OATHS BILL—LORDS' AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 21 July 1858)

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, the course he proposed to take with regard to this Bill was somewhat unusual, but it arose from the position in which the House was placed on this subject by the conduct of the House of Lords, which was certainly very peculiar. The Lords had sent down the general Reasons which moved them to exclude the Jews from Parliament in any case whatever, but had accompanied those Reasons by another Bill which provided for the admission of Jews. Of course, that being so, it was unnecessary for this House to resist the Lords' Amendments, because their Lordships had departed from their own Reasons. The only way in which the dignity of this House could be saved was not, he thought, by sending a message back to the Lords, or by entering into any further controversy with them on the subject; but, in order to show that the majority of the House receded in no degree from the position which they had hitherto held, he had given notice of the following Resolution:— That this House does not consider it necessary to examine the Reasons offered by the Lords for insisting upon the exclusion of Jews from Parliament, as by a Bill of the present Session, entituled 'An Act to provide for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing, the Jewish religion,' their Lordships have provided for the admission of persons professing the Jewish religion to seats in the Legislature. The House was aware that the Oath referred to in the Bill just passed, was the Oath contained in the Bill as originally sent up to the Lords, so that the two would form one measure. He now begged to move the Resolution. 1903 Motion made and Question proposed,— That this House does not consider it necessary to examine the Reasons offered by the Lords for insisting upon the exclusion of Jews from Parliament, as by a Bill of the present Session, entituled An Act to provide for the Relief of Her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion,' their Lordships have provided for the admission of persons professing the Jewish Religion to Seats in the Legislature.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he quite agreed that the House was placed in a peculiar and he thought their own sense of dignity required them to say something more. He should move the following addition to the Resolutions of the noble Lord:— The said Bill being in direct contravention of the clear and cogent reasons assigned by their Lordships against the admission of Jews to Parliament.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he agreed with the noble Lord that some Resolution was due to the dignity of the House, but he thought it would be more advisable to place on the Journals the exact state of the case. In the Lords' Reasons they stated, that they had left out Clauses 5 and 8, and be would suggest the propriety of altering the Resolution, and making it read in this way:— That this House does not consider it necessary to examine the reasons offered by the Lords for insisting on their Amendment to leave out Clauses 5 and 8, as by a subsequent Bill, entitled 'An Act to provide for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion,' their Lordships have provided for the admission of persons professing the Jewish religion to seats in the Legislature. He considered that a more correct statement of the facts than the statement in the noble Lord's Resolution, and by such an alteration in the terms, the two Houses would avoid bandying charges of inconsistency.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he did not see any material alteration or improvement in the proposal. It was certainly true that the Lords left out Clauses 5 and 8, but the whole of their Reasons pointed to the exclusion of the Jews from Parliament, and he thought it much better to 1904 render the subject at once clear upon the Journals than to make a reference which would oblige persons to go back and examine the Bill as originally passed, in order to see what Clauses 5 and 8 were.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, he thought the Resolution as it stood would only appear like the exhibition of pique and temper on the part of this House. He did not wish, however, to press his Amendment.

§ MR. HENLEY
said, he doubted whether the Resolution did not exactly express the fact as it really existed. The Bill did not enable either House of Parliament to admit the Jews, but enabled the Houses by Resolution to do so, and probably the noble Lord would not object to an alteration in the last line of his Resolution.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, the words "provided for the admission" which appeared in the Resolution, met the objection of the right hon. Gentleman.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, the Bill did not provide for the admission of the Jews; it only enabled either House to make such provision.

§ MR. WARREN
pointed out that the terms of the Resolution were in accordance with the title of the Bill.

§ MR. A. MILLS
said, he thought the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord quite sufficient. The position in which the House was placed afforded an illustration of the evil consequences of statesmen attempting to carry out a policy against which their whole lives had been a protest.

§ LORD JOHN MANNERS
Suppose neither House should admit the Jews. In that case, how would people read the Resolution? The House would have stated that their Lordships had provided for the admission of persons who were still excluded from the Legislature. Thus the Resolution would not accurately express what had really been done.

§ SIR JAMES GRAHAM
said, he was satisfied with the Resolution, but to meet the difficulty raised he would suggest the insertion of the word "means" after "provided," which would, he thought, meet the difficulty.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he would accept this Amendment.

§ MR. SPOONER
said, he did not think the noble Lord went far enough in his Resolution. The dignity of the House required that they should say something more, and he would 1905 therefore propose to add to the Resolution the words he had previously mentioned.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he would have no objection whatever to the Amendment, if instead of "the clear and cogent reasons" the hon. Gentleman would substitute "the clear but very insufficient reasons."

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, it would be absurd to begin the Resolution by declaring that they had not examined the Lords' Reasons, and yet end it by praising or condemning them.

§ MR. KNIGHTLEY
said, he would express a hope that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire would not press his Amendment, and he did not think that in assenting to it the House would be pursuing a dignified course.

§ LORD JOHN RUSSELL
said, he would then move a Resolution, to the effect "that the House do not insist upon their disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments upon the said Bill."

§ MR. J. D. FITZGERALD
said, he could not permit the Resolution to pass without calling the attention of the House to the fact that when the Bill which had just received the assent of the House of Commons had passed into a law, Members of that House professing the doctrines of the Roman Catholic religion would be placed in a worse position than that which the members of any other persuasion would occupy. He had not brought the question forward during the progress of the Bill as he did not wish to endanger its passing; but under present circumstances he begged leave to give notice that he should, early next Session, move that the provisions of the Bill be so extended as to include Roman Catholics within its scope. Resolved, That this house does not consider it necessary to examine the Reasons offered by the Lords for insisting upon the exclusion of Jews from Parliament, as by a Bill of the present Session, intituled "An Act to provide for the Relief of Her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion," their Lordships have provided means for the admission of persons professing the Jewish Religion to Seats in the Legislature. 1906 Resolved, That this House doth not insist upon its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments to the said Bill.