THIRD READING.

HC Deb 25 June 1857 vol 146 cc347-69

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made and Question proposed "That the Bill be now read the Third Time."

THE MARQUESS OF BLANDFORD

^* Sir, in rising to oppose the further progress of this Measure through the House, I feel that it will not be necessary for me to enter generally upon the subject of the admission of the Jews to Parliament. That subject has already been well and ably discussed; it has engaged to the Fullest possible extent the attention of the House, and therefore it will only be necessary for me to make a few brief remarks on this occasion. I can only say with reference to that subject, that there is one consideration above every other which makes me feel that the admission of Jews to Parliament is a measure to which this House ought not to agree. That consideration is, as we should never forget, and as it is expressed in all our public acts and documents, that the Crown of this realm is held "by the grace of God." Now this expression does not mean a mere abstract notion of the Divine being, but the Christian idea of God in and through the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We meet in Parliament and in this House by the authority of the Crown, to pass those acts which are necessary for the government of the country. That Crown is not held independently, but dependently—dependently upon that Holy Being whose name I have mentioned; therefore Parliament ought, in like manner, to possess the same character and attribute of Christianity as the Crown. It has been said that we are infringing the doctrine of charity by not allowing the Jew to sit in Parliament, and I remember that some years ago, the noble Lord the Member for London drew attention to the beautiful parable of the good Samaritan, as an illustration of charity, and an example which we should follow. It was indeed the highest illustration that could be given of a virtue so divine. But is there not a fallacy in the use of this illustration? The divine rule is, that charity worketh no ill to one's neighbour, and can it be said that in asserting and maintaining the Christian character of this assembly we are "working any ill" to our neighbour? Charity is in truth a divine virtue. It is a virtue, let us never forget, which proceeds from that very Being whose name it is now proposed to ignore in order to the exercise of that virtue. My object then in rising to oppose this Bill is, that the true character of the Measure should be known and clearly understood before it is sent up to receive judgment in another House. Sir, the Bill on its second reading was not opposed, and I think so far justly. There are acknowledged inconveniences in the existing oath. Nobody denies that there are some portions of it which might well be omitted; but I regret to say that under the colour of such objections, the attempt has been made to destroy the Christian character of the legislature. It is said, "Here is an oath, the great bulk of which is nonsense; therefore let us do away with the nonsense." Upon that point we are all agreed; but, at the same time, whilst doing away with the nonsense, yon have been doing away with the sense, and also with that which, to the consciences of vast numbers of people in the country is an essential element in the constitution. The object of the Bill is said to be the admission of the Jews to Parliament, but before it proceeds to the other House, let us maturely consider what is its true character—what is its real nature. In the first place, it proposes to abolish the existing oaths of supremacy, allegiance, and abjuration, and to substitute another oath in their stead. Now, we have an instance on record within a very recent date, of the substitution of one oath for another; I allude to the Roman Catholic oath; and I will ask the House to go with me for a few moments into a comparison of the Roman Catholic oath, with the oath which it is now proposed to substitute for the three old oaths. When the Roman Catholic oath was framed, those three points of supremacy, allegiance, and protestation to maintain the established religion of the country were condensed into it. The words of the oath are these— I do hereby disclaim, disavow, and solemnly abjure any intention to subvert the present Church Establishment, as settled by law within this realm; and I do solemnly swear that I will not exercise any privilege to which I am or may become entitled, to disturb or weaken the Protestant religion and Protestant government of the United Kingdom. The first part of the Roman Catholic oath is an avowal of allegiance to the Sovereign; then comes an acknowledgment of the temporal supremacy of the Sovereign; and lastly, there is the delaration to maintain the national religion of the country. Now, what do we find in the oath proposed by the Bill? There is only one point introduced into the oath; it is that of allegiance or supremacy, for they are much about the same. There is not one word about the maintenance of the national religion. In the former oath, which was taken by Protestants, there are certainly no express words to be used binding them to maintain the Christian religion; but when every person who came to that table to be sworn, was obliged in your presence, Sir, to declare that he took the oath "upon the true faith of a Christian," did he not thereby, whatever might be his own feelings—whether he took the oath in sincerity or not, or with contention and insincerity—make public profession that he was a Christian? and what Christian is there that would wish to overturn the Christian religion? Therefore, I say that the old oath did maintain the essential print; the declaration that a national religion exists in the country. And in saying this, I do not speak of the Established Church alone. Far be it from me to suppose for one moment that the religion of the country is confined to that church. Attached as I am to the Established Church, I thank God that the religion of the land is not confined to it. There are varieties of opinion; there are different conformations of the human mind; and it is not to be supposed that in a day of intelligence like the present, every man's mind can be brought to agree to one uniform model in religion, or that one scheme of ecclesiastical government would suit every person. But, independently of that, the established religion is not the only religion of the country. [A cheer from the Roman Catholic benches.] I quite understand that cheer. Still, I believe that the established religion of this country is the most noble, the most ancient, the most estimable institution in the land. But the religion of the country is seated in the hearts of the people, and in their convictions of the truth: it is to that, then, we must look for the maintenance of the national religion. Now, that national religion, though deep-rooted in the hearts of the people, may have its foundations weakened: and how are those foundations most likely to be weakened? It is, first, by abolishing your forms. The abolition of your forms produces forgetfulness of the things for which those forms were instituted. There is every likelihood that in the engagements of every-day life, varied and complicated as they are, the national faith and piety may grow cold if these symbols cease to exist. Is not a form useful? To what do we owe the solemnity of our own proceedings, if not to forms? I remember, Sir, when your predecessor in that chair made a speech which came home to the hearts and feelings of all who heard it; he said that he had endeavoured to maintain the dignity and the privileges of the House, and at the same time to preserve those forms which he felt were essential to the character and conduct of the proceedings and business of the House. Why is the mace placed upon that table? Is it not as a symbol of the power of the House? And so there resides in these forms a power and a virtue which perhaps may not at first be perceived or apprehended, but which are not the less permanent and important. I say, therefore, that although the religion of the country may be deeply seated in the hearts of the people, it is still essential to maintain certain forms; and when should those forms be maintained if it be not when a Member comes to be sworn at the table, and enters for the first time upon the performance of those important duties upon the proper and efficient discharge of which the prosperity of the country rests. Should he not at such a moment be called upon to say, that the national religion of the country is an important element in its prosperity, and that, in order to secure that prosperity, he will faithfully maintain the religion upon which it depends? My first objection to the Bill then is that, professing as it does to concentrate into one all former oaths, it omits all reference to religion; and that any infidel, any Mahomedan, any person who acknowledges the bare abstract idea of a Supreme Governor of the Universe, might take the new oath with impunity. My second objection to the Bill is, that it differs from every other Bill, with one exception, that has ever been introduced to this House upon the authority of Her Majesty's Government, the exception being the Bill of 1854, which was very properly rejected by the House. If the House will allow me, then, I will briefly remind it of the nature of the Bills which have been introduced since the year 1847. In that year the noble Lord the Member for the city of London brought in a Bill to admit Jews to Parliament; but did he propose to alter the oath as taken by Christians? No. It was only in the case of the Jews that he proposed to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." In 1849 the noble Lord brought in another Bill, by which he proposed to alter the oath as regarded Peers and Members of Parliament only; but he retained the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," except in the case of the Jews. In the Bill of 1850 the noble Lord simply omitted the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" in the case of a Jew. In the Bill of 1851, the same provision was proposed. In the Bill of 1853 the noble Lord proposed to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" in the case of Jews, and the Jews were by that Bill excluded from holding certain offices. But in 1854, the noble Lord, fatigued probably by his numerous and ineffectual attempts, thought that the best plan would be to make a dash at the subject at once. He proposed, therefore, to abolish all existing oaths, and introduce a merely secular, and if I may so term it, an infidel oath. [Cries of "Oh!"] Well, that is a strong expression, I admit; but I am sure hon. Members will give me credit for not wishing to say anything offensive as to the intentions of the introducer. I merely state that, as the effect of the oath. The noble Lord, however, in that year, proposed to introduce an oath of that nature, and we find that the House of Commons rejected it by a majority of 251 to 247. The House of Commons, which had triumphantly carried the noble Lord through all his previous measures, and which measures had only been stopped by the House of Lords, perceived at once what was the nature of that Bill, itself put a stop to the proceeding, and thereby declared that it would not be deprived of that symbol by which the national religion had been maintained. Now, I believe, that I can ask the noble Lord the Member for London for his support on the present occasion. The noble Lord is anxious for the admission of Jews to Parliament; indeed, it seems to be his main idea. He wishes to see a civil disability done away with in the case of the Jew; but I feel sure he does not desire to reduce this House to a mere secular assembly. He does not wish to do away with all the glorious traditions of English history which show that the prosperity of the nation is indissolubly bound up with the preservation of its religion, and place us upon the footing of an infidel assembly in a continental country. I should weary the House if I were to enumerate all the Acts of the Legislature which would illustrate the fact that the maintenance of Christianity is an essential element in the laws of this country; but it has been said that the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," are accidentally the cause of excluding the Jews from Parliament.

I shall not, however, go into that subject at the present moment. I feel that this is not the time again to enter upon that long-exhausted question. What I want to show is this, and what I wish the House to believe is this—that there never was a period when some Christian symbols were not required to be exhibited by Members of the Legislature. Long before the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" were introduced, the Act of Elizabeth required oaths to be taken corporally on the Gospels. An Act of James the First did the same thing. And then, coming to the Republican Parliament, when a monarch had lost his throne and his life, this House resolved that every Member should take an oath that he would maintain the true Protestant—ay, and not only true Protestant, inasmuch as there might have been a cause for that, for we were then at daggers drawn with Popery—but the "true Protestant Christian religion of the country." Why was the word "Christian" put in that oath? Because upon the true Protestant Christian religion, "in the purity thereof," depended the welfare and prosperity of the nation. Than this there can be no more impregnable evidence that Christianity—and not Protestantism alone—was that which was meant to be maintained. Next we come to the declaration which was instituted against Transubstantiation. It may be said that that was a mere feud between Protestantism and Popery; but by whom was that declaration to be taken? By those who could say, "I do solemnly declare that I do believe that in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is no Transubstantiation." It was an affirmation; a declaration of belief that there is no Transubstantiation. That is to say, that the person making it believed in the Sacrament, but not in Transubstantiation. We then come to the 12th & 13th Will. III., enacting the Oath of Abjuration; and from that time to the present, words have been inserted in the Parliamentary Oaths which maintain the Christianity of the Legislature. Now, let us consider for a moment the position in which we are placed, and I readily acquit the noble Lord and Her Majesty's Government of being aware of the extreme gravity of their proceedings. I believe that they have been actuated by the desire to see the Jews admitted to this House, and that they believe the easiest and readiest mode of doing so is to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian." But what have they done? They seem to forget that they change those constitutional forms which are of immense weight and inconceivable importance to the destiny and prosperity of the country; and, indeed, I doubt very much whether they are acting constitutionally in what they are doing. We are bound by the Act of Succession, the 12th & 13th Will. III., to maintain a Protestant King or Queen upon the throne of this country; and we are so bound for no other purpose than that the religion of England may be secured. It is in times of danger and the extremity of suffering that our best and noblest nature shines forth. Those who have been brought face to face with danger know well the securities which are needed to protect them from its recurrence, and it was not without reason that the men of those days, who had seen their prosperity falling from under them, who had engaged in mortal strife in order to maintain their religion and their Protestantism, and been brought in direct antagonism and conflict with the Crown, imposed those securities for the abolition of which the noble Lord at the head of the Government is paving the way. I will now read to the House the 4th section of the 12 & 13 Will. III., the Act of Succession, which runs in these terms:— And whereas the laws of England are the birthright of the people thereof, and all the Kings and Queens who shall ascend the throne of this realm ought to administer the Government of the same according to the said laws, and all their Ministers and officers ought to serve them respectively according to the same; the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons do therefore further humbly pray that all the laws and statutes of this realm for securing the established religion and the rights and liberties of the people thereof, and all other laws and statutes of the same now in force, may be ratified and confirmed, and the same are confirmed accordingly. By what mode could we more efficiently secure the maintenance of the established religion in this country than the taking of an oath to maintain it by every Member who enters the walls of Parliament. Yet the noble Lord proposes to abandon that oath altogether. The preamble to the Act by which the oath of abjuration is enacted, the 12 & 13 of Will. III., c. 6, shows the importance which was attached in those days to the securities that then existed; for after reciting that the French King had violated the Acts of Succession, it declared that upon these Acts the safety of the King's royal person and government, the continuance of the monarchy of England, the preservation of the Protestant religion, the maintenance of the Church of England, and the security of the ancient and undoubted rights and liberties, and the future peace and tranquillity of the kingdom, did under God entirely depend. That was the sense entertained in those times by the men who drew up the statute of what was necessary for the maintenance of the prosperity and liberties of the kingdom. It was thought that that prosperity and those liberties did depend on the Acts then in existence, one essential feature of which was that an oath should be taken, binding the person taking it to maintain the established religion of the country, and at the same time prohibiting by a statute, which is still unrepealed, any Minister of the Crown from proposing any alterations in those Acts. I would now make a few remarks with respect to the last clauses contained in the Bill, and which have been introduced upon the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Horsham. Whatever its character, the Bill was, at any rate, before the adoption of those clauses, a unique piece of legislation; but by accepting those clauses, the noble Lord has himself placed a condemnation on the Bill. It is now declared that the Bill shall not extend to enable any person or persons professing the Jewish religion to hold or exercise certain high offices. And why not? Why are persons who profess the Jewish religion not to exercise those offices?

