JEWISH DISABILITIES. (Hansard, 17 July 1857)

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
Sir, although I am sensible of the inconvenience of pressing too far the privilege which hon. Members possess of introducing questions to the notice of Government upon the question of adjournment of the House to Monday, yet I rise in consequence of the strong feeling by which I am animated, and considering that I owe it to my constituents to ask the decision of the Government with respect to a Bill of which I have given notice. The complaint of my constituents is, that although they have four times elected Baron Lionel Rothschild a Member of this House he has as yet been unable to take his seat here. Successive Governments have attempted to relieve him and his Jewish brethren from the disabilities to which they are at present subject, by passing Bills in this House and sending them up to the other House of Parliament. It has been supposed—and maliciously supposed—that the City of London is satisfied with three Members, and do not insist on or feel the necessity of having any more to represent them in this House. But, Sir, that is not the fact. The City of London is most anxious to have its full share in the representation of the country, but has consented for a time to forego that privilege in order to vindicate another privilege—the great privilege of the people of this country to send Members to the British House of Commons without any reference whatever to their religious predilections. Sir, the House of Lords has now again rejected a Bill which was intended to remove those disabilities. It was supposed hitherto—and I think very naturally supposed—that the majorities of this House having been generally small—sometimes twenty-five or thirty—the House of Lords considered, in that divided state of public opinion, they were not bound to give effect to the wish of the House of Commons. But, Sir, it appears from the late division, that that cannot be the ground upon which they acted, because the last Bill, besides being supported by the whole authority and weight of the Government, had a majority of 140 in its favour on the decisive test with respect to the words "on the true faith of a Christian." It is obvious that we may send another Bill to the House of Lords next year and the year after that; but if so large a majority as that is not allowed to prevail with the House of Lords there is no chance what- 1700 ever that a Bill in that form will be accepted by that House. Let me say, however, that as this Bill bore the shape of a change in the law, and as the last Bill which we sent up to the House of Lords professed to make a change in the oaths to be taken in this House, it is undoubtedly within the constitutional functions of the House of Lords to refuse their sanction to it. But Sir, a question occurs to me—and I think not unnaturally—it is this: whether the City of London is to rest satisfied with the state of its representation, or whether, on the other hand, we are to be satisfied with defeat on this great question of religious liberty, or whether any other course can be adopted? Now it appears to me that another course can be adopted. The House is well aware that it has been the law for, I believe, two centuries—both declared and acknowledged—that persons in Courts of Justice may take an oath as witnesses, or in any other capacity, in any form most binding upon their conscience. That opinion is declared to have been given in 1657, and a Bill, which upon the proposition of the late Lord Denman passed into an Act of Parliament so late as the first year of the present reign, confirmed it and declared that all persons called upon to give evidence in Courts of Justice are to take the oaths most binding on the consciences of such persons, and that such persons so falsely swearing should be subject to all the pains and penalties inflicted upon those guilty of perjury. But although that is an Act declaring the law, there is this ambiguity about it, that although the words "on any occasion whatever" are contained in it, the question arises whether, as it mentions Courts of Justice only, any higher authority is meant by it, and likewise whether it affects the case of persons in this House. What I wish to propose is that that imperfection in the law should be cleared up, and that it should be declared and enacted that in the High Court of Parliament, as well as elsewhere, and "on all occasions," an oath administered by a person lawfully empowered to administer the same—

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
The present question is that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday, and if it is not Competent for me to address the House upon this question out of order, I can soon put myself in order by moving that the House do now adjourn, and I do so with a view of enabling the Government to declare what they will do on this occasion affecting the rights of the Jewish portion of the population.

§ SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBY
said, that with all due respect he would again submit that the noble Lord was out of order. A Motion now stood in the name of the noble Lord, having for its object the introduction of a Bill in reference to a certain statute there named, and the noble Lord was now discussing a question which would come regularly before the House at a later period of the evening.

§ Mr. WALPOLE
Perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words upon the point of order. I rather think, Sir, your predecessor in the chair always laid down the rule that, although we have deviated widely from regularity in our proceedings upon this question of adjournment, yet he held it was not competent for an hon. Member to take advantage of this Motion, in order to speak upon any other subject relating to which there was a notice of Motion upon the paper of the evening. I mention this in order to put you, Sir, in mind of what has been the ruling in these cases. The noble Lord, as I understand, is now adopting another course, and proposes, in order to put himself right, to move the adjournment of the House, as an Amendment on the Motion that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday. By so doing I believe that the noble Lord would be acting strictly in accordance with the practice of the House, although he was not in order before; but I would venture to put it to the noble Lord himself, the greatest authority in this House, whether he would not be rather increasing the irregularity into which we have fallen by pursuing the subject at this moment.

§ MR. MALINS
Although the noble Lord is undoubtedly a great authority in this House, yet nothing is more clearly understood than that this is an order night, and that on such a night, the orders of the day have the precedence. The noble Lord has a notice upon the paper of a Motion for leave to introduce a Bill, and I am certain that many Members have gone away under the impression that it was im- 1702 possible that the subject could be brought on until after the orders of the day had been disposed of. It would take those hon. Members greatly by surprise, and I believe also that it would take the public greatly by surprise, if the noble Lord were now to proceed with his Bill.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I desire on the subject of order, in the first place, to pause for a moment to remind the House of the extreme inconvenience of the course which has been pursued this evening. A multiplicity of questions have been discussed upon the one Motion, that the House at its rising do adjourn till Monday next, and confusion in discussion is the result, which is greatly to be deprecated. With respect to the question which has been addressed to me by the hon. Member for Evesham (Sir H. Willoughby) I feel that no duty is more imperative upon me than that of preserving the order of business, as it is laid down by the House for the day; and it certainly is my opinion that, as the noble Lord has given notice of a Motion for this evening, it is going beyond the irregularity into which we have been already led to take advantage of the Motion that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday, for the purpose of anticipating that notice of Motion, and raising a discussion upon it.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL.—
With respect of the point of order, I may perhaps be permitted to say, that in the course of this very evening different Members on either side of the House have entered into questions which properly belong to Committee of Supply, and which must be discussed in Committee of Supply this very evening. My right hon. Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty, though he reprehended the practice, yet immediately followed it, and entered into that which ought to have been discussed in Committee of Supply. Having, however, been misled probably by that very high authority, I am ready to say that I have a particular object in view, from which I will not be deterred, and I shall therefore make myself perfectly in order by moving the adjournment of the House. My particular object is to know whether, supposing the House consents to my bringing in a Bill with respect to which I will not say a single word more, the First Lord of the Treasury will agree to appoint a day, fixed for Government business, on which that Bill can be discussed? It is obvious that unless that is done, and unless that is an early 1703 day, there is no chance of that Bill going up to the House of Lords. It is a Bill on which depends a question of great public importance; and certainly I conceive it ought to be discussed before an hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn), brings forward a Motion for the purpose of putting Baron Lionel Rothschild into his seat by a Resolution of tins House, which may involve us in a perilous conflict; and therefore I take the opportunity of pressing for an answer to my question, whether, if I am allowed to bring in that Bill, a day will be given for its consideration? The noble Lord concluded by the formal Motion for the adjournment of the House.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
I think that the noble Lord the Member for London was perfectly in order when he commenced his observations, seeing that he had to complain of a wrong done to his constituents, inasmuch as one of the Members returned by them is not able to take his seat in this House; but I certainly think with the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole), that he was not in order in alluding to the notice of Motion which he had on the paper. At all events, it has been my misfortune, Sir, to be stopped more than once by your predecessor when I have alluded to a notice for a Bill which I had on the paper, and when I have spoken under similar circumstances. I rose, however, to remind the House of one fact, and that is that we have not upon our journals any record of the wrong that has been done to the citizens of London. Baron Rothschild has not attempted during this Parliament to take his seat, and you have no right to assume what the House would do if he did attempt to take it. The House may arrive at a different conclusion from that at which the last House arrived. On a former occasion, acting under the influence of the noble Lord, the House decided that it could not assent to the proposal made by one of the Vice Chancellors of England, Sir William Page Wood, that Mr. Alderman Salomons had taken the oath in a manner binding on his conscience, and that he therefore was at once at liberty to take his seat. I would suggest that the hon. Member for the City of London (Baron Rothschild), should present himself at the table before any hasty steps are adopted, and be refused his seat on account of not swearing 1704 those words "on the true faith of a Christian," although he should affirm that he has taken the oath in a manner binding on his conscience. It would then be competent for any hon. Member to move a Resolution that he, having taken the oath in the manner most binding upon his conscience, should be at liberty to take his seat, I voted for that Resolution on a former occasion. I am prepared to vote for it again, and I am not at all sure that the Bill of the noble Lord would not weaken our position in that respect. I wish now, however, to remind the House that the citizens of London have not upon the journals any record of their wrong, which, in my opinion, should appear before we proceed any further.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
With respect to the question put by my noble Friend, all I can say is that of course I presume that the House would, as matter of courtesy whatever the opinions of any hon. Members may be on the question itself, allow my noble Friend to obtain leave to bring in his Bill. As to the suggestion that a day should afterwards be given to him for its discussion, my noble Friend must consider that there are many very important matters connected with the country still under discussion in this House, and that our days are numbered. Therefore it is impossible, until the public business shall have advanced in a more certain manner, to promise any hon. Members that I will give them, at an early period at least, a Government day for the discussion of the Bills which they may think it advisable to bring in. I am afraid this answer will not be satisfactory to my noble Friend, but it is really all that I can say at present consistently with my public duty.