JEWS ACT AMENDMENT.—LEAVE. (Hansard, 20 March 1860)

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
, in rising to bring forward the Motion, of which he had given notice, for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Act 21 & 22 Vict. cap. 49, entitled "An Act to provide for the relief of Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish Religion," said that, as he understood there would be no objection to the introduction of his Bill, which was substantially the same as that he had brought forward the last Session, he would not occupy the attention of the House with many observations. He thought it right, however, 961 to state that he did not bring Forward the question as the organ of the Committee which sat on the subject, but on his own account, thinking that the time had arrived when an alteration of the law should take place, and when it could be made in a deliberate and proper manner. It would be in the recollection of the House that when the Bill came down from the House of Lords it was determined to admit gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion by a Resolution, and the Resolution was to be renewed if necessary, from year to year. The Earl of Derby, being then Minister, stated that a general election being pending, the sense of the country should be taken as to the policy of continuing that system by which the doors of that House should be opened to gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion. Now, he wanted to know what answer the country had given to this appeal at that general election. He did not believe that the question had been canvassed at a single election; the only answer, so far as he knew, that had been given was this—that they had now four distinguished and hon. Gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion returned to that House by four large constituencies. Those Gentleman sat there honoured and respected by all, and there ought no longer to be any distinction in the oaths to be administered to the Members of the Jewish persuasion. The words "On the true faith of a Christian" should be left out of the Parliamentary oath, and the Jew ought to come to the table and take the oath in such a manner as was most consistent with the dictates of his own conscience. The object of his Bill was to remove these words from the oath and thus leave the Jew in precisely the same position in which other Members of that House stood. At the same time he confined the matter entirely to that House, leaving the other House of Parliament to indulge any prejudice they wished. The Bill would not interfere with them in any way. He begged leave now to move that the House do resolve into Committee in order to permit him to bring in the Bill.

§ LORD ROBERT CECIL
said, he did not intend to oppose the Motion before the House as he did not think this matter of any very great importance; but the Motion of the hon. Gentleman certainly served to throw some light on what he might call the philosophy of Parliamentary settlements. They were told that the Act now sought to be altered was a final settlement of the question. Yet that Act was scarcely 962 passed when an attempt was made to unsettle it. If, however, the matter were reopened it would form but a bad precedent, and henceforth no sooner would a question be settled than a movement would be made to unsettle it.

§ SIR GEORGE GREY
said, there might be a question as to whether the matter should be disturbed; but he certainly had no objection to the introduction of the Bill. The noble Lord, however, was quite wrong in saying that any compromise had been made on the subject to which those who advocated the Jewish claims were parties when the House of Lords adopted the mode by which the main object was practically gained. They availed themselves of what the House of Lords did; but nobody who ever advocated the Jewish claims thought it a good arrangement, or became party to an understanding that the question should not be revived.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, he fully agreed with the noble Lord in the understanding he had expressed, that a compromise had been come to, but it was a compromise between the two Houses, and indeed was exactly what the hon. Member for Fins-bury had stated he desired, namely, that each House should pursue the course it preferred. He thought with the noble Lord, that they had a right to insist upon that settlement being carried out. He would not, however, enter into the subject at that time further than to say that he remembered being on a Committee with the hon. Member for Finsbury when the hon. Member was in a minority in his desire to alter the law which had worked satisfactorily hitherto. He gave notice that when the Motion for the second reading should be made, he should move as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time this day six months.

§ MR. ROEBUCK
said, he had only a word or two to offer on the observations which had fallen from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord R. Cecil). He complained that a settlement had been disturbed. He (Mr. Roebuck) affirmed that there could be no settlement of a question, relating to the onward progress of mankind. The noble Lord was a Conservative, but he (Mr. Roebuck) begged to assure him that he was doomed to disappointment; the world was going on, but the noble Lord was lagging behind, and would see questions change, altered, and improved day by day, but never settled.

§ MR. T. DUNCOMBE
, in reply, ob- 963 served, that, to show there was no compromise, the Earl of Derby had stated in the House of Lords when a dissolution of Parliament took place, that he did not object to the Resolutions because the constituencies would be appealed to, and would express their opinion whether the Resolutions should be confirmed or rescinded.