Let me have an answer to that question. I shall be told, that it is because the Roman Catholics do not hold them. Well, they do not. And why? Because it is supposed that they might exercise in those offices an influence adverse to the Protestant character of the State. Then there is this inconsistency involved; that you will allow persons to fill a legislative position, and make the laws which are necessary for the government of the country, but will not allow them to execute or administer those laws.

When it was formerly objected that Jews should be allowed to fill posts in corporations, Sir Robert Peel said that the Jews would have therein only an executive position, that they would only have to execute the laws, and would be confined within the limits of those laws. But the present Bill reverses that system, for whilst it excludes the Jews from an executive position, it gives them a seat in the Legislature. Inconsistency, I say, is stamped on the very face of this proposition; but there is yet a further inconsistency. The Roman Catholic is excluded from these offices, and at the same time holds a seat in the Legislature; there is no inconsistency, however, in giving him a seat in the Legislature, because his oath binds him not to do anything to subvert the established religion of the country. But this is not to be the case with the Jew. By your Bill you say to the Jew, "You are not fit to hold these offices; your religion incapacitates you from doing so; yet we will give you a seat in the Legislative Assembly, and we will bind you by no oath, no tie, no obligation, to maintain in that assembly the established religion of the country. Sir, I cannot conceive a greater inconsistency than that. The religion of this country is, that which has brought it through mighty and terrible struggles. The Parliament of this country has achieved great and glorious triumphs. It has curbed the disposition of the Crown at a time when it might have been prejudicial to the State. It has recovered itself from a line of monarchy and republicanism. It has maintained that established religion which was torn out, as it were, from the centre of an adverse creed. It has done all this as a Christian Parliament, with the recognition of the great and holy name of Him who is the Prince of the kings of the earth. And now if it rejects that name, if it repudiates that profession, and if it forsakes that covenant, it will be forsaking, repudiating, and rejecting the fountain of its wisdom, and of the strength and prosperity of the nation. I beg to move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a third time on this 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."

MR. DRUMMOND

^* said, he was so sensible of the deference which ought to be paid to the decided opinion of that Assembly, that he felt an apology to be due for offering at the last stage of this extraordinary Bill his utmost opposition to it. He did not think there ever was a Bill attended by more extraordinary circumstances, for it was a Bill which had no other object than that of admitting Baron Rothschild to a seat in that House, and it contained not a single word respecting, or the most distant allusion to, the Jews. He did not know what meaning the House might extract from the Bill, but in itself there was no proposition of the sort. Two collateral issues had been raised in the course of the discussion on the Bill, one of which was the respect due to the expression of opinion by the citizens of London, to which, however, he confessed he paid no respect at all, because, in the first instance, this Jew was returned as an intentional insult to this House and to Christianity. Whether he was right or wrong in this opinion, he admitted that it was not a motive which should influence the decision of that House. The other issue which had been raised was the personal character of the individual concerned. He had not the honour of his acquaintance, but he had received many acts of kindness from members of his family in various parts of Europe, and should be most happy to requite the favours received by doing any service in his power to him. He did not think, however, that this was a reason why he should give his vote for the present Bill. He differed, also, from those who opposed the third reading of the Bill on the ground that it would unchristianize this House, because he did not think that any such Bill would have been brought in or entertained had not the House been already unchristianized. That expression, no doubt, required explanation. He opposed the Bill as an effect and not a cause. They had by their liberalism completely obliterated all the essential principles which had hitherto guided this country in ecclesiastical and political matters. He would only take the case referred to by the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Kinglake); when the Amendment was introduced by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, he very properly said, "If you want a religious test, why not appeal to your Bishops in the other House? What is the use of having Bishops in the Legislature, if it be not to give you right directions on Christian principles? Why do you not appeal to them?'' The answer to that was, that if they were appealed to they would be sure to have six on one side and six on the other. The whole system of ecclesiastical authority was come to an end, so much so, indeed, that there were even differences of episcopal opinion with regard to the validity of the sacraments upon which the Church rested. What else did they see? Whilst the enormous Cathedral of St. Paul's was empty, and the Abbey at Westminster was empty, the Bishops were conducting worship in an unconsecrated concert room, and afterwards had the impudence to go down to the country and fight with Dissenters about consecrated and unconsecrated burial grounds. Why, that very night, a notice of Motion had been given for the issue of a Commission to inquire respecting the adaptation of the Liturgy to present circumstances—as if the rites of God's worship changed with every variation of man's fancies. He knew nothing equal to that, except what had been put into his hand yesterday by a gentleman, and that was a prayer in verse, addressed to our Lord, begging him to intercede for the Devil. Could liberalism go beyond that? That he supposed was tearing off the last rag of intolerance. He wished to God that they were as true to their faith as the Jews were to theirs; but they had ceased to know, and ceased to believe, that "there is but one name given under heaven whereby any man can be saved."

With respect to the present Bill, he would do with the Jews precisely what they would do with him; and again he said, he wished that we "who profess and call ourselves Christians" were as true to our faith as the Jews were to theirs. They had faith in the destiny of their nation. They believed that they should yet have all the promises which had been made to them fulfilled. They believed that they should yet trample the nations like ashes under their feet, and that not one jot or tittle of all that had been promised to them should fail till all be fulfilled. They knew full well that the circumcised cannot mingle with the baptized. They would not admit one of the baptized into their Sanhedrim. Neither ought we, in his opinion, to admit one of the circumcised into our Sanhedrim. The baptized could not rise till the circumcised fell. And now, mark! mark the historical fact! The Founder of our religion was a Jew—a circumcised Jew. He had the same attachment to His land and to His people that we have to our country. He "lived by faith," it is said, and He watched the "signs of the times," in order to be instructed by them. There came one day to a follower of His a certain Heathen, who said he wanted to speak to his Master. The follower, astonished, went and told another follower, and they two went to the Saviour. What did He say? Did he say, as on every other occasion, "What does this man want? How can I serve him?—Is he sick? I will heal him!—Is he hungry? I will feed him! Send him to me, and in some way I will bless him!" No; he took no notice of them. But He said, "Father, the hour is come!" What was that hour? The hour when the circumcised were to be utterly destroyed—nation, temple, worship, and all; and when He himself, as a Jew, was also to be put to death. If the circumcised were to become members of that Government which was the purest—and by purest he meant the most in accordance with the mind and purpose, rule, and kingdom of God—which had ever been established on the earth, he would say, "Take care; look you sharply about you; for the Jews are going to arise, and I will not venture to prophesy what may happen to you."

THE O'DONAGHOE

wished to make a few observations upon a measure in which his constituents as well as the people of Ireland generally were greatly interested. He would vote against the third reading of the Bill because he regarded it as partial and unjust, inasmuch as it denied to Roman Catholics the rights which would be extended to Jews. The ostensible object of the measure was the advancement of civil and religious liberty; its covert, although paramount object was the admission of a few Jews to Parliament. In considering the construction of the forms of oath hitherto established it had occurred to him that their framers must have laboured under an infatuation that by a jumble of sounding but superfluous phrases the devil might be outwitted. When this Bill was introduced he (the O'Donaghoe) indulged the hope that henceforth common sense was to supersede prejudice, but that expectation was at once disappointed when he came down to the last clause, which by depriving the measure of a liberal and comprehensive character transformed it into a mere Ministerial job. The Government justified the introduction of this Bill on the ground that it would promote the interests of civil and religious liberty. Jews could not sit in that House because the Legislature required them to utter the words "on the true faith of a Christian." The Government had very properly resolved to remove this difficulty, arguing, he supposed, that it was not right to deprive Jews of the benefit of representation when the only impediment to their enjoyment of the privilege was a formula which could be dispensed with without any material evils resulting either religiously or politically. The words "on the true faith of a Christian" were to be omitted from the oath because they were considered unnecessary. This was a Christian country, with a Christian Legislature, and the House had been reminded that the Jews did not belong to a sect which was indifferent on religious questions, but that they believed their creed was the only true faith, and they held that their race and religion would one day be in the ascendant, and would triumph over the institutions which were based upon Christianity. Notwithstanding these considerations, however, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had devised a scheme by which the doors of that House would be thrown open to the Jews, and he placed them on a footing of perfect equality with the great majority of the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. To that he (the O'Donaghoe) did not object—he called the country and all Europe to witness the homage which was paid to the conscientious convictions of the Jew—but he complained of the measure because it refused equal rights to the Roman Catholics. The Government was perfectly aware that the Roman Catholics protested against that portion of the Act of 1829 which related to the form of oath to be taken by them, and all they asked was to be placed upon a footing of equality with the rest of the community. He wished, therefore, to hear from the Government—they had not given it yet—some sound and sufficient reason for making an exception in the case of Roman Catholics. It was said that the Act of 1829 was a final settlement, and that no attempt ought to be made to disturb it; but he submitted that the framers of that Act did not entertain quite perfect ideas of civil and religious liberty, to judge from the changes which it had been found necessary to make in the provisions of the measure. In 1829 the Roman Catholics might very properly accept the proposition offered by the spirit of intolerance, which said, "Agree to this proposal or you shall have no political existence;" but it was in his opinion a very different thing for Roman Catholic Members of that House to sanction by their votes a measure which endeavoured to stain the sanctity of their religion by false and unseemly imputations. In 1829 it was felt that a dangerous experiment was about to be made. It was predicted that from the moment when the first Roman Catholic representative set his face within that House the constitution was doomed. Since the passing of the Emancipation Act nearly thirty years had elapsed, and a great number of Roman Catholics had sat in that House. What had been the general tenor of their conduct? Had they not been the constant friends of progress, whether it was political, civil, or religious? Were they found in the ranks of those who opposed the removal of the restrictions on trade, or the removal of the Jewish disabilities? Had they done anything which proved they were unworthy to sit in that House, or not entitled to a full and equal share in all the blessings of its enlightened legislation? [Cries of "Divide!"] He perceived the House was extremely impatient to go to a division, and he should merely say further that if the noble Lord at the head of the Government could be held to what he said—which, of course, he could not—it would be imperative on him to include the Roman Catholics at once in this Bill. The noble Lord the other night, when replying to the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Enniskillen (Mr. Whiteside), said that the House was not a religious but a political assembly, and that sentiment was loudly cheered by an overwhelming majority of that House. He would admit that he had himself cheered the sentiment, though he doubted the noble Lord's sincerity; but the inference he (the O'Donaghoe) drew from it was, that religion had nothing to do with a man's politics. Let the House mark the inconsistency of the noble Lord. In the same breath in which the noble Lord gave utterance to that opinion he called on the House to exclude the Roman Catholics from the benefits of the Bill because of their religion. He would add, that unless the noble Lord or some Member of the Government, gave a promise that next Session he would bring in a Bill to remedy the defects of this measure, and thus put the Roman Catholic subjects on a footing of perfect equality with the rest of the community, he should deem it his duty to vote against the third reading of the Bill. He was aware it was said that any one who opposed this Bill voted against the admission of Jews to Parliament, and therefore violated the principle of civil and religious liberty. His answer was, that if by voting against the Bill he violated the principle of civil and religious liberty that principle, as the Bill stood, was violated in his own person and in the persons of his co-religionists, and that if he supported such a measure he would be unworthy of the confidence reposed in him by his constituents, whose religion, he might say, was the glory and characteristic of their nation.

MR. BALL

, who spoke amid continued cries for a division, was understood to say that he had endured for a great portion of his life a very considerable degree of unkindness from those connected with him on account of his religious opinions, and he had therefore determined never to inflict on any man any disqualification or censure because he held opinions different from his. On that ground he came forward to the rescue of his brethren, the Jews. Since the real question before them was how they might frame an oath that should be obligatory on the conscience of the man who was to take it, common sense would dictate that it should be framed in accordance with the man's belief and conscience; but the Jews showed that they were conscientious by the scruples they felt in taking the existing oath, and why should an oath not be framed such as would be binding on them? It was said that the Jews wore so peculiar a race and so dissociated from us, and his creed so opposed to ours, that we had nothing in common with him. But he thought that they had very much in common with the Jew; he thought that they owed very much to the Jew. The Commandments, which we regarded as obligatory on us, we received through the Jews, and were equally binding on them; and when we praised our Maker, it was in the language of the Jewish temple. We had, therefore, great affinity and fellowship with the Jews. There were two classes of persons who might be conceived as using the argument that this Bill would unchristianize the assembly. He could conceive of religious persons with a tender conscience fearing the change which they expected from this Bill. But there were many that used this objection to the Bill who knew nothing of Christianity whatever. He would tell such that it was impossible for any man to make or to unmake a Christian; that was a character which came from above. But if the admission of Jews into the House were to unchristianize it, was not the evil already done? Were there not Jewish subjects and Jewish magistrates—those who obeyed the law and those who administered it—and might not such be admitted to consider of the making of the law? The objection seemed to him to be absurd. [Renewed cries of "Divide!"] He felt that in delivering his sentiments he was offending many of his constituents, and it was with much hesitation that he addressed the House; and he therefore thought the House should not refuse him the opportunity of explaining the reasons which had influenced him in the vote he was about to give. But, for his own part, there was One above all constituencies, whom he thought it is duty to obey. He reminded the House that other nations had admitted the Jews to the highest offices in the State, and that, so far from being displeasing to the Almighty, seemed to be the occasion of his blessing those nations. [Renewed confusion.] He admitted the sincerity of his Friends on the right (the Conservative opposition) in opposing this Bill; he asked them to believe that he also was sincere in supporting it.

MR. DILLWYN

, who also spoke amid much confusion, supported the Bill on the principle that religious opinion should no longer be a disqualification for a seat in that House. He did not believe it was a measure to meet a particular case, but a protest against the intolerance he had mentioned. He objected, however, to the clauses which had been introduced since the introduction into that House, as being entirely antagonistic to what he understood to be the principle of the Bill, and he was very much disappointed to find that the Government had accepted them. He could very well understand why the Roman Catholics should be excluded from certain high offices in the State; but there was no relativeness between the exclusion of the Jews and the Roman Catholics. The first was excluded on account of religion; the second, not because of his religion alone, but because he owed a divided allegiance; for, while they held the Queen to be supreme in civil matters, they owned another head in respect of spiritual matters. Much as he regretted the introduction of the clauses to which he had alluded, he still did not think that a reason sufficient for voting against the third reading of the Bill.

MR. COLLINS

should have been content with giving a silent vote, but having supported in Committee to no purpose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Cork, and also to no purpose the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Stamford, he had a double reason to be dissatisfied with the Bill as it stood. The noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston) while repealing three oaths, retained a fourth upon the Statute-book, and against this separate oath for Roman Catholics he protested. ["Divide! Divide!"]. [The hon. Gentleman proceeded to comment on various parts of the oaths, but the indescribable uproar which prevailed in the House, and which was most perseveringly kept up by a body of Members below the bar, rendered it impossible to gather with any certainty the general purport of his remarks.] He was, however, understood to say that to strike out the passage directed against treason and regicide, as being offensive to Protestants, and yet to retain it in the oath administered to Roman Catholics, was an insult to the latter, and about as just a proceeding as it would be to require one set of Members to swear that they would never steal or purloin, while everybody else was exempted from such a degrading ceremony. He felt the most profound pity for the Liberal who had such bowels of mercy for the Jew, but none for his fellow Christian.

MR. BOWYER rose to address the House, but the cries for a division were so incessant that the beginning of his speech was inaudible. The hon. and learned Member was understood to say, that as he knew the House was impatient for a division, he would not detain it more than a few minutes. He intended to vote against this Bill, and felt bound to state the grounds of his opposition. The Roman Catholic Members were accused of illiberality for resisting this measure. What occurred in the year 1829, when Catholic Emancipation was passed? Not one Catholic sat in either House of Parliament at that time, or was a party to the settlement—if settlement it was—which was then made. The Roman Catholics were obliged to accept what the Legislature had done without their having any voice in the matter. But they were now, for the first time, called upon by their votes to say that the oath forced upon them in 1829 was right and necessary. That he was not prepared to admit. Hence his opposition to this Bill. The measure did not merely leave the Catholics where they now stood. The fifth clause of the Bill expressly enacted that the Roman Catholic oath should be retained unaltered; they were, therefore, to vote that the Catholic oath should remain unchanged, and if they did so, they would be re-affirming and re-enacting that oath. The Catholic oath was absurd and nugatory—far more absurd and nugatory than Protestants supposed. It did not even fulfil the purpose for which it was intended. It did not deny the doctrines which they intended that Catholics should deny. It was a mockery and a profanation—[Here the hon. Gentleman was again interrupted by cries and confusion: Mr. SPEAKER ordered the bar to be cleared, and order was gradually restored.] Mr. Bowyer was then heard to ask whether any Roman Catholic could in honesty, or on his honour, as a gentleman who believed in the religion he professed, be a party to imposing on members of his own or of other persuasions an oath which denied the spiritual jurisdiction of the Vicar of Christ in this country—one of the most fundamental doctrines of his church? and concluded by expressing his determination to vote against the Bill.

MR. DEASY

, amid continued interruption, said, that the course which he intended to take differed to a considerable extent from that suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk. It was with the deepest regret that he said he could not vote for the third reading of the Bill. He regretted to withhold his support from it, because its immediate effect would be the removal of disabilities which had been unjustly imposed upon a class of his fellow-subjects, and because he knew it was approved by Liberal Members of that House with whom it was his most anxious desire to co-operate on all occasions. But he regarded this as a measure which would create for the first time a new and invidious distinction between the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty and those belonging to other persuasions. And that distinction was rendered so clear and pointed by the speech of the noble Lord on the introduction of the Bill that it was impossible to overlook it. As such, he (Mr. Deasy) knew it was regarded by many persons in Ireland, for whose opinions he entertained the greatest respect. But he could not bring himself to the course suggested by the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk, namely, that of voting against the Bill, because he did not wish to offer the slightest obstacle to the removal of unjust restrictions. He would, therefore, neither support nor oppose the Bill.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 291; Noes 168: Majority 123.

Main Question put, and agreed to.

Bill read 3°, and passed.

List of the AYES.
Akroyd, E.	Barnard, T.
Anderson, Sir J.	Bernard, T. T.
Antrobus, E.	Bass, M. T.
Ashley, Lord	Baxter, W. E.
Ayrton, A. S.	Beale, S.
Bagwell, J.	Beamish, F. B.
Bailey, Sir J.	Beaumont, W. B.
Bailey, C.	Beecroft, G. S.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T.	Bethell, Sir R.
Ball, E.	Biggs, J.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.	Bland, L. H.
Baring, T.	Bonham-Carter, J.
Baring, T. G.	Botfield, B.

Bouverie, rt. hon. E. P.	Foster, W. O.
Bouverie, hon. P. P.	Fortescue, hon. F. D.
Brand, hon. H.	Fortescue, C. S.
Briscoe, J. I.	Franklyn, G. W.
Brocklehurst, J.	Freestun, Col.
Brown, J.	French, Col.
Brown, W.	Garnett, W. J.
Bruce, Lord E.	Gaskell, J. M.
Bruce, H. A.	Gifford, Earl of
Buchanan, W.	Gilpin, C.
Buckley, Gen.	Glover, E. A.
Buller, J. W.	Glyn, G. C.
Bury, Visct.	Glyn, G. G.
Butler, C. S.	Goderich, Visct.
Byng, hon. G.	Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.
Caird, J.	Greene, J.
Campbell, R. J. R.	Greer, S. M'C.
Cavendish, Lord	Gregson, S.
Cavendish, hon. C. C.	Grenfell, C. P.
Cayley, E. S.	Grenfell, C. W.
Cheetham, J.	Gray, Capt.
Cholmeley, Sir M. J.	Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Clay, J.	Grey, R. W.
Clifford, C. C.	Griffith, C. D.
Clifford, H. M.	Grosvenor, Lord R.
Clive, G.	Gurdon, B.
Codrington, Gen.	Gurney, J. H.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E.	Hackblock, W.
Collier, R. P.	Hadfield, G.
Colvile, C. R.	Hall, rt. hon. Sir B.
Coningham, W.	Hanbury, R.
Cowper, rt. hon. W. F.	Handley, J.
Coote, Sir C. H.	Hankey, T.
Cotterell, Sir H. G.	Hanmer, Sir J.
Cowan, C.	Hardcastle, J. A.
Cox, W.	Harris, J. D.
Craufurd, E. H. J.	Hay, Lord J.
Crawford, R. W.	Henniker, Lord
Crook, J.	Herbert, H. A.
Cubitt, Mr. Ald.	Hindley, C.
Dalgleish, R.	Hodgson, K. D.
Davey, R.	Holland, E.
Davie, Sir H. R. F.	Horsman, rt. hon. E.
Denison, hon. W. H. F.	Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Denison, E.	Hudson, G.
Dering, Sir E.	Hutt, W.
De Vere, S. E.	Ingram, H.
Dillwyn, L. L.	Jackson, W.
Divett, E.	Jermyn, Earl
Dodson, J. G.	Jervoise, Sir J. C.
Duff, G. S.	Johnstone, J. J. H.
Duke, Sir J.	Johnstone, Sir J.
Duncan, Visct.	Keating, Sir H. S.
Duncombe, T.	Kershaw, J.
Dundas, F.	King, hon. P. J. L.
Dunlop, A. M.	King, E. B.
Ebrington, Visct.	Kinglake, A. W.
Elcho, Lord	Kinglake, J. A.
Ellice, rt. hon. E.	Kingscote, R. N. F.
Ellice, E.	Kinnaird, hon. A. F.
Elphinstone, Sir J.	Kirk, W.
Elton, Sir A. H.	Knatchbull-Hugessen, E
Evans, T. W.	Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Ewart, W.	Langston, J. H.
Ewart, J. C.	Langton, H. G.
Fergus, J.	Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C.
Ferguson, Col.	Liddell, hon. H. G.
Ferguson, Sir R.	Locke, Jos.
Finlay, A. S.	Locke, Jno.
FitzGerald. rt. hon. J. D.	Lowe, rt. hon. R.
Foley, J. H.	Luce, T.
Foley, H. J. W.	Mackinnon, W. A.
Foljambe, F. J. S.	M'Cullagh, W. T.
Forster, C.	Mangles, R. D.

Mangles, C. E.	Scrope, G. P.
Marjoribanks, D. C.	Shafto, R. D.
Marsh, M. H.	Sheridan, H. B.
Martin, C. W.	Sibthorp, Maj.
Martin, P. W.	Slaney, R. A.
Martin, J.	Smith, J. A.
Massey, W. N.	Smith, J. B.
Matheson, A.	Smith, M. T.
Matheson, Sir J.	Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Melgund, Visct.	Smith, A.
Merry, J.	Smith, Sir F.
Mills, T.	Somers, J. P.
Milnes, R. M.	Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.
Mitchell, T. A.	Stafford, Marq. of
Moncreiff, rt. hon. J.	Stanley, Lord
Morris, D.	Stapleton, J.
Mostyn, hn. T. E. M. L.	Steel, J.
Napier, Sir C.	Stuart, Lord J.
Nicoll, D.	Stuart, Col.
Norreys, Sir D. J.	Sykes, Col. W. H.
Norris, J. T.	Tancred, H. W.
North, F.	Thompson, Gen.
Ogilvy, Sir J.	Thornely, T.
Osborne, R.	Tite, W.
Owen, Sir J.	Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Paget, C.	Townsend, J.
Paget, Lord A.	Traill, G.
Paget, Lord C.	Trueman, C.
Pakington, rt. hon. Sir J.	Turner, J. A.
Palmerston, Visct.	Verney, Sir H.
Paxton, Sir J.	Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Pease, H.	Vivian, H. H.
Pechell, Sir G. B.	Vivian, hon. J. C. W.
Perry, Sir T. E.	Walter, J.
Philips, R. N.	Warburton, G. D.
Pigott, F.	Watkins, Col. L.
Pilkington, J.	Weguelin, T. M.
Pinney, Col.	Western, S.
Platt, J.	Westhead, J. P. B.
Price, W. P.	Whatman, J.
Pryse, E. L.	White, J.
Puller, C. W.	White, H.
Ramsden, Sir J. W.	Wickham, H. W.
Ramsay, Sir A.	Willcox, B. M'G.
Raynham, Visct.	Williams, M.
Rebow, J. G.	Williams, W.
Ricardo, J. L.	Williams, Sir W. F.
Ricardo, O.	Willyams, E. W. B.
Rich, H.	Wilson, J.
Ridley, G.	Wingfield, R. B.
Robartes, T. J. A.	Winnington, Sir T. E.
Roebuck, J. A.	Wise, J. A.
Roupell, W.	Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Russell, Lord J.	Woods, H.
Russell, H.	Wyld, J.
Russell, F. W.	Windham, Gen.
Russell, Sir W.	Wyvill, M.
Schneider, H. W.	TELLERS.
Scholefield, W.	Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Scott, Capt. E.	Mulgrave, Earl of

List of the NOES.
Adams, W. H.	Boldero, Col.
Adderley, C. B.	Booth, Sir R. G.
Annesley, hon. H.	Bovill, W.
Arbuthnott, hon. Gen.	Bowyer, G.
Baillie, H. J.	Bramley-Moore, J.
Bernard, hon. W. S.	Bridges, Sir B. W.
Barrow, W. H	Buller, Sir J. Y.
Beach, W. W. B.	Burghley, Lord
Bective, Earl of	Cairns, H. M'C.
Bentinck, G. W. P.	Carden, Sir R. W.
Beresford, rt. hon. W.	Cecil, Lord R.
Blackburn, P.	Charlesworth, J. C. D.

Child, S.	Mackie, J.
Christy, S.	Maguire, J. F.
Clark, J. J.	Mainwaring, T.
Clive, hon. R. W.	Malins, R.
Close, M. C.	Manners, Lord J.
Cobbett, J. M.	March, Earl of
Cole, hon. H. A.	Miles, W.
Collins, T.	Miller, T. J.
Cooper, E. J.	Miller, S. B.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L.	Montgomery, Sir G.
Cross, R. A.	Moody, C. A.
Curzon, Visct.	Moore, G. H.
Davison, R.	Morgan, O.
Dobbs, W. C.	Mowbray, J. R.
Dod, J. W.	Naas, Lord
Du Cane, C.	Napier, rt. hon. J.
Duncombe, hon. A.	Newark, Visct.
Dundas, G.	Newdegate, C. N.
Du Pre, C. G.	Nisbet, R. P.
Dutton, hon. R. H.	Noel, hon. G. J.
East, Sir J. B.	North, Col.
Egerton, Sir P. G.	O'Donaghoe, The
Egerton, W. T.	Ossulston, Lord
Egerton, E. C.	Packe, C. W.
Farnham, E. B.	Pakenham, Col.
Farquhar, Sir M.	Palk, L.
Forde, Col.	Palmer, R. W.
Forester, rt. hon. Col.	Paull, H.
Forster, Sir G.	Peel, Gen.
Fraser, Sir W. A.	Pennant, hon. Col.
Gallwey, Sir W. P.	Pevensey, Visct.
Galway, Visct.	Pugh, D.
Gard, R. S.	Repton, G. W. J.
Goddard, A. L.	Robertson, P. F.
Greenwood, J.	Rolt, J.
Grogan, E.	Sclater, G.
Haddo, Lord	Scott, hon. F.
Hall, Gen.	Seymer, H. K.
Hamilton, G. A.	Spooner, R.
Hamilton, J. H.	Stafford, A.
Hassard, M.	Stanhope, J. B.
Hayes, Sir E.	Steuart, A.
Heathcote, Sir W.	Stewart, Sir M. R. S.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W.	Sturt, H. G.
Herbert, Col	Sturt, C. N.
Hildyard, R. C.	Taylor, Col.
Hill, Lord E.	Taylor, S.W.
Hodgson, W. N.	Tempest, Lord A. V.
Holford, R. S.	Thesiger, Sir F.
Hopwood, J. T.	Tollemache, J.
Hotham, Lord	Trefusis, hon. C. H. R.
Hume, W. F.	Trollops, rt. hon. Sir J.
Ingestre, Visct.	Vance, J.
Johnstons, hon. H. B.	Vansittart, W.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.	Verner, Sir W.
Jones, D.	Waddington, H. S.
Kendall, N.	Walcott, Adm.
King, J. K.	Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Knight, F. W.	Warren, S.
Knightley, R.	Welby, W. E.
Knox, Col.	Whitmore, H.
Knox, hon. W. S.	Wigram, L. T.
Langton, W. G.	Williams, Col.
Lennox, Lord A. F.	Willoughby, J. P.
Leslie, C. P.	Willson, A.
Lisburne, Earl of	Woodd, B. T.
Lockhart, A. E.	Wyndham, Gen.
Long, W.	Wynn, Col.
Lovaine, Lord	Wynne, W. W. E.
Lowther, Capt.	Yorke, hon. E. T.
Lygon, hon. F.
Lytton, Sir G. E. L. B.	TELLERS.
Macaulay, K.	Blandford, Marq. of
MacEvoy, E.	Drummond, H.

Order of the Day for going into Committee of Supply read.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."