SECOND READING. (Hansard, 18 April 1860)

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he rose to move that this Bill be read a second time on that day six months. He had done everything in his power to dissuade the hon. Member for Finsbury from pressing the Bill upon the consideration of the House; but he regretted to find that his efforts had proved ineffectual. The measure would invalidate the great settlement of the Jewish question to which both Houses of Parliament had come only two years ago. They all remembered the long and painful difference which had prevailed between the Lords and the Commons upon the subject before that settlement; and they must all feel that it was a state of things which no lover of constitutional Government could wish to see revived. The House of Lords had made a concession in the matter which was extremely painful to a majority of its Members, and if the question were reopened a controversy must be renewed which the whole country had lamented during its continuance. Was there any- 1917 thing in the present state of the law of which the hon. Member for Finsbury, or those whom he appeared to represent, had a right to complain? Members of the Jewish persuasion were readily admitted on their election to seats in that House. But the House of Lords had insisted that it should be open to either House, and open to the electoral body through their representatives, as far as regarded the House of Commons, to decide whether persons who did not profess "the true faith of a Christian" should sit and vote in either House of Parliament. The Act gave the largest possible freedom to each House and to the country upon that subject; and the fact was that the hon. Member for Finsbury proposed to impose a restriction upon the action of that House, which was entirely unfettered under the existing law. No complaint of any grievance was made in that case, and he had even reason to believe that some hon. Members of the Jewish persuasion did not wish to see that Bill introduced and the former controversy revived. He had never been animated by any feeling of animosity to Gentlemen professing the Jewish faith; but he had certainly been anxious to see the Christian character of the British legislature maintained. He believed that the power which we possessed of appealing in every case of dispute to Christian morality, as the basis of all our law, afforded the best security for the continuance of that freedom which England had so long enjoyed. The Act which it was now sought to repeal, though giving a discretionary power to either House of Parliament, preserved this principle. He was ready to admit that he had seen nothing in the conduct of Jewish Gentlemen in that House to disqualify them from taking part in its deliberations; but be claimed for the people of this country the right to decide at any time, by the election of their representatives, whether Jews should occupy seats in the House of Commons.

§ MR. SPOONER
seconded the Amendment.

§ MR. CONINGHAM
said, he would beg to tell the hon. Gentleman the Member for Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) that so long as any test applied to the admission of Members to that House, there could be no settlement of the question.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
said, that it was true they admitted the Jews, but they did it in a manner unworthy of a Christian assembly. It was a most unconstitutional doctrine to contend that an Act of Parliament was an agreement between the two Houses, and that upon a question of civil and religious liberty a future Parliament could not discuss or alter it. When Lord Lucan introduced his Bill, one of the arguments in its favour was, that if the House of Lords did not allow the Jews to be admitted by Resolution the House of Commons would do it without them. It was also urged that, as a general election was pending, the Bill might be passed and the whole question submitted to the country, when, if the people objected to the arrangement, they might instruct their representatives at the hustings to alter it. The general election took place, and such an instruction was not given on any hustings, not even to the hon. Members for Warwickshire, but, on the contrary, three more members of the Jewish persuasion were elected by large constituencies. It was said that no inconvenience had occurred, but inconvenience might any day occur. The result of the Committee appointed on the Motion of the right hon. Member for Oxfordshire to consider the best mode of carrying into effect the Act for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion was to make it impossible for a Jew to take his seat in a new Parliament until the fourth day of the days appointed for taking the oaths appointed by law. They could not take the oaths as a Christian Member; they must wait four days. It was all very well to have that rule for the first Parliament after the Bill passed, but the public having answered the appeal to them in favour of the Jews the House was bound to place them in the same position as other Members. He therefore asked the House nobly and generously to remove the great stain, not on the Jews, but on themselves, and to act on the Christian principle of doing unto others as they would that others should do unto them.

§ MR. KNIGHTLEY
said, he should have been well content to let the question rest where it was, although he thought that it would have been much better if the House of Lords had adopted the noble Lord's (Lord John Russell's) proposition when they gave up the whole principle of their opposition to the admission of the Jews. He thought also that the present law was 1919 extremely cumbrous and objectionable, but he did not deem it expedient to reopen a long vexed and troublesome question by sending up this Bill, when they were sure the House of Lords would reject it. After all, the only inconvenience the Jews really suffered from the present state of the law, was having to wait a few minutes in the lobby while a Motion was passed for their admission.

MR. HENLEY
said, he opposed the Bill. For any possible inconvenience which might occur under the present state of the law it was scarcely worth while to reopen the question and renew all the heart burnings and disagreeable feelings which had been connected with it for so many years. The Bill would introduce much greater inconveniences and anomalies than that which it was intended to remedy. If it passed, an hon. Gentleman of the Jewish persuasion elected a Member of that House might come to the table and take the oaths in the usual manner, but if the Crown were pleased to confer a peerage on a gentleman of that persuasion, he would not be able to take his seat in the other House, except by a special Resolution. That was placing this House in an inferior position, and introducing a state of things infinitely more inconvenient and anomalous than the present.