide, and he gave in a preface, which he addressed to Cardinal Fransoni, now I believe at the head of the College, the reasons why he published this selection from the bulls. He stated that it was—
"That all things may be in readiness which may appertain to the right and expeditious management of affairs."
And he added at the end of the letter—
"That the edition contains all those Apostolic letters which have been promulgated since the first edition down to our own times, and the necessity or opportunity for consulting which may occur in the management of the affairs of the Sacred Council."
Amongst those bulls which were selected for the use of the College, are two bulls which were published by Clement XIII., in 1759 and 1760. It is very significant that these two bulls are selected amongst eight in all, out of sixty-six other bulls. These bulls so extracted from the rest, and published for immediate use, were bulls as I have stated of Pope Clement

1169
XIII., and addressed to King James, as he calls him, "To our most dear son in Christ Jesus, the illustrious King of Great Britain." In them the Pope informed King James, as he called him, that he had nominated to certain bishoprics in Ireland, and gave his reasons for not mentioning "the King's" name in the letter of appointment. He said—
"That for reasons which his own prudence would suggest he had not mentioned His Majesty's name in the letter of appointment, but that he addressed the letters to him as a pledge that this omission of his name in these letters should not injure or derogate from his right of nomination, but that his right should remain uninjured."
Now, let me ask, why these particular bulls are selected in this extraordinary manner, published, as is stated, for immediate use of the Propaganda, and brought out from the Papal armoury and burnished up by Archbishop Cullen, if this is not intended to be a claim to be brought forward on a fitting occasion? But this is not all. In a book published in Ireland, De Hiberniâ Dominicanâ, the following most remarkable passage is to be found—the more suspicious from its having been erased from several copies:—
"The heirs of Sophia of Hanover were placed on the British Throne as being the nearest of kin to the family of the Stuarts, who were Protestants. But," added the writer, "there are fifty and more Catholic princes of either sex who enjoy the right of nearer blood to the Stuarts which that most accurate genealogical tree of celebrated lineage which I hold in my hands distinctly exhibits."
I will venture to ask whether you do not believe that Bishop Cullen possesses that genealogical tree, and that the selection of these bulls is not some of the fruit of that genealogical tree? This being the case, we are now to consider whether we, as Protestants and Christians, can believe that those words proposed to be omitted from the oath are insignificant or unimportant?
"I do truly and sincerely acknowledge, protest, testify, and declare, on my conscience, before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria is the lawful and rightful Queen of this realm."
Are you disposed to accept this lifeless phraseology proposed to be substituted for the strong and heartfelt assertions of the right and title of Her Majesty to the Throne of England. I believe that the noble Lord would have been as desirous as any one of retaining these words, if he
1170
could have done so consistently with the object which he has in view. We have heard from the noble Lord, on former occasions in this House, a noble declaration as to the sovereignty of Queen Victoria. But the noble Lord is in this situation—he is desirous of getting rid of the words, "On the true faith of a Christian," which constitutes the only impediment to the introduction of the Jew into Parliament; and if the noble Lord introduced all the other words of the oath which I propose, then the noble Lord would have no excuse whatever for not adding those words at the close of it; but, on examining the meagre and unsatisfactory modicum of the oath proposed by the noble Lord, the House will see that it is impossible to adapt those words to it. In like manner there are many hon. Members who, being anxious that the oath should be changed for the purpose of admitting the Jews to Parliament, are willing, for the purpose of accomplishing that end, to abandon all the remainder of the oath, which, nevertheless, they do not deem unimportant.
The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), on a former occasion, taunted me with not bringing in a Bill absolutely to exclude the Jews from Parliament; and the noble Lord at the head of the Government said that I might bring that question before the House on the Motion for the third reading. Now, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, I have only to say that there is no necessity for the introduction of such a measure, inasmuch as the members of the Jewish persuasion are virtually excluded by the oath of abjuration as it stands. In respect to the observation of the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston). I would remind him that it would be impossible for me to place distinctly before the House, for its consideration whether or not the Jew should be permitted to sit in Parliament, because that question would be entangled and embarrassed with those questions arising out of the important words of the oath proposed to be omitted. And that shows the wisdom of the course proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who, as we all know, is as anxious as any one in. this House for the admission of the Jews to Parliament. But my right hon. Friend not only suggested, put proposed, that the two questions should be separated from each other, and he proposed an Amendment, which would have brought the question

1171
of the admission of the Jews distinctly before the House, while, at the same time, he would have preserved in its substantial integrity this oath, which had always been taken, without any exception, for 150 years. It is, I maintain, quite impossible to mix up the question of the oaths to be taken by the Christian Members of this House, and that of the admission of the Jews to seats in Parliament. No Member of this House ought to try, by a mere change in the form of an oath to admit the Jews to seats in the Legislature, because the consequences would be, that the Jew would not merely be admitted to a seat in this House, but also to many other offices in the State, which it would be highly objectionable for a Jew to hold. On this particular point I will appeal to the noble Lord the Member for the City of London. In 1847, and also in 1853, the noble Lord sought to guard against danger from the introduction of Jews into that House by certain clauses which would have the effect of excepting certain offices from being held by Jews. These were offices connected with the United Church of England and Ireland—with the Ecclesiastical Courts—with the Universities, our colleges, and our schools. But, even as a Member of the Legislature, hon. Members have not looked sufficiently forward to provide for the duties which would devolve upon the Jew if he were ever admitted into this House. Suppose a Jew were appointed to sit on an Election Committee, which sat de die en diem, with the exception of Good Friday and Christmas Day, both of which days, of course, the Jews regard very lightly; but these Committees frequently sit on Saturdays, a day which the Jew venerates as his sabbath. Now, could the attendance of the Jew be exempted under such circumstances? I merely throw these things out as illustrations of the position in which matters would stand by merely acting upon the supposition that the difficulties of the question could be removed by simply adopting the changes proposed in the oath of abjuration, and without regarding all the circumstances which must be taken into consideration before the Jew, if admitted, could take his proper place in the Legislature. It is absolutely essential that there should be a distinction between the oath of a Jew and that of a Christian. When no objection is made so far as the Christians are concerned, why, I ask you, do you propose to remove all the important and significant
1172
parts of the oath which relate to Christians only, and from the obligation of taking which they do not desire to be relieved? Now, I feel that I have a right to expect that the support and the vote of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) will be given in favour of my views, because that right hon. Gentleman, in the course of one of the numerous debates on this subject, made the following statement—
"He frankly owned that he was glad the noble Lord retained these words in respect to all Christian Members of the House, considering the solemn duties which we are called upon to perform, He thought the noble Lord had acted wisely in declining to reduce that high standard which we had fixed for ourselves."
What I ask the House to do is to retain the oaths with the objectionable parts weeded out, and to let the question of the admission of the Jews to Parliament be brought on as a distinct question.
Such is the position in which this question stands; but I am not unprepared to go further with it, if it should become necessary to do so. I am prepared, Sir, to insist on the retention of the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and to contend that there ought to be no thoroughfare into this House for any one but a Christian man. I am desirous of considering fairly the various arguments which have been brought forward in favour of the admission of the Jews into Parliament; but before I do so I would wish to clear the way by removing a misapprehension which appears to prevail in consequence of the expression which was used by the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) in the course of the debates on this subject, when he called upon the House to complete the edifice of religious liberty by admitting the Jew to sit in Parliament. A general impression seems to prevail that Parliament for a great number of years was gradually widening its doors for the admission of persons of all religious denominations, and that the Jew is the only person now excluded. Many hon. Members will, however, be surprised to hear that there has been no instance in which Parliament has interfered directly to seat amongst them any person of any religions persuasion, with the exception of the case of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, by which our fellow Christians, the Roman Catholics, are admitted to seats in this House. But their admission had been decided rather upon political than theological

1173
grounds. It is not, therefore, correct to say that Parliament has been gradually enlarging its doors for the purpose of admitting persons of every religious denomination. The Dissenter has never been excluded. Even during the existence of the Test and Corporation Acts there were members of that body in this House. The Unitarian has never objected to take the oath with the words "On the true faith of a Christian;" and in respect to the Quaker certain Bills were passed in the reign of George II., and without reference to the admission of that body into Parliament, by which they were permitted to make affirmation in all cases in which the oath was required from other religious denominations. When the question arose in the case of Mr. Pease, those Acts of Parliament were considered by the Committee to whom that case was referred, and they reported that the language of those Acts was so comprehensive as to admit the Quaker to a seat in this House. This is the first measure brought into this House since that of 1829 in reference to the admission of Roman Catholics, by which an attempt is made deliberately and distinctly to introduce a person into Parliament who was not of the Protestant religion. There is an argument used which I confess it is irksome to me to advert to, and that is one which has been often made on these occasions, and which has been as often refuted, namely, that it is merely by an accident, by the insertion of certain words at the end of the oath, and which had been introduced with quite a different object, that the Jew had been excluded from a seat in this House. I really was astonished that the acute and original mind of my hon. Friend the Member for West Surrey (Mr. Drummond), should have revived this exploded fallacy. If it were not presumptuous to suppose a single combat between the noble Lord the Member for London and myself on this ground, I should say that we have mutually conceded to each other this point, and have brought it to a position in which no argument can arise from the circumstances under which this oath was framed, and that therefore the introduction of such an argument as that to which I have referred is no longer tenable. I have admitted again and again to the noble Lord, that at the time these important words were introduced into the oath, there was no intention by such language to exclude from Parliament members of the
1174
Jewish persuasion; inasmuch as at that time there were comparatively speaking no Jews at all in England; and the noble Lord has admitted on his part that no one at that time ever contemplated the possibility of the Jew being entitled to sit in the British Legislature. But unfortunately this argument was urged upon the very last occasion when this Bill was under consideration. With a view of closing this controversy I will trespass upon the patience of the House by reading the judgment of Mr. Baron Parke in the case of Miller v. Salomons, in reference to this point—
"But it is a fallacy to argue that, because the immediate object of the Legislature was to give a more binding effect to a Christian oath, not to exclude the Jews and others than Christians, therefore they meant all such to be admitted, and consequently that the terms of the oath ought to be modified so as to carry that object into effect, and to permit all not of the Christian faith to take the oath in a form binding on their consciences. Nothing was further from the contemplation of the Legislature. The truth is, they never supposed that any but Christians would form a part of either House of Parliament. The possibility that persons of the Jewish persuasion should be peers, or be elected Members of Parliament, probably entered their contemplation as little as that of Mahomedans or Pagans being placed in cither category. Both of these are, in effect, on precisely the same footing in this respect as the Jews, and the argument applies equally to them all. In enacting a provision aimed at a peculiar class only of Christians, the Legislature have, in the most positive terms, required an oath from every Member of the Legislature which none but a Christian can take; and this enactment must have the effect of closing both Houses of Parliament against every one but a Christian."
Now, an hon. Gentleman, in the course of the last discussion on this subject, adverted to the circumstance that between the first and the thirteenth William III. there was no oath containing the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," and he argued that during that period a Jew might have taken his seat in this House. I must, however, remind the hon. Gentleman that the Jews at that time were regarded by this country as aliens, and were charged with an alien duty.
I will now proceed to another class of arguments used by the advocates of this Bill. The first generally brought forward is this—that all the subjects of a free State are entitled to an equality of civil rights. Now, Sir, I am prepared to concede that point in the fullest possible manner. But, then, we must understand what is really meant by the term "civil rights,"

1175
because if "civil rights" are intended to include political power and office, then I utterly deny the proposition that the subjects of a free State are equally entitled to the enjoyment of civil rights. Every subject of a free State is no doubt entitled to the full enjoyment of property, to the liberty of his person when he does not offend against the law, to civil and religious freedom within the limits of the constitution. He is equal in the sight of the law with all his fellow-subjects. But political power and office are not the natural right of all persons in a free State. They belong to those only to whom the State thinks proper to assign them. If this principle be not correct, all the qualifications for, or disqualifications to, office in this country are utterly unjustifiable. I think it will hardly be denied that it is competent to a Christian community to impose, as a restraint upon the exercise of a certain office, the profession of a certain religion, and that it is also competent to relax the obligation as to certain offices and to retain it as to others. And, therefore, I hardly think that anybody will venture to maintain that the claim of the Jew to a seat in the Legislature can be placed upon the abstract right of all persons in a free State being entitled to equal civil rights. But, then, it is said, "Oh, you have given judgment against yourselves, even admitting you are right in your decision. You have given political power and office to the Jew, and, therefore, you cannot, in justice, withhold from him a right to the higher office in the shape of a seat in the Legislature." Now it is no doubt true that by various Acts of Parliament we have empowered the Jew to fill the offices of Mayor, Sheriff, and Magistrate; but it is argued, and I think with success, that there is a most important distinction between admitting a person to a subordinate office, and making him, in some degree, supreme, by enabling him to sit in the Houses of Legislature, and assist in making our laws. In the subordinate office the magistrate has merely to administer the law that is made by a Christian Parliament. If such a person be guilty of any violation of duty, he is amenable to punishment. But a Member of the Legislature, in that character, is superior to the law. He has nothing to guide him but his moral conscience and responsibility, and how any one can assume, because by admitting the Jews to
1176
inferior offices, we are bound to admit them also to seats in this House, I am at a loss to conceive. And, Sir, I cannot help thinking that there may be circumstances which, even in the cases of those subordinate offices to which reference has been made, make the holding of these offices incompatible with the profession of the faith of a Jew. I am sorry to be compelled to advert to this particular subject; I would willingly pass it by; but I feel that I cannot. Sir, I find in the newspapers that on the Thanksgiving Day the Lord Mayor and the Corporation of London went in state to the Cathedral of St. Paul. That was the Lord's-Day, which was selected for the purpose of our "entering into His gates with thanksgiving and into His courts with praise,"—thanksgiving and praise offered up in the only name by which our praise can be acceptable to God. There, seated on high, in the midst of that congregation, and in all the pomp of official dignity, sat one to whom those prayers must have been a profanation and a farce. How is it possible not to sympathise with the devout worshipers in that temple on that day? What must their feelings have been? How distressed must they have been; and how disturbed their devotions at such a sight? Sir, the Lord Mayor's presence there was essential to his office or it was not. If it were not necessary, then it was only a gratuitous profanation of his faith. If it were, then that is a striking instance in which the faith of a Jew is incompatible with the holding of even one of those subordinate offices. And give me leave to say—to remind the House that if we do not ourselves guard against the introduction of the Jew into such offices, we may, over and over again, if the Jew be elevated to the judicial bench, see a repetition of this profanation. That, I earnestly hope, the House will take into its serious consideration.
But, Sir, to pass from that to the consideration of those other arguments which I have heard used in debates on this question. One of them is of rather an extraordinary nature. It is said, "Well, but you have virtually admitted the Jew to the Legislature—at least you have admitted him to a share in the legislation of this country by giving him the elective franchise." Now, I know very well what would be said of me—how such an argument as that would have been characterised if I had used it. To argue that the possession

1177
of an infinitesimal share in the election of a representative to sit in this assembly and assist in making laws for the country can have the slightest analogy to the giving to the Jew a place in the legislature, and allowing him to take a part in making the laws for this nation, seems to me the most remarkable argument—a most extraordinary—the most subtle argument I ever heard. Theoretically—metaphysically, perhaps, there may be something like a shadow of reason in it; but practically, and to all intents and purposes, it amounts to an utter absurdity. "But then," it is said, "putting aside the question of the Jew being allowed to share in the election of a representative in Parliament, some electors of large constituencies like that of London have chosen to elect a Jew to represent them in Parliament; and their choice ought to be regarded and their wishes fulfilled." Now, this is an argument which has been used by the Archbishop of Dublin, (Archbishop Whately) who has most consistently and most honourably maintained the right of the Jew to sit in Parliament; and who has ultimately narrowed the question to this ground—that the choice of the electors is decisive. I ventured on a former occasion to quote the argument of the most rev. Prelate, and was rather roundly taken to task by my right, hon. Friend the Member for South Wiltshire (Mr. S. Herbert), who said that I had grossly, though no doubt unintentionally, misunderstood the argument of Archbishop Whately. Now, Sir, I have read as much as most men of the works of that admirable author; and certainly if there be one thing more than another characteristic of his style, it is the transparent clearness of his language. So that, however I may differ with him, it is quite impossible for me to mistake his language. Since then I have found a partial confirmation of what I said in the preface of a work recently published by the Archbishop—The Remains of Bishop Coplestone. In that preface, Archbishop Whately, in referring to different topics on which he agreed or disagreed with the Bishop, says—
"I never could consent to join issue on the question, the only one usually discussed, whether a Jew, or any one else not professing Christianity, Should sit in the House of Commons, because I regard that as a question which should be left in each particular case to the decision of the electors."
Now, if the most rev. author means to say that this matter should be left to the consideration
1178
of the electors by the Legislature introducing a law to that effect, undoubtedly he has not expressed himself with his usual felicity. But let that pass; and let us come to the argument. The electors of London say, "We are a powerful and numerous constituency; and we have over and over again deliberately elected a Jew as our representative. You ought to respect our feelings and our wishes, and to accept our choice; and it is highly improper that we should be interfered with by any law of yours which excludes a Jew from Parliament." With great deference to the electors of the City of London, I beg leave to say, that they have put their case on a most erroneous basis. They may be a very powerful constituency; but they are only a minute fraction in the general constituency of the country. They are not to choose for themselves; but for Parliament and for the nation. They have no right to elect any one who is incompetent to sit in Parliament. If they do so, they act precisely as if they did not exercise their right of election at all. If a claim like that made by the City of London were admitted, similar privileges may be claimed by other constituencies, some of whom may think a miner would be a convenient representative, others a tidewaiter or an alien. In that way the law may be broken in upon according to the wishes of the different constituencies, if we listen to the argument upon which the City asks us to seat Baron de Rothschild.
Now, Sir, I believe I have, as shortly as I could, gone over the various arguments which are usually brought forward when this question is discussed in this House; and the House will observe that up to the present time I have not referred to that which is really the important and the vital question in this case. Notwithstanding the various arguments put forward in considering this matter, it is perfectly clear that the strength of our case rests upon sacred ground. I confess that if it were not for the religious element in this question—if we were not to consider the matter in its religious aspect—I should be perfectly indifferent as to whether the Jew sat in Parliament or not. Our opponents have endeavoured to draw us off the high ground on which we base our case, to bring us down to combat with them on a lower theme; but I confess that I can never consent to abandon the vantage ground upon which we must stand as Christians in this case, or not stand at all. Unless

1179
the religious part of this case operates to exclude the Jews, it is immaterial to me whether they be unnational in their habits and customs. It is a matter of perfect indifference to me whether they be strangers or sojourners in the nation where their lot is cast, looking forward for an inheritance in another land. All that is to me wholly unimportant. In a civil view of the question I would not oppose the introduction of Jews to the Legislature on such grounds as these. It is not on such grounds, therefore, but upon much higher considerations, that I own I base my opposition to this measure. Now, Sir, it is admitted, I believe, pretty generally that our institutions—the institutions of this country—have Christianity for their foundation, and it has been over and over again emphatically said, that Christianity is a part of the law of the land. In whatever sense those words may be understood every one, I think, will be disposed to admit that it would be rather an anomaly in a Christian country, and where the institutions of the country were Christian, if any person who was not a Christian were permitted to take a part in the making or the altering of those laws which are themselves founded on Christianity. But the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) on a former occasion made use of an argument which I observe is repeated in a leading article this morning in a journal that takes care to give a direction to our debates and tell us the arguments that are to be used. The noble Lord said, "You talk of unchristianising the Legislature. Why, if by admitting the Jew into Parliament you would unchristianise the Legislature, you have, then, by admitting him amongst your people unchristianised the country." With great deference to the noble Lord, I do believe that had such an argument been used against him, he, by his powers of sarcasm, would have instantly withered it into atoms. To suppose that there is the slightest similarity between the case of those people mingling with your people—or, I should rather say, amongst them, for though the Jews live amongst us they are not of us—not concerning themselves with the Christian religion, not interfering in the remotest degree with the religious observances of the country, but enjoying the benefit and the blessings of a Christian Government—I say, Sir, that to argue that there was the slightest resemblance between the case of a people so mixed up in any way with the people of this country, and that of the
1180
Jews placed here in the supreme station of Legislators to make laws respecting the religion of this country—to have the power to enact laws to govern a Christian community—does appear to me to be the most extraordinary argument that can possibly be adduced. Now, the noble Lord is obliged to be inconsistent with himself, when he argues as the advocate of the Jews. The noble Lord is deeply impressed with a sense of religion. I am satisfied that the noble Lord is a sincere believer in the Christian religion; but the noble Lord is unfortunately in a false position when, with religious feelings strong in his mind, he is compelled to come forward here as the advocate of the case of the Jew; for, says the noble Lord, in a speech to this House—
"And I shall state more; when speaking of the Legislature which has to dispose of and to control the various interests, ecclesiastical and secular, of the country, religion ought to influence and control the decisions of its members."
May I venture to ask the noble Lord what religion? The answer is obvious. The Christian religion. That is the high standard to which all our laws ought to conform. That ought to be the guide, the controlling principle of all our legislation; but I can scarcely believe that the noble Lord is preserving that principle pure and simple, when he is endeavouring to infuse into it some little of the Mosaic.
Sir, I look with astonishment at the union of parties whom I see banded together for the one common object of carrying this measure. In the first place, I find the advocates of "civil and religious liberty." Now, I believe that those Gentlemen are most sincerely attached to the religion they profess, but those who enlist themselves under the banner upon which those words are inscribed, are usually Dissenters and opposed to the Church Establishment. We have in addition to those, certain Gentlemen who are of opinion it would be desirable to emancipate the Church from the State, and to revive Convocations in all their power. There could be nothing more calculated to advance their object than for Parliament once to pronounce that religion had nothing to do in our deliberations, and that the Jew might be admitted to a seat in this House. But, Sir, if once that proposition is maintained by Parliament, I cannot understand how it will be possible afterwards to defend the Church Establishment in connection with the State. Therefore, those two

1181
parties, the advocates of civil and religious liberty and those who desire to emancipate the Church from the State, are bound up together in this alliance, and by different means are pursuing the same end. Associating with those two parties are the Roman Catholics, who, of course, are no friends to the Established Church, and who are, of course, ready to aid in the furtherance of any measure that would promote the object they have in view—namely, the defeat or destruction of that establishment. These, Sir, are the parties to this combination, united together each to advance the particular object it has in view, and all hoping to obtain what they desire by seating the Jew in the Legislature. Now, Sir, I tremble for the consequences of the false step of erasing from the oath "on the true faith of a Christian." You cannot stop there; other demands will be made on you. The infidel—the man not influenced by any religious obligation at all, but who has what he calls a conscience, which is guided by what he calls his morality—he also will desire relief; he will ask to be relieved of the necessity of all oaths. If you take this step you must yield to him, because you cannot stop short on your downward progress; and ultimately, by its own act and its own admission, the Legislature will have been deprived of its Christian character. By the omission of these words, the Legislature will deprive itself of that great character; and at length it will be becoming avowedly irreligious, by requiring no test at all. Sir, I feel most deeply on this occasion. When I was admitted to this House, I solemnly took the oath at this table "on the true faith of a Christian." I took upon myself that part of the duty of a Legislator which required me to assume the badge of a Christian. I took it, not for the purpose of a crusade against the religions professed by other persons; but. Sir, I assumed that badge as a pledge that I would defend the sacred interests of Christianity which were entrusted to my care. Sir, I know perfectly well that I shall be charged with being actuated by a persecuting and intolerant spirit. I am not insensible to that charge. I regret most deeply, if my motive should he misunderstood. I have no personal hostility to any one or to any religion; I have no desire to persecute any one. I do not, by my endeavour to preserve the Christian character of this assembly, in any way show a persecuting spirit, because it is
1182
not for the purpose of persecuting the Jew—it is not for the purpose of compelling him to adopt another religion, that I appear here. It is in self-defence. It is in defence of the ark of Christianity before which I stand, and which I shall defend against Jew or any other party by whom I think it is in danger of being assailed. I trust, Sir, that this House will do the same. I hope we shall hold fast to our duty as Christians without wavering in the discharge of the solemn duty that is imposed upon us. I trust we shall not set an example to the people of this country of indifference to Christianity; but that we shall, as their representative, preserve in this House that respect which they outside manifest it for themselves, and which constitutes the glory and happiness of this country.
Amendment proposed, in page 2, to leave out from the beginning of line 8 to the end of line 14, in order to insert the words—
"I, A.B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience before God and the world that our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria is lawful and rightful Queen of this Realm, and of all other Her Majesty's dominions and countries thereunto belonging:
"And I do swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and Her will defend to the utmost of my power against all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatsoever which shall be made against Her Person, Crown, or Dignity:
"And I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty and Her successors all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know to be against Her or any of them:
"And I do faithfully promise to the utmost of my power to maintain, support, and defend the Succession of the Crown against all persons whatsoever, which Succession, by an Act intituled 'An Act for the further limitation of the Crown and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electoress and Duchess Dowager of Hanover, and the Heirs of her body being Protestants:
"And all these things I do plainly and sincerely acknowledge and swear according to these express words by me spoken, and according to the plain and common sense and understanding of the same words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever; and I do make this recognition, acknowledgment, and promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christain. So help me God," instead thereof.
MR. BOWYERsaid, he must complain that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had moved the Amendment had, on a former occasion, thrown out imputations of disloyalty against a distinguished Prelate of the Roman Catholic Church, than whom there was no man in the British dominions

1183
less obnoxious to such charges. He had accused Archbishop Cullen of publishing a collection of bulls, one or two of which had been promulgated with the intention of asserting the right of the Pretender to the Crown of these realms; and from this act the hon. and learned Gentleman had endeavoured to deduce the inference that Archbishop Cullen, as loyal a man as himself, was disaffected! He (Mr. Bowyer) had been favoured with a letter from the most rev. Prelate, relative to this matter, and would read from it an extract which would place the question in its true light. The accusation, it should be premised, had been made on the authority of Mr. M'Gee:—
"The work to which Mr. M'Gee and Sir Frederic Thesiger refer, is a collection of bulls and other documents connected with the Propaganda, or found in the archives of the Sacred Congregation. It consists of six volumes—I think in 4to. There are some briefs appointing bishops, at the recommendation of the Pretender, which were inserted merely as historical documents not previously published. It would be absurd to suppose they were published as having reference to our times, when the Stuart family does not exist. There are several similar documents in the Bullarium Magnum. I think Mr. M'Gee can make very little capital out of such publications."
Besides, it was a collection which would not have been complete without those documents. That statement of the most rev. Prelate would, he was sure, be accepted by the House as a complete refutation of the charge of disloyalty which had been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The charge itself was one of those ridiculous mare's nests which the hon. and learned Gentleman and the two hon. Members for North Warwickshire were in the habit of discovering, and which were frequently left unnoticed by the Roman Catholic Members, from a conviction that their Protestant colleagues generally would, of themselves, through their own good sense, perceive the absurdity of such statements.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I am sorry, Sir, to have to trouble the House once more upon this matter, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. Thesiger) has made an elaborate vindication of his opinions upon this subject, I do not think it would be respectful to him or dignified in this House to proceed at once to a division without taking any notice of his arguments. Let me first observe, that upon this subject the advocates for the admission of the Jews into Parliament stand in a more advantageous position than they did before. The position is this
1184
—the hon. and learned Gentleman abandoning the old oath—giving up that which is usually taken by Members of this House—proposes a new oath and new securities, and also in the new oath proposes to insert specific words in order to exclude the Jews. Now, that, Sir, I consider is a great advantage for those who are arguing for their admission, because it is a concession that the oath as at present framed cannot be maintained. It is, I assert, perfectly absurd to renounce the Stuarts, of whom none exist, as claimants to the Throne. If we are to have a new oath, to be taken by Members of this House, I think that in that oath we should not go beyond that which is necessary, or at least presents an appearance of necessity, and we should not load the oath with superfluous words and superfluous engagements; but we should only ask, when men come to the table on a solemn occasion, to claim a right to sit in this House as Members of the Legislature, that they should enter into engagements which are proper for us to require and for them to undertake. Now, when I look at the oath proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I find a great deal that is unnecessary. In the oath proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman are these words—
"I, A. B., do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare in my conscience, before God and the world, that our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria is lawful and rightful Queen of this realm, and of all other Her Majesty's dominions and countries thereunto belonging."
Now, Sir, I hold that to be quite unnecessary. A person who has just taken the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty is called upon to repeat an assurance that Queen Victoria is the rightful Sovereign of these realms. I can well understand there was a time when Parliament thought it advisable—whether wisely or not I will not say—that, as there were persons who, admitting William III. as the Sovereign de facto, still regarded James II. as the Sovereign de jure, Members who came to be sworn should testify and declare that William III. was the lawful and rightful King. But, Sir, there is no occasion for such words now that the subject of the controversy has long since disappeared. Therefore, I do not think that we should call on the Members of this House to swear that which there is no occasion to swear. The hon. and learned Gentleman then goes on to say in the oath he proposes—

1185
"And I will do my utmost to disclose and make known to Her Majesty and successors all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which I shall know against Her or any of them."
I do not see what especial propriety there is in a Member of this House taking that oath, any more than any other of Her Majesty's subjects. It is the duty of all persons who take the oath of allegiance—of all loyal subjects—to make known all traitorous conspiracies which shall come to their knowledge. The lowest and poorest of Her Majesty's subjects is equally bound to that duty as the Members of this House. There is no reason why Members of this House should be more likely to come to a knowledge of traitorous conspiracies than any other subject of the Queen, therefore, I do not see that that passage in the oath is necessary. Privy Councilors, and those filling the offices of Secretaries of State, may have means of learning the secrets of traitors, and it would be their duty immediately to take means to counteract the attempts of the traitors; but it is by no means the duty or the business of a Member of this House to make himself peculiarly acquainted with any danger likely to affect the safety of the Crown. But the hon. and learned Gentleman has laid, and properly laid, the greatest stress upon the maintenance in the oath of the words, "on the true faith of a Christian." He adverted—I hardly know for what purpose or to what intent—to the controversy as to whether those words were originally intended to exclude Jews from Parliament. I imagine, whatever the hon. and learned Gentleman may say, that there is no doubt they were not intended for any such purpose. Giving the hon. and learned Gentleman the benefit of the supposition that Jews would have been excluded—if the Jews in the time of James II. had attempted to obtain seats in this House—I think, on the other hand, it must be admitted that the words were not intended for that purpose, but were intended as a more solemn form by which certain Roman Catholics, who were believed not to be loyal to the Protestant Sovereign, would be bound without power of evasion. The words were meant to secure the fidelity of Christians, not to procure the exclusion of the Jews. That is a point of considerable importance, when you attempt to frame a new oath, of which the simple object is to exclude the Jews; but it appears to me the most simple plan is to do what was done under the Common
1186
wealth, and as is now done in some of the States of the American Union—to compel the person seeking admission to the House to declare and testify that he professes the Christian faith. Under the British monarchy that has never been required; but it appears to me that, if it be intended to exclude Jews from Parliament, that is the plain and simple mode of doing it. No one will dispute with the hon. and learned Gentleman that there are certain qualifications which the Legislature has a right to impose, whether in regard to the holding of offices or sitting in Parliament. But, on the other hand, unless you have strong grounds of exclusion, it is the common right of every subject to enjoy such offices, to obtain such legislative power as the favour of the Crown or the election of his fellow-countrymen may bestow upon him. Any capricious exclusion may have the effect of excluding Englishmen from the just objects of English ambition, and that, as has been truly said, is one of the greatest hardships you can impose upon them. Therefore, you must not only say, "I choose to have qualifications and exclusions;" but you must show that such exclusions are founded on the strongest grounds of State policy, and even of State necessity. That necessity, as to the Jews, I maintain has utterly and completely failed of proof. I have often had before to say that I do not think mere ground of religious faith is a proper ground of exclusion; and I say, in the second place, with the greatest confidence, that, if it were a ground of exclusion, tests and oaths do not enable you to ascertain the religious opinions of any man. I know of nothing in the faith of the Jew, believing as he does in the Old Testament, which should prevent him from doing his duty as a Member of this Legislature, and, with respect to any political acts in which he may be called on to concur, performing that duty faithfully. The hon. and learned Gentleman has done me the honour to refer to an opinion which I gave—that I do think religious obligation is incumbent on this House in its legislation. He looks to that religious obligation in the form of an oath—in precise words. Well, Sir, I do look to it in the convictions and persuasions of this Christian community. I think that, unless the people of this country do feel that religious obligation, you never can create it by means of an oath. If it were necessary, there is no want of illustrations on this subject. At the present time religious

1187
obligation is generally felt, whether by members of the Established Church, by Protestant Dissenters, or by Roman Catholics having seats in this House; but if we look back to the time soon after this oath was imposed, what do we see? A man as distinguished for his talents as, perhaps, any Member of this House ever was—Lord Bolingbroke—sat here as leader of this House. I know not whether he had then adopted the opinions which he afterwards, in the most elaborate work, endeavoured to promote, but we know that, when he had adopted those opinions—when he had written that work, it was the ambition of his life to be a Member of the House of Peers, to be admitted to the table of the House of Peers, where he would have said—
"I sincerely speak these words, without any equivocation, mental evasion, or secret reservation whatsoever, and I make this recognition of my promise, heartily, willingly, and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian."
Now, Sir, Lord Bolingbroke had no difficulty in declaring those words. Mr. Gibbon, who sat in this House, likewise had no difficulty in declaring those words. My hon. and learned Friend, I was happy to hear, acknowledged, on a former occasion, that with respect to men who do not feel this obligation—who do not feel it to be an immoral act to make such a declaration without being persuaded of it—you can have no security whatever. What, then, is the value of the religious test which the hon. and learned Gentleman is desirous to impose, and what is the justice, what the policy, of saying to a Member of this House, who has been duly elected, and comes to the table and says he does not see anything in the oath to which he objects; but, in fairness and honesty, he must tell the House that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" are not binding on his conscience—what are the justice and policy of telling him, "You are really a man who feel religious obligations—you are clearly a man who will not deceive us—you are acting according to your own belief and faith, and you are totally unfit to sit in this House; but if we can find a man who will dissemble in that respect, and whom we know by his own writings to be totally opposed to every Christian sentiment and every Christian belief, that is the man we will trust? "The argument is one which has certainly been well beaten, because it has been discussed not only upon this question but upon the Catholic question,
1188
when it was maintained, and at length triumphantly maintained, that religious faith ought not to be a ground of exclusion from this House. I am sorry the hon. and learned Gentleman feels it an imputation upon him, yet I cannot but say the exclusion savours as much of persecution—that is, it savours as much of the principle of punishing a man on account of his religious faith as any other persecution of a cruel description, which has been inflicted in past times. I am sorry to see that in the dominions of the King of Sardinia a man has been sent to prison for six months for reading, in the open marketplace, certain passages of the New Testament, because the effect was said to be to bring the Christian religion into contempt. That is an act of persecution, and your exclusion of the Jew rests on precisely the same principle. I do not enter into a defence of the Lord Mayor—whether he was right or wrong in going to St. Paul's on the Thanksgiving-day. No doubt he meant to say, "As Lord Mayor of this great city I am ready to render homage to God, and to join in the celebration of peace so happily restored to the nation." I have always put this question on the general ground of religious principle. It is rather for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), who, on the peculiar ground of the merit of the Jews, always advocates their cause, and always votes in their favour—it is for him, rather than for me, to show the merits of the Jews. I do not claim their admission to this House as a sort of indulgence, I claim it as a matter of right and justice; and I do trust the smallness of their numbers will not prevent their having that justice granted them which was granted to the Roman Catholics when their claims on the ground of religious liberty were too powerful to be longer resisted. Sir, I entirely oppose the Amendment.
MR. WARREN: Sir, I should certainly have contented myself with recording my vote this evening, if I had not thought the question before us of such grave importance as to justify a brief statement of the grounds on which that vote will be given; but I feel heavily discouraged while venturing to follow the noble Lord the Member for London in the debate. Sir, the claims of the Jews to sit in our Legislature have, during the last quarter of a century, been repeatedly and earnestly urged, and as resolutely resisted,

1189
without reference to party considerations, by the most distinguished men of the age—by as enlightened statesmen and as devoted Christians as ever adorned either House of Parliament—and among the latter I would undoubtedly class the noble Lord the Member for the City of London, who has been so prominent an advocate of this measure, and than whom, I believe, no more sincere and earnest Christian sits in this House. The question, therefore, must be one of serious difficulty, and involve considerations of proportionate weight and magnitude. Having always felt a profound interest in that question, I have from time to time read, I believe, everything that has been said on it, in this and the other House, weighing every argument carefully and dispassionately, sincerely anxious to form a right judgment on the matter; for I avow that I cannot bear to see any class of my fellow subjects unjustly denied or deprived of a right, or a trust, (between which there is a fundamental distinction necessary to be borne in mind in these discussions) which they properly regard as one of transcendent importance and value. No true Englishman can look with indifference on persons so situated; and his sympathies will go forth towards them all the more eagerly, if he find the demand for justice preferred with persevering moderation and dignity. He will be disposed to look with a certain sternness upon the reasons relied on as justifying the exclusion of a British-born subject from the British Legislature; and will not yield to them, unless his reason and conscience recognize their overwhelming cogency. That, Sir, is the spirit in which I approach this question to-night. And as for the Jews, so far from entertaining prejudices against them, I regard them with feelings akin to awe, as I watch them-the most marvellous of the dwellers upon earth—intermingling inoffensively, but never identifying themselves, with other nations, and fulfilling, and yearning for the accomplishment of, their own grand and mysterious destiny. I cannot think or speak of them with levity—I would not willingly wrong them in act or word; for if I could, then, while they might be true Jews, I should be no true Christian.
But, Sir, in these few words, I conceive, is to be found the true point—the true pressure—of this great question. If he and I be true to our respective faiths, then I think there is a fatal incompatibility of principles, pretensions, and qualifications for being brother legislators—regard being
1190
had to the true nature and objects of legislation for a Christian state. Whatever he could prove to be, in the opinion of a liberal and enlightened people, a wrongful disability has been removed. He is now placed on a level with our best fellow-citizens in point of personal security and social position; he is clothed with rank—even hereditary rank—and dignity; he sits in the chair of magistracy, and at this very moment the highest chair of the magistracy of London is filled by a distinguished friend of mine of the Jewish faith, who discharges his duties in a way to command the respect and admiration of everybody; he wields, at will, a money power that gives him vast influence here, and controls some of the greatest operations of other States; and as for religious freedom, why, "he sits under his vine and under his fig-tree, and none dares to make him afraid."
Emboldened by these concessions, he now demands to become a law-giver for Christian England;—but there I pause, and tell him that "between him and me there is a great gulf fixed." I cannot help it. With "the true faith of a Christian" are bound up all my hopes of happiness here and hereafter; while that faith is to the Jew a stumbling-block, lying ever in his way, when he would act as a legislator for the Christian. What is heavenly truth to me, is gross falsehood and imposture to him; what inspires me, blights him; for he sees in it only impiety and blasphemy. How, then, can we act together, while our sanctions, our impulses, our objects, are different? And how can our Legislature be expected thus to become "a fountain sending forth, at the same place, sweet water and bitter"?
Sir, disguise and blink it though any one may, the Bill before us tends directly to obliterate and repudiate these vital differences—these vital principles—as sources of legislative inspiration and action; to place the Legislature of England on a, footing which it has never occupied before. It seeks to effect an organic change in our political structure, involving its whole character and constitution—it would alter the distinguishing characteristic of our State, and of its sovereignty—by either eliminating from it an essential constituent, or introducing a foreign, incongruous, and destructive element. What is meant by the sovereignty of a State? Its supreme power or authority—in other words, its legislature; for sovereignty and legislation

1191
are convertible terms. Where the power of legislation resides, is the seat of sovereignty, and in legislation, you see sovereignty in action. And as a State is as much a moral being as any one of the individuals who constitute it-a moral being, whose voice is its laws; it is guided by certain motives and objects; it has a character, involved in, prescribing, and guaranteeing its course of conduct.
Now, what is the great and glorious characteristic distinguishing our State of England? Christian, essentially and professedly Christian, if there he any meaning in words, and any reality for words to represent. Founded and built up during a long succession of ages, by Christians exclusively, it derives its character from their principles, feelings, and convictions; the holy gospels illuminate every chamber of the building; the Christianity which they enshrine is the very key-stone of the arch of our laws and institutions, supplying vital sanctions; we legislate on its principles, and in its spirit; no one has ever entered the legislative chamber but under an express pledge, or absolutely necessary implication, of Christian belief; we are always summoned to consult concerning the welfare of the Church of Christ; we begin our daily deliberations with prayers offered to, and through, the mediation of the adorable Head of that Church; the prayers of this Christian country daily ascend on our behalf to Him, like incense, and England feels that those prayers have been answered; or how could this nation have become so great and glorious? Again, the Sovereign, on ascending the Throne of these realms, gives the most solemn pledge conceivable, of fidelity to Christianity; kneeling, placing her hands on, and kissing the holy gospels, Queen Victoria swore upon them, as all her ancestors have done, "to maintain, to the utmost of her power, the true profession of the gospel." What would be thought of some future Sovereign wishing that oath to be omitted, as he had no faith in the gospel, but, on the contrary, believed it false? Would he be a Christian King? or allowed to sit on this ancient and glorious Throne of England! Never! And would that be a Christian Legislature of which such an apostate was, in Lord Coke's language, caput, principium, et finis? Well, and how is it with the other two branches of the Legislature? For 150 years no one has ever sat in either House who had not avowed, on his solemn oath, his Christian
1192
belief, unless he has been relieved from doing so under circumstances demonstrative of his fidelity to Christianity. About the Roman Catholic there can, of course, be no question; and Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, are relieved from taking any oath, absolutely for no other reason than their scrupulous and reverent obedience to a supposed command of their Divine Redeemer! In the case of the excellent Mr. Pease, he expressly declared before a Committee of this House, on oath, in 1850, "I agree in matters of faith with the Church of England, though not as regards her discipline and rites." And beyond the 150 years to which I have referred, our earliest records show that Members were sworn on either some symbol of the Christian faith, or the holy Gospels. Having regard to all this, how can I concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, who, in his powerful and elaborate speech in 1848, in this House, declared that—simply because we had latterly enlarged our borders, so as to include all classes of persons "calling and professing themselves Christians"—our Legislature is no longer exclusively Christian? Sir, with sincere respect for the right hon. Gentleman, I deny it altogether, and challenge proof of such an assertion. I affirm the contrary, and aver that every existing Member of either House is stopped from denying it, by the oath he has taken. It is true, a man may possibly stand at that table, and in his eagerness to obtain a so greatly coveted seat here, be frightfully guilty of repeating, as true, words which he disbelieves. If he do, I cannot help it; to his own master he standeth or falleth; to Him, his Almighty judge, he must answer in the last day. There is no oath that can be devised or administered which an impious man may not violate or take falsely. But, Sir, look closely into what we are required to do. When challenged to it, we must deliberately and solemnly discard that only visible safeguard of our Christianity, which now keeps out the Jew—and not only him, but the Mahomedan, the pagan, and, worse than all, the avowed apostate infidel—who plainly avows that ours is a false form of religion. Now, Sir, what are all the convulsive struggles of the Jew to get rid of these—to him—excruciating words, "on the true faith of a Christian," but really so many evidences of their inestimable value to us, and of the paramount necessity of retaining

1193
them? Surely, surely! if the defenders of a beleagured fortress saw the besiegers steadily concentrating their fire on a particular point, would not that show the immense importance they attached to effecting a breach there, and make the besieged instantly direct their utmost energies to protecting and strengthening the point so seriously menaced? And what would be their joy to discover suddenly that it was, in fact, their strongest point—that there was a secret, and, to themselves, unsuspected means of defence? And, Sir, thus I regard this famous expression, "on the true faith of a Christian," peremptory, stringent, and comprehensive as it is; though, undoubtedly, not originally used expressly for that purpose, it now constitutes a solid buttress, the strength of which has been tested, to the citadel of our Christianity. I thank God that the words are on our Statute-book; I am trying to keep them there; but, after all, they are simply declaratory of what was always there, significant of the essence and spirit of our constitution. It reminds me, in this respect, of Sir Edward Coke's fine observation on the oath of allegiance, which, he says, is but an external profession of what the finger of the law had already written in the heart of every subject.
As we, Sir, area Christian State, if such a thing there can be, let us test the argument on which the present claim is founded, by putting the case of a Jewish State, consisting exclusively of sincere and zealous Jews. Let us imagine an equally sincere and zealous Christian demanding a seat in the Sanhedrim, and that, to enable him to take his seat, an oath pledging its members to "the true faith of a Jew" should be abrogated. What consternation in the Sanhedrim! Would it be done? or regarded as impiously presumptuous? How mightily would they reason out of their ancient scriptures to show that, were they to yield, they would be false to their faith, and abrogating the high and holy law under which, at an awful juncture, the high-priest rent his clothes, saying, "he hath spoken blasphemy!" and he was judged guilty of death. They would say, no; we cannot, we dare not do it; we should cease to be a Jewish State—our purity would be defiled—we should have introduced a new and corrupting element, and be recognising claims which the word of God commands us to hold in abhorrence. Is not this, Sir, an exact
1194
parallel to the case at this moment before us?
And, moreover, if it be, what becomes of the favourite argument derived from the small number of Jews who might be introduced? It is nothing—it is an impertinence. Is this, I beg to ask, the way to reason on principle? Admit a solitary Jew, of right, as such, and the exclusive distinguishing principle—the very bond of our being, as a Christian State—is gone; you have surrendered at discretion, and the Jew will proclaim his victory to the uttermost parts of the earth, where you are busied propagating the Christianity over which he has triumphed! And he will presently tell you that you must alter and surrender a good deal more to meet his views!—the prayers, for instance, with which we commence our daily deliberations, and which he will regard as offensive and insulting to his faith. "One of the unavoidable consequences of this measure," said the late Sir Robert Peel, in opposing the first Jew Bill in 1830, "will be, that every one of the forms and ceremonies which give us assurance of Christianity must be abolished." And let me ask with unspeakable anxiety, that you would consider what effect that would hare on public opinion—that public opinion on which, as Mr. Hume truly tells us, all Governments of whatever form are founded. It would probably soon lead to lowering the influence of Christianity on that public opinion, and, once lowered there, how long will it continue as a vital principle in the State?
But, Sir, even this is not all. What a perilous precedent we are called upon to establish! Consider the principle you will be sanctioning: one loosening the very foundation of oaths, which have been in, all ages, and under the express sanction of Scripture, used for the highest and most momentous purposes known among men. Why do you exact an oath from the Sovereign? Why from a legislator? Because, by the act of becoming such, he is incorporated with the sovereignty of the State, and contributes individually to determine its character and action. He is, while acting in that capacity, under only moral sanctions, amenable to the dictates of his conscience, and of God alone. And before investing him with such, comparatively speaking, irresponsible power, it is reasonable and right that we should require—for a guarantee of his character and acts as a legislator, and as evidence

1195
against him in case of treachery—that he should publicly and solemnly call God to witness that he holds such and such a belief, and will pursue such and such a course of action. Now, Sir, if a Jew is to be relieved from the Christian's oath, because he says, "I do not believe in him whom you call God," what—I implore you to consider—are you to answer by and by, when your approaches are defiled and darkened by a very different character, who says, holding this Bill in his hand, "Now admit me! and without any oath at all! For, as the Jew does not believe in the God of the Christian, I do not believe in the God of the Jew! I believe in no God at all!" Are you to admit the impious applicant? And yet claim to be deemed a godly—or will you become professedly, a godless Legislature?
Sir, I foresee disastrous consequences dependent on the course we are this night called upon to adopt. I content myself, however, with one, vouched by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford, in 1848. After admitting that our having to legislate on matters of religion, and concerning the Church, constituted a real and practical difficulty in the way of admitting Jews to seats in this House, he stated that, undoubtedly, one direct result to which such a step would lead, would be the separation between the Church and the State! Now, Sir, is the House—is the country—prepared for such a result? one which I believe would be a sort of social suicide, and tend to the dissolution of the State itself!
Sir, for these reasons and many others which I could assign, but that I perceive the anxiety of the House to come to a division, I can never bring myself to sanction the admission of the Jewish element into the Christian Legislature. I entreat hon. Members, in conclusion, to consider carefully the consequences, immediate and remote, direct and indirect, of assenting to the Bill as it lies before us, and without the Amendments of my hon. and learned Friend (Sir F. Thesiger) a step which undoubtedly will open the doors of the Legislature of this Christian country to Mahomedans, and pagans, and even professed infidels, as well as Jews, and the effect of which will be, I fear, fatally to affect the national faith, and in so doing sap the foundations of the national greatness.
MR. BYNGsaid, he should support the third rending of the Bill as he considered
1196
the effect of the existing oath was to exclude from the House Members of the Jewish persuasion who had been returned by large and important constituencies, and whose conscientious scruples prevented them from taking the oath in its present, although they were ready to take it in a modified, form; while it did not exclude persons who rejected the Scriptures as the revealed word of God, and who, disregarding the solemn obligation of oaths, were ready to subscribe to them.
MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, it was admitted on all sides, that all parties were ashamed of the oath of abjuration, and there was no occasion to discuss that question any longer. It was therefore to be hoped that the country would no longer see 654 gentlemen professing to represent the intelligence of the people, and a large number of high and distinguished persons representing the hereditary wisdom of the nation, solemnly calling upon God that they abjured any allegiance to persons who they knew had long ceased to exist. It appeared, however, that Gentlemen opposite admitted that it was not the family of the Stuarts of whom they were apprehensive, but that they had an insurmountable objection to the house of Rothschild. But the hon. and learned Gentleman (Sir F. Thesiger) who had moved the Amendment had not told the House how he got over the difficulty of the citizens of London having returned a Jew to Parliament. The citizens of London did not participate in the prejudices of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and they had returned a Jew to represent them in Parliament during nine sessions and two Parliaments. It was degrading to the representative of the city, insulting to the citizens of London, and humiliating to the House of Commons that matters should remain as they were. Suppose that 100 Members of the Jewish persuasion were returned by the constituencies of this country, would the House allow matters to continue in their present state? The hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded to the fact that the Lord Mayor of London had attended at St. Paul's on Thanksgiving-day. He was afraid he should shock the hon. and learned Gentleman much more when he told him that Christian congregations in the city sometimes selected churchwardens of the Jewish persuasion to administer the affairs of a Christian Church. Mr. Keeling, a Gentleman of the Jewish persuasion, had been elected churchwarden for

1197
two parishes—St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Magnus the Martyr—on two or three occasions. He wrote for information on the subject, and received a letter from Mr. Keeling, which he would take leave to read to the House:—
"Dear Sir,—The parishes I have represented are St. George, Botolph Lane, and St. Magnus the Martyr, London Bridge; to the latter I was re-elected on Easter Tuesday last. The duty involves the safe guardianship of the church, and properties connected therewith; the proper observance of the service in conformity with existing laws; to levy rates for its support, and, if necessary, to enforce the payment of them; to report to the bishop of the diocese any neglect of duty on the part of the ministers; and the declaration made before the registrars of the bishop to carry out these regulations is framed in so liberal a spirit that it has been most conscientiously subscribed to by me, in company with my Christian colleague, without the least sacrifice of my religious scruples. I may say I have faithfully performed the duties of the office to the satisfaction of the rectors and the parishioners generally."
But that was not all. Two or three Sundays ago the Bishop of Lichfield preached a sermon in the church of St. Magnus the Martyr, on behalf of the education of the children of the parish. The Lord Mayor attended there also, and it was of course the duty of the Hebrew churchwarden to receive the bishop with all the honours of the Church. The Bishop left the church without being un-christianised, a subscription was made and Christian education was aided by the exertions of the Jewish churchwarden. He believed that the cause of religion would not suffer very materially if they allowed some few members of the Jewish persuasion to have seats within the walls of the House of Commons. He was glad upon this occasion to see the noble Lord the Member for the City of London come to the rescue. Last year the noble Lord seemed to despond, but he hoped there was now some reason for believing that this question would be settled during the present Session in the other House of Parliament. It must be remembered that an unreformed Parliament had repealed the Test and Corporation Acts, and had conceded Catholic emancipation. He hoped that a reformed Parliament would not perpetuate the last relic of bigotry and intolerance which prevented the admission of Jews into the British Legislature.
Question put "That the word proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."
The House divided:—Ayes 159; Noes 110: Majority 49.
Bill passed.

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 27 (Colleges to have power to frame Statutes).
MR. STAFFORDsaid, he wished to move, by way of Amendment, the omission From the clause of the words, "without prejudice to any existing interest of any member of such college." He trusted that the Government, notwithstanding those words were in the Oxford Bill, would enable the fellows and masters—in short, the governing body of the colleges at Cambridge, to set a better example (by the omission of those words) than that of occupying the invidious position of showing themselves willing to inflict on others that which they would be unwilling to bear themselves.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, that those words were in the Oxford University Act, and had been introduced into the Bill from a respect for the vested interests which the masters and fellows of colleges had in their offices and fellowships. He believed that in the long run the ultimate advantage of these institutions would be promoted by respecting those interests.
Amendment negatived.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he thought that the Statutes hereafter to be framed by the governing bodies of the colleges ought to be in the English instead of the Latin language. He should therefore move the insertion of the words "in the English language" after the word "Statutes" in the same clause.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought the matter might be safely left to the Cambridge authorities. If they liked to make their Statutes in the Latin language, it was to be hoped that Cambridge men, including his hon. Friend, would be able to read them. He thought it would be better that the Statutes should be made in English, but he did not think it desirable for Parliament to make a stringent rule on the subject.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:— Ayes 58 Noes 74: Majority 16.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he would more the insertion after the word "following" of the words, "due regard being always had to the main designs of the founder or donor." His object was not to abridge the powers given to the governing bodies of colleges, but to prevent them from disregarding the

1199
intentions of the founders. As an instance of the abuse to which the powers granted in the Bill might give rise, he would refer to the 30th clause, which enabled the University to make new rules with regard to endowments, among which was specified the endowment of the offices of Christian preacher and Christian advocate. Now he should not be averse to new rules which were in keeping with the intentions of the original founders, but if the endowments he had just alluded to were to be applied to a professorship of chemistry or botany, or the like, such an application would he a gross and most unjust disregard of the views and intentions of the founder. He denied that Parliament had morally any right to interfere with these endowments without adhering to the conditions upon which the donors gave them. The words he proposed to insert in the clause were not exactly to be found in the Oxford University Act, yet in that measure there was a plain intention that regard should be had to the designs of the founders. The principle he asserted was, that if you accepted a gift of this kind, you were bound to abide by the conditions annexed. That principle ought to be equally observed, in his opinion, even in the case of what were called "local preferences." It was objected, that if you adhered to these local preferences you might be inflicting upon a college persons not qualified by their learning to become members of the college. That, however, was a fallacy, because it had been repeatedly held that, whatever conditions of this kind were annexed to a college benefaction, there was always also annexed to it the implied condition that a person should be dignus—that he should be a suitable person to introduce into the college—and unless, therefore, he were a person of that sort the college would not be compelled to award him any of those emoluments. Another objection urged to the principle he sought to maintain was, that it might throw you back upon obsolete schemes long since fallen into desuetude. Such an argument, it was his belief, had no foundation whatever. In all those cases the reason why the old practice had fallen into disuse was because, from the change of circumstances it had become unsuitable to the present time, and if it had become unsuitable and inapplicable to the present state of things, he was quite willing that it should be altered. To meet the objection he had alluded to, he was ready, if it were desired,
1200
to adopt an express provision that, in determining what were to be considered the main designs of the founders, any scheme or regulation which had fallen into disuse for a period of, say fifty years, should not be regarded. Nothing was further from his intention than to drive back those foundations to forgotten usages which would be unsuitable to the time and contrary to the interests of the University. The principle involved in his Amendment was a very grave one, and he trusted that it would have the favourable consideration of the Government. He proposed it with no desire to impair the efficacy of the Bill, or to diminish the fair powers which were to be given to the Colleges or the University, but merely for the purpose of maintaining those powers within a reasonable limit, and to prevent the establishment of a precedent which might be made use of in other cases to the prejudice and subversion of the just rights of property.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he willingly admitted that this was an important question, and he thought that a great deal of the efficiency of the Bill would depend on the clause being retained without the addition of the proposed Amendment. The hon. and learned Member (Mr. Wigram) seemed to give up his whole case when he said that, with respect to many of the foundations, lapse of time had rendered them useless. Now there was one question he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman: how could the main design of a founder, who existed 200 or 300 years ago, be ascertained? If expressed, it was either in accordance with the general objects of education or not. If the design was not in accordance with those objects, it ought not to be maintained; and where the design was not expressed it must be assumed to be for the promotion of education. The main design, as expressed, of the founder of Queen's College, was, that his soul and the soul of his Queen should be prayed for; and this showed the impropriety and absurdity of making it imperative to regard the designs of the founders. Was it not a monstrous case of abuse that King's College, with a magnificent income of £26,000 a year, should only turn out at the rate of three Bachelors of Arts per annum? The fellows and scholars there were obliged to swear that they would do their best to oppose the spread of the errors of John Wickliffe, and Reginald Peacock, Bishop of Chichester in the time of Henry VI.; but those errors

1201
as they were called, were now held by members of the Church of England. Therefore, one of the main designs of the founder was to oppose those very opinions which it was the present object of the University and Colleges to promote. That was the case with respect to those two Colleges, and also with respect to many others, and it was too late at the present day to insist on the observance of the main designs of the founders. It must happen that in the course of time the objects of the founders became useless or even mischievous, and therefore the funds ought to be devoted to other purposes. Consequently, the Committee in dealing with those trusts, must be influenced by no other motive but a desire for the public advantage and utility, and unless they were dealt with on that ground they had better not be dealt with at all. The practical result of the Amendment would be to restrict the freedom of the Colleges, as, at present, in many instances, the original designs of the founders were disregarded.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie) appeared to think that the insertion of the words proposed by his (Mr. Walpole's) hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Wigram) would do away with the whole effect of the Bill, Now he thought that the experience of the Oxford University Act had entirely removed all ground for any such apprehension. The endowments of colleges were as much property as any which could be held by any Member of that House, and the rights of that description of property had always been held as sacred as those connected with the property of individuals, and to trench upon those rights would be to trench upon the rights of property itself. The right hon. Gentleman said that, if it were found that any of those donations were at present applied in a manner either useless or mischievous, it would be to the public advantage to take them away or alter them so as to make them useful. Now, who was to do that? Were the Colleges or the Commissioners to do it? He could conceive that the Colleges might be allowed, with the sanction of their visitors, and subject to such rules as Parliament might lay down, to alter the character of their own property; but he could not understand that the Commissioners should have such a power conferred upon them. Why, it would be a greater power than had ever been bestowed on any body before. The right hon. Gentleman had
1202
referred to donations for praying for the souls of the founders; but that was the exception, and not the rule; and, because alterations might be necessary in one or two cases, that was no reason for conferring such arbitrary powers on the Commissioners, powers which would enable them to alter the character of the trust upon which the property was originally given. If such a principle were recognised, the result would be to deter persons from dispensing their bounty as they did at present upon many most charitable and beneficial objects. It was said that there was no power of finding out the designs of the founders; but actual experience proved that the Court of Chancery was every day administering trusts according to the designs of the founders of them, and the effect of the introduction of the proposed words into the present clause would not be to prevent any absurd or useless provisions from being done away with, but it would show, to the Colleges first, and afterwards to the Commissioners, that they did not possess an absolute power of dealing with this property without any regard to the original trust. He, therefore, trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not object to the Amendment, and he entreated the Committee to have a proper respect for the trusts, in which in fact they had an equal and an individual interest.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he objected strongly to the introduction of the words. With regard to the fear that had been expressed by hon. Gentlemen, that persons would be deterred from making any donation for benevolent purposes, he could only say that the Legislature would be well employed in discouraging persons from making foolish gifts, nominally for benevolent purposes, but in reality that they might see their names written in letters of gold, to the detriment of their families and friends. To take an example of the absurdity of the old institutions, Mr. Macaulay, before being admitted to a fellowship, had sworn to devote himself to the study of theology, or else after a certain period to relinquish his fellowship; but could any one believe that that distinguished man intended to devote himself to that study? The character of the property of the Universities had been frequently changed, and there was no reason why it should not be changed now if such change would tend to the public advantage.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, that the scope of the hon. Gentleman's argument was this—that the study of theology, which had regard to our highest interests, was foolish, and ought to be discouraged. He considered those observations as more worthy of the worst days of the National Assembly of Prance than of the English House of Commons. He presumed that the study of "geology" was that study which the hon. Gentleman would wish to substitute. The drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument was evidently to discourage the study of theology among the youth of this empire. If a founder left a sum of money to a college for the teaching of the Christian religion that was a lawful purpose, and was one with which Parliament ought not to interfere. Those foundations had already produced the greatest lights of the Church, and it would be absurd to contrast any men of the present day with the distinguished divines of former days. He denied that endowments for the promotion of various branches of education were an encouragement to superstition; and he put it to the Committee to say whether, if a man were to endow a foundation for the study of the works of Roger Bacon, it could be viewed in that light? He would support any Amendment which had for its object the preservation of those time honoured and valuable institutions. The worst argument he had ever heard against the words proposed was the argument of the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Heywood); and if he had had any doubt as to the necessity for the insertion of those words that doubt would have been removed by the argument of the hon. Member. Cambridge University possessed many valuable and useful endowments, and though the hon. Member had asserted that these were the fruits of the vanity of the founders, it ought to be kept in view that but for such persons this country would not have possessed the noble charities for which it was remarkable.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would point out that, of the 700 or 800 scholarships belonging to the University, 400 were restricted. Although those restrictions might be wise and salutary when they were first founded, they had become useless and prejudicial by the lapse of time, and Parliament, he considered, had now a perfect right to deal with them in the manner which it thought most likely to be beneficial to the promotion of education. As a test of the comparative value of open and restricted scholarships, he might mention
1204
that of holders of the open scolarships at Trinity one in every four got a fellowship, while, of the Westminster scholars at that college, only one in twenty-two got a fellowship. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member had a much wider operation than the words in the Oxford University Act to which he had referred, for while those stated that the observance of the wishes of the founders should be one of the objects of the statute, those words would override the statute altogether.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he had listened with great pain to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, a speech which would have been a great deal more in place on the other side of the Atlantic than in the English House of Commons. He had not, however, been in the least surprised at the observations of the hon. Member for North Lancashire (Mr. Heywood). That hon. Gentleman avowed that he wished to discourage charitable bequests, and he had certainly taken the surest mode of doing so. The hon. Gentleman reminded him of a saying of Montesquieu, who observed that a certain tribe of savages, when they wanted to gather fruit, cut down the tree. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie's) remarks with respect to the Westminster scholars was exceedingly unfair; because, as he had himself admitted, a great number of the Westminster boys went to Christchurch. Besides, he denied that the obtaining of fellowships was necessarily a test of eminence. Amongst the Westminster boys who did not become fellows was no less a man than John Dryden. He would remind the right hon. Gentleman, also, of the dictum of a great American jurist, and one who had certainly no superstitious fondness for English institutions—he meant Chancellor Kent. That great Judge said that these very collegiate institutions were "amongst the most interesting and meritorious trusts which could possibly be created and confided to men." When he (Mr. Phillimore) was taunted with the great commentators whom the German Universities had produced, be would point in reply to the debates in that House, to the great men who had adorned it, to the useful laws they had passed, and to the great constitutional principles they had established. It was in the Colleges of England that the minds of our statesmen were trained; and he believed that just as in the middle ages those institutions were the means by which alone persons of humble origin might raise themselves, and earn

1205
a great name for themselves and their country, so in those times they were still the great means by which those who were not born of opulent and splendid families, might qualify themselves for the service of their country, and win for themselves such distinctions as society could bestow.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, that for the last reason alleged by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should oppose the Amendment. Besides, the words sought to be introduced were completely contradictory to the rest of the clause.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that to judge from the arguments of hon. Gentlemen opposite who supported the proposal one would imagine that the Bill had for its object to suppress all these collegiate establishments—to apply their property to purposes altogether different from those to which it was now applied—and, in short, to deal with the University of Cambridge much in the same way that Henry VIII. dealt with religious houses. Now, certainly, nothing was further from the intention and object of the Bill than any such purpose. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Wigram) in his opinion, would really go to defeat the real purposes of the founders. The University of Cambridge had described itself as an institution for the promotion "of sound learning and religious education." Those were the objects for which those estates had been left, but they had been left at a time when peculiar notions existed as to the best mode of accomplishing those objects. Some of the founders thought that the best method was to insist that no person should be a fellow unless he belonged to a particular county. Other restrictions of various kinds were imposed, tending to defeat the purposes of promoting sound learning and religious education, and to render the college less available for the purpose for which it was endowed. Every member of the University was aware of what had passed with regard to St. John's College. Originally its fellowships were what were called close—that was, none but Lancashire, Cumberland, or Westmoreland men could obtain a fellowship. He recollected the time when that was changed. It appeared that there was a power in the visitor to alter the statute, which was defeating the main object of the founder. ["No, no!"] Well, it must be so construed according to the arguments they had just heard—namely, that however obsolete or absurd the conditions were which the
1206
founder attached to the grant they must for ever be observed. The spirit of the words proposed would go to rescind the opening of the fellowships of St. John's, and would re-establish the system which the college itself had held to be prejudicial to education. If they wished the University of Cambridge to be as useful as possible in the diffusion of sound learning, they ought to leave the colleges at liberty to sweep away all those small, ridiculous, obsolete restrictions which tended to defeat what they were bound to consider were the main objects of the founders, and which prevented the University being so useful as it might be in promoting sound learning and religious education.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that it was a little remarkable that, although the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) advocated the omission of the words proposed, on the ground that the main object of the University was the promotion "of sound learning and religious education," the clause, as it stood, would delegate, first to the Colleges and then to the Commissioners, a power to act in entire disregard to that object. There were no words requiring the Commissioners to make alterations only so as to promote "sound learning and religious education." They might, if they pleased, direct the exercise of their power in a direction completely the reverse. With reference to what had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Hertford (Mr. T. Chambers), he observed that the enacting part of the clause gave to the Colleges and Commissioners the power of making a great many alterations. The supporters of the Amendment did not wish to cripple that power in any way, but they wished to direct it, and the only mode by which they could direct it was to insert in the clause words indicating the direction which it ought to take.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, that the test applied by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bouverie), of the small number of scholars from Westminster who obtained fellowships at Trinity, had no application to the present case. Lord Chief Justice Jervis and Mr. Justice Williams had been scholars at Westminster, but they had not obtained fellowships at Trinity. All that the words proposed to be inserted would do, would be merely to require that attention should be paid to the main objects of the founders. He should therefore vote against the clause.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that the noble

1207
Lord at the head of the Government had described the object of the University as being the promotion "of sound learning and religious education," and he (Mr. Henley) supported the insertion of the words proposed because they appeared to him to secure the main object. It was clear that those who were sitting behind the noble Lord wished to get rid of the object which the noble Lord wished to secure. There was nothing in the Bill as it stood which would prevent the Colleges or Commissioners appropriating the college funds, not for the promotion "of sound learning and religious education," but for any purpose that might be uppermost in their minds. He could not understand why the insertion of the words proposed should be objected to.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, he entertained an objection to the insertion of the words, on the ground that different meanings might be attached to them, according to the opinions or feelings of the persons who might have to carry out the provisions of the Bill, and would in all probability seriously affect the working of the measure.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, that his sole object in moving the Amendment was, that Parliament should not in appearance do anything to subvert what was the main intention of the founders. Unless some such safeguard were provided, he was convinced that many charities founded solely for the poor would pass into the pockets of the rich. The chance of a poor man getting his son into the University depended almost wholly on those local privileges. He would propose to vary his Amendment as follows:—
"Due regard being always had to the main designs of the founder or donor, so far as consistent with sound religion and learning."
MR. BOUVERIE: That makes it still stronger.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, his object was to ascertain whether the right hon. Gentleman had any words of his own to propose. If not, he should adhere to his Amendment as originally proposed.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 78; Noes 97: Majority 19.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he would now move to insert, in line 32 of the same clause, after the word "such," the word "headships." The object was to enable the Commissioners to make alterations
1208
with regard to the headships, as well as the fellowships and other emoluments.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to the proposal. He thought that when a man got to the head he ought to remain there.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, that his proposal would only affect future heads of colleges. He had corresponded with several masters of arts who were favourable to the alteration.
Question put, "That the word "headships" be there inserted.
The Committee divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 145: Majority 104.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he wished to propose the insertion in line 43 of the same clause, after the words "for the" the words "encouragement of studies in modern history, practical science, and modern languages, and for the". His object was to introduce modern studies into the University of Cambridge. When he was there he wished to attend the lectures on modern history, but was told by his tutor that it would do him no good in the examinations. He understood that the Oxford Commissioners had proposed that in one of the colleges there a fifth part of the fellowships should be set apart for physical science. He therefore hoped the same thing would be done at Cambridge. His Amendment he considered was of importance with regard to Parliament itself, for he did not think that senators were well educated unless they were acquainted with modern history, practical science, and modern languages.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he fully admitted that it was very desirable that modern studies should be pursued at Cambridge, but the question was, how it could best be done. The Bill contained a general provision that colleges should have the power to introduce such studies as part of their course, and he thought that the object in view would be more effectually secured by a comprehensive provision of that kind than by the words proposed to be added to the clause by the hon. Gentleman.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 55; Noes 136: Majority 81.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he would now beg to propose, as an Amendment, that the following words should be inserted in the clause after the word "fellows," as one of the objects for which Statutes should be made—namely, "for exempting students who may conscientiously object to attend the existing Liturgical Services

1209
in the College Chapel from compulsory attendance. His desire was, that those who did not belong to the Church of England should not be compelled to attend its services. That rule was followed in Trinity College, Dublin.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to the introduction of the words, because the general clause empowering the governing body to form Statutes would enable them to make such an arrangement as the hon. Gentleman proposed if they chose to do so; and he believed that in some of the colleges there would be no indisposition to take that course.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he did not believe the authorities of the colleges, though they possessed the power, would make such a Statute as he proposed.
Question put, that those words be there inserted.
The Committee divided; when there were, Ayes 90; Noes 128: Majority 38.
Clause, as amended, agreed to, as was also Clause 28.
Clause 29 (When Colleges omit to make Statutes, Commissioners may frame them.)
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he wished to move an Amendment, putting the election to the mastership of Jesus College on the same footing as that of Magdalen, and that the interest of the Bishop of Ely in such election should cease.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he must explain that the interest of the Bishop of Ely in Jesus College was to cease after the death of the present Bishop.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he could not see how they were to separate the nomination of the living which was attached to Jesus College from that of the mastership.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, he would now beg to move an Amendment taking away the power, now given to two-thirds of the governing body of any college, to negative the recommendation of the Commissioners. No body about to be reformed by the provisions of such a Bill as the present, was likely to carry the reform out with such a power of a veto given to them. It was holding out a temptation to the Colleges at Cambridge to thwart the objects of the Bill. When a similar clause was introduced into the Oxford University Bill it was not part of the original Bill, but adopted by the Government when they found that they could not help it—when they had great difficulties in carrying the measure, and were obliged to conciliate on all sides. It was a mere concession to the
1210
opposition, and assuredly no part of the views of the promoters of the Bill. The noble Lord even said that the proviso would impair the objects of the Bill, and oblige them to come in two or three years to that House for an amended Bill. It was well known in Oxford that the proviso had been a serious hindrance to the operation of the Bill. The governing body of new College had exercised their veto against a scheme of the Commissioners for throwing open the scholarship of the College, now confined to students from Winchester. St. John's College would most likely follow the example, in vetoing the scheme for throwing open the scholarships now almost entirely given to Merchant Tailors' School. Jesus College would most probably do the same thing. He therefore appealed to the Committee to remove so serious an embarrassment to the working of the Bill.
Amendment proposed in page 9, line 16, to leave out from the word "thereof" to the end of the clause.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would admit that if he had framed the Bill without the precedent of the Oxford Act, he would hardly have introduced the proviso; but it must be remembered that the subject had been fully discussed during the progress of the Oxford University Bill and a very strong feeling existed in favour of the introduction of a proviso of this nature.
SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTEsaid, it was true that in the case of the Oxford Act the Government endeavoured to conciliate the Opposition by abandoning minute legislation, but he was not aware that they ever disputed the necessity of affording some protection to the colleges against the otherwise irresponsible power of the Commissioners. With respect to the refusal, or rather intimation of dissent, from New College relative to Winchester School to the scheme of the Commissioners to deal with those institutions together, he was prepared to assert that such refusal or dissent was justified upon the ground of the scheme being injurious to a place of learning and education.
MR. GORDONsaid, that the Amendment, if carried, would not only deprive the colleges of all opportunity of objection, but would absolutely leave them in ignorance of the Statutes by which they were to be governed.
Question put—"That the words 'Provided, always, That all such Statutes' stand part of the clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 165; Noes 93: Majority 72.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 30.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to move the insertion of the words "sound learning and religious education."
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he should oppose the Amendment. He believed that, according to the interpretation of the University authorities, "sound learning" would he found to mean a Greek and Latin education; and a "religious education," the religious teaching of the Church of England. Now, he was in favour of modern studies being introduced into the University, and he was still more decidedly in favour of Dissenters being admitted to all its honours. He certainly, therefore, could not approve of the Amendment.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, it was his opinion that "sound learning" did not mean Latin and Greek exclusively, though he believed religious teaching would mean that of the Church of England.
MR. T. CHAMBERSsaid, he would suggest that, for consistency's sake, "religious education" should be introduced into Clause 28.
MR. J. G. PHILLIMOREsaid, he did not see why the words "sound learning" and "religious education" should be objected to.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would look at the clause, and also at the words proposed to be inserted in the 28th clause, and state what he thought should be done.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 31.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause, as drawn, would operate thus:—The University would have the power of making Statutes within two years, and if they did not do so the Commissioners would have power to make Statutes until 1860; after which the University would again have the power of making Statutes, and, consequently, might undo all that the Commissioners had done. Now that, he maintained, was not a very satisfactory state in which to leave the University with respect to the Commission. What he desired to propose was, that they should do one of two things,—either omit the clause altogether, or leave the Commissioners power to make alterations, if the University failed, provided two-thirds of the governing body of the University agreed to such alterations.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he objected to omit the clause altogether. It was proposed to give the Commissioners power to deal with the Statutes—first with the Royal Statutes, and next with the Statutes connected with the endowments. He was ready to concede a power to the colleges to dissent from any Statutes proposed by the Commissioners with respect to endowments, but not with regard to the Royal Statutes.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he could not conceive how the proviso, giving the University power to object to the alteration of all Statutes, was open to objection. If ever there were a body which deserved confidence it was the University of Cambridge. There never had been a corporation which had shown more alacrity to adopt improvements.
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he would remind the Committee that the University of Oxford had recently determined that the Professor of Anatomy should sign the Thirty-nine Articles. He believed the Professor of Anatomy was about the last person to believe the Thirty-nine Articles; and that if we took the medical profession throughout the country, ninety-nine out of a hundred did not believe in those Articles. The Commissioners objected to the test of the Thirty-nine Articles; but if the Committee allowed two-thirds of the Council to object, they might have a similar case occurring at Cambridge. At present Dissenters were admitted there even without a revision of the Statutes.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 32, Right of preference belonging to schools not to be abolished in certain cases if two-thirds of the governing body of the schools dissent there from.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, he should move the omission of the clause. The clause gave power to schools as well as colleges to defeat the whole object of the Bill, by enabling two-thirds of the schools to put a veto on any clauses for reform proposed by the Commissioners. It did not follow logically that because the Committee had rejected his Amendment on the former clause they should object to his Motion now, to omit the clause from the Bill.
MR. ROUNDELL PALMERsaid, that having proposed and carried a similar clause in the Oxford Bill to that which the hon. Gentleman now proposed to omit, he hoped the Committee would not take a course so grossly inconsistent as to refuse

1213
to the schools connected with Cambridge the same privilege which they had given to the schools and colleges connected with the sister University. It appeared to be a gross oversight to forget the interests of the schools and minor places of education dispersed over the kingdom, and to fix attention exclusively on the Universities. Education was of general interest, promoted as much by schools as by Universities; and it appeared to him to be a short-sighted jealousy which would lead to the sacrifice of schools, even to promote some degree of advantage to the University. But the schools would certainly be sacrificed if they took away all the exhibitions and scholarships which had been established by the founders or masters of the schools or endowments, for the purpose of facilitating the passage into the Universities of youths educated in the schools. It would, in fact, amount to confiscation. The adoption of a clause of this kind in the Oxford Act had not resulted in any mischievous consequences, and he trusted the Committee would not stultify itself by agreeing to the Amendment.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, that, as the Bill was at present framed, if the scheme proposed by the Commissioners was rejected, they had no other resource than to report the fact to the Secretary of State. He would therefore submit that a power of appeal should be given to them.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, he wished to know upon what ground should a right of appeal be given to the Commissioners? A power of appeal was only given to persons interested and affected by the matter in question; but the Commissioners were simply delegated to see that the powers of the University were properly put in motion.
MR. FORTESCUEsaid, he regarded the Commissioners as the representatives of the House of Commons, and that they had therefore quite as good a right to be heard before the Privy Council as any other party.
Clause agreed to; as were also Clauses 33 to 37, both inclusive.
Clause 38.
MR. ROBERT PHILLIMOREsaid, he wished to move the omission of certain words for the purpose of giving an appeal against any new Statutes to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, instead of five Members of the Privy Council, including two members of the Judicial Committee, a provision which had, he said,
1214
given rise to great difficulty in the case of the Oxford University.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he was not aware that any inconvenience had resulted from the provision in the Oxford Act. One petition only had been presented, which had been referred to five Members of the Privy Council, including two Members of the Judicial Committee, and by them disposed of satisfactorily.
Amendment negatived.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 39. (The Statutes to be laid before Parliament, and unless an Address is within forty days presented by one or other House praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent, it shall be lawful for Her Majesty, by Order in Council, to declare Her approbation of such Statutes.)
MR. HEYWOODsaid, he wished to extend the time from forty days to four months, which would allow of a longer period for the consideration of the Statutes in Parliament, and would give to independent Members a better chance of obtaining a day on which to move an Address.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he would not object to sixty days being substituted for forty.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the point. By this provision in the Bill it was not intended to reserve to Parliament the principal function of considering the Statutes in their particulars. The House of Commons was not at all fit for such an office; they provided a Commission to review the operations of the colleges in the way of legislation, or, if necessary, to assume to themselves the power of legislation; and the appeal to that House was only provided in the improbable case of some gross violation of the trust confided to them on the part of both the Commissioners or the University. He looked upon the period of forty days as ample for the object in view; a longer term would be very inconvenient to the colleges, as well as wholly unnecessary.
MR. COLLIERsaid, he should support the Amendment, which would afford a reasonable time to independent Members to move an Address, instead of leaving them at the mercy of the Government.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it advisable that the practice should be the same both with regard to the Oxford and the Cambridge Statutes. There would always be ample opportunities during the period mentioned in the clause for independent

1215
Members to bring forward any Motion they might wish to submit to the House.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, that the object of making the House of Commons a Court of Appeal was to provide against the contingency of the Commissioners flying in the face of the Act. It was not intended as a general rule that the House of Commons should review the acts of the Commissioners.
Clause agreed to.
Clause 40.
MR. WIGRAMsaid, he objected to the power given to the Commissioners of sweeping away all the Statutes. There were many portions of the Elizabethan Statutes which he thought it might be desirable to retain. For instance, it was provided that no undergraduate should be expelled without the approbation of the majority of the heads of colleges. It was also provided that there should be a uniform system with regard to the taking of degrees. He could not see the necessity of arming the Commissioners with such a power in express terms.
MR. BOUVERIEsaid, he thought it better that the Commissioners should be enabled to deal with the code in a comprehensive manner.
MR. WALPOLEsaid, the clause was merely an intimation as to the nature of the Commissioners' functions.
Clause agreed to.
Remaining Clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported.

DUBLIN METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
MR. VANCEsaid, he objected to the Bill on a point of form, as it proposed to give certain compensation charged on the Consolidated Fund, and therefore should have been introduced in a Committee of the whole House.
MR. SPEAKERsaid, that the hon. Member had raised the same objection a few nights before. He had examined the question, and found that the 17 & 18 Viet. c. 94, had removed those charges from the Consolidated Fund to the annual Estimates; and the Bill was therefore correct in point of form.
MR. SERJEANT O'BRIENsaid, he would ask the Government whether, at that hour
1216
—just one o'clock—it was decent to take a Bill with 185 clauses, objected to as it was by all parties in Dublin?
MR. HORSMANsaid, he hoped the Bill would be allowed to pass a second reading. He believed it was not objected to on principle. It was only a consolidation Bill.
MR. GROGANsaid, that he was surprised to hear such a statement. The Bill was vehemently objected to by the people of Dublin, and it was very different from a consolidation Bill. It extended the provisions of the Act it professed to consolidate; for example, as to enabling the Lord Lieutenant to include parishes in the police districts of the city within ten miles round it. The whole county might as well at once be included. Then, again, there was an extraordinary provision as to the police magistrates and police "Commissioners," as they were called in this Bill. To all intents the magistrates had hitherto been deemed as superior authorities; but this clause made them subordinate. It was so important, however, that a consolidation Bill, or some good Bill for the regulation of the police in Dublin should be adopted, that he was quite ready to make a compromise with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, which was this—that the Bill should be read a second time now and referred to a Select Committee, with power to examine witnesses, and decide on the course to be afterwards pursued. Let the right hon. Gentleman adopt that course, and he (Mr. Grogan) would agree to the second reading now. If not, he should feel it to be his duty to move, as an Amendment, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. By taking that course he believed no injury would accrue either to the city of Dublin, or to the parties whom it was proposed to benefit by the Bill; whilst an opportunity would be given for making the measure satisfactory to all classes concerned. On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman proceeded with the Bill he was afraid that, in accordance with the wishes of the corporation and inhabitants of Dublin, he should have to give it all the opposition in his power. He begged to move, therefore, that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
MR. HORSMANsaid, if he were to accede to the proposal of the hon. Member for Dublin they would be unable to pass the Bill during the present Session. The objections that the hon. Gentleman made were rather objections of detail, which could be more properly discussed in Committee. It was, he maintained, only a consolidation Bill which had been drawn without any intention to alter the existing law, and if any alteration had been made, he was ready to remedy that in Committee.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, that the citizens of Dublin entertained a general objection to the whole system of the police of that city, which they were anxious should not be sanctioned by the passing of any such Bill as that before the House. He particularly objected to the 149th clause, by which a constable was empowered to arrest a person without a warrant for, among other things, the use of obscene language. The other day, a number of persons were taken before the magistrates, of course by the direction of the Police Commissioners, charged with using such language, and, when questioned as to what that language was, a policeman replied that they had said, "Damn the police!"
MR. VANCEsaid, he thought there was a strong primâ facie case against the Bill, inasmuch as it went directly in the face of the constituted authorities of Dublin.
MR. J. D. FITZGERALDsaid, that the objections to details which had been urged were the best reasons for going on with the Bill. They were all objections to the existing law, which if the Bill were not proceeded with, must remain unaltered; but which might, if they went into Committee, be amended. The Bill was substantially a consolidation Bill, reducing into one that which was now scattered over thirteen confused Acts of Parliament. At the same time it reduced the number of magistrates from nine to five, and thus tended to lessen the public burdens.
MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he was of opinion that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He knew nothing more unmerciful, on the part of the Attorney General for Ireland, than to inflict this Bill, containing 185 clauses, on a Committee of the House. No doubt it would be a rich intellectual treat; but he thought, with so many details, the
1218
matter should be referred to a Select Committee.
COLONEL TAYLOR COLONEL TAYLOR moved the adjournment of the debate.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the House would read the Bill a second time now, and leave the question of referring it to a Select Committee for future consideration. Of course the Government were open to receive, and ready to entertain, suggestions on the subject of the proposed change in the law.
MR. GROGANsaid, he must complain that neither the corporation nor the magistracy of Dublin had yet had an opportunity of considering the Bill.
MR. P. O'BRIENsaid, that the Bill was conceived in the same spirit as the Counties and Boroughs Police Bill, which English Members had so much opposed. For the sake, then, of consistency, he had a right to call upon English Members to oppose the precipitate second reading of the measure, which was just as much a blow against the principle of local self-government as the objectionable English Bill.
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was of importance that the Bill should be got through in the course of the present Session; but that certainly could not be done if it were referred to a Select Committee, except under the assistance and forbearance of the House. No doubt the best tribunal for discussing the details of the Bill would be a Select Committee; but then, if that course were adopted, it must be understood that the House would accept the Bill as it came down from the Committee. However, the Government would rather that the Bill should be read a second time at once, and the question of referring it to a Select Committee reserved for future consideration.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 65; Majority 13.
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Whereupon Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 69: Majority 23.
Question again proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
Debate arising; Debate adjourned till Thursday.
The House adjourned at a quarter after Two o'clock.