On this page

• Text (1)

  Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

  • 

    Untitled Article

• Transcript

  • Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.

    Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.

    Untitled Article

    argued the question with the coolness , gravity , and solemnity of a judicial investigation . On one side appeared Mr . Bethell , Mr . Evans , Mr . Aglionby , arguing the right of the Jews to take the oath without the- concluding words . Those words , it was urged , were not intended to exclude the Jews , bu the Jesuits . The 10 th of George I . enacted that the * oath might be administered to Jews , in courts o * justice , without the aforesaid words . The oath o abjuration was a creation of the Legislature , and not known to the common law : —

    " Instead of the noble lord being warranted in concluding that an enactment was necessary and expired ( said Mr . Bethell ) , he would have found here , if he had interpreted the words in a liberal spirit ( in which all remedial acts should be interpreted ) , a declaration of an universal principle , a principle known to the common law , and by this enactment recognized and universally introduced ; so that this statute was to be accepted as a legislative recognition of the right of the Jews to have the principle that was adopted in courts of justice carried into other places , and the House was bound by this legislative declaration , as well as by general princip les , to administer the oath to the Jew in the manner referred to . ( Hear . ) The same principle was recognize d in the 13 th and 20 th George II . "

    With respect to the case of Mr . Pease , the House took upon itself to alter , and modify , and mould the form of the oath , having no authority to do so except the general authority so to apply the formula , that the oath might be administered in the manner binding upcoi the conscience of the party required to take it , and who had a right to have it administered . { Hear , hear . ) In fact the House was in a false position , brought about by following the law , and then stopping short and refusing to follow it out .

    On the other side , it was contended by the Attobney-General and Mr . Napier , on the part of the lawyers , that the Legislature intended the whole of the oath to be taken ; and this it was which distinguished the case from those where , according to the common law , the form of the oath might be moulded to make it binding upon the conscience as long as the party took the substance of the oath . The 1 st and 2 nd of Victoria did not allow an oath prescribed by statute in a particular form to be altered at plea-Bure , 6 aid the Attorney-General : —

    " It only provided that if a man took an oath , demanding to take it in a particular form , he should be bound by it , and liable to the penalties in case of perjury . For some men , to evade the sanction of an oath , would say a certain form was binding by their religion when it was not . ( Hear . )" As for the Quakers , it was urged that there was a whole series of statutes relating to them ; and though an act was passed removing all doubt respecting their right to make an a ffirmation , the committee on Mr . Pease ' s case thought that act unnecessary , and so did the Attorney-General .

    The lay speakers were Mr . Henry Drummond and Sir Robert Inglis . Mr . Dkummond said he had always objected to the Jews sitting in that House ; but he would not take advantage of a state of the law which never was intended to affect them , to carry into effect a princi ple which he could not do fairly otherwise . ( Hear . ) " He wished some one would fairly propose a motion to exclude Jews from Parliament . ' For that he would Tote ; but he did not like to be compelled to be firing in ambush againBt the Jews from behind a dike that w , as intended to exclude a Sardinian Prince . ( Hear , hear . )" When the House divided there were—For Mr . Bethell ' s amendment , 71 ; against it , 118 . Majority against the amendment , 47 .

    The debate now took a different turn , the lay members of the House intervened , and the gravity of the discussion vanished . When the original motion was put , Mr . J 3 ki « ht rose and suggested that Mr . Salomons ought to be heard , either by himself or by counsel at the bur , in support of his right to take his seat . Ho thought also that there ought to bo a committee appointed to reconsider the subject . He requested Lord John Russell to postpone bin motion

    and for that purpose he moved the adjournment of the debate . Mr . Anntky seconded the motion . Lord John Rushes would not consent to an adjournment he thought the only way in which . Mr . Salomons could be heard would l , e by himself at the bar of the House Sir JSknjