RESOLUTION. (Hansard, 9 February 1858)

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE,
whose notice to propose a Resolution "That Baron de Rothschild, a Member of the Jewish persuasion, and returned by the City of London, be permitted to take the Oaths appointed by law, in such form as shall be binding on his conscience, and in accordance with the faith he professes" stood first upon the paper, being called upon by Mr. SPEAKER,

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
rose, and said: I trust that my hon. Friend will permit me for one moment to interpose, and to put it to him, as there is a debate 977 of great public interest on a very important matter which stands adjourned from last night, whether he will not consent to postpone his Motion for the present. I am quite aware of the interest which my hon. Friend takes in the Motion of which he has given notice; but, as it is not a matter of such emergency but that one day will probably suit his purpose as well as another, I should feel obliged to him if he could, consistently with his public duty, waive his privilege to-night, and allow the adjourned debate of last night to be proceeded with.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he knew too well the moral disadvantage under which an important subject would be brought on, when there was an adjourned debate of great importance coming behind it. As he wished, therefore, to advance the cause which he had undertaken, and not to damage it, he believed he should best discharge his duty, as well as conduce to the convenience of the House, by postponing till some future day the Motion which stood in his name.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
I cannot but express my sense of the great hardship [Cries of "Order!"—"there is no Motion before the House."] I was not aware, Sir, that the Motion had been actually withdrawn, but I shall move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of putting myself in order while I represent to the House the great inconvenience of the course which, as it appears to me, the hon. Member has taken. He gave notice of the Motion which he has now withdrawn, subsequent to the First Reading of the Bill of the noble Lord the Member for London, which stands for Second Reading to-morrow—he gave notice before the recess, and we have had no intimation of his intention to withdraw his Motion till this moment. It is a grave question which the hon. Member has moved; and to my certain knowledge there are many hon. Members of this House who have come from great distances for the sake of being present at the discussion of this important question. I rise to protest against the habit that has grown up of late among hon. Members below the gangway of keeping this important question in continual suspense. The question is not one that affects lightly the character of this House. The proposal of the hon. Member amounts to no less than this, that this House should reverse its own repeated 978 decisions and declarations of the law. But it amounts to more than this, for it purports that this House shall violate the law as it has been repeatedly declared by the courts of law, by the votes of the House of Lords, and by the affirmations, during the last Session, of the highest authorities that adorn the judicial bench. I am sorry to say that I am conscious, if other hon. Members are not, that this House is losing that respect with which we all hoped it was surrounded in the country, in consequence of the manner in which it treats this grave question—a question affecting its own character—by adjourning it from day to day, from week to week, and from Session to Session, so that not only Members who, like myself, are opposed to the introduction of the Jews into Parliament, but others who have all along consistently supported that proposition, have declared their regret at the course adopted by the hon. Member for Finsbury. I say that it is derogatory to the character of the House to keep continually before us a Motion to violate the law, and never allowing the Members of this House an opportunity of declaring whether they will support the law as it exists, or whether they will support the hon. Member for Finsbury in violating it. I think we must be conscious there is some secret device in the matter when we see the hon. Member for Finsbury, who is not usually deficient in courage, thus tampering, Session after Session, with one of the gravest questions that this House can entertain.

§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTON
The hon. Gentleman having made his Motion of adjournment for the purpose of making his speech, and having accomplished his object, perhaps he will now withdraw his Motion and allow the adjourned debate to proceed?

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
would promise the hon. Gentleman that he should have full opportunity in the course of the present Session of bringing the question in which he took so much interest to an issue. The hon. Gentleman had assumed the whole question. He (Mr. Duncombe) denied that the effect of his Resolution would be to violate the law. The question had too long been trifled with—he meant the question of the Jewish disabilities—by being dealt with in the way of a Bill. It was time now for the House to take a constitutional course, and proceed by way of Resolution alone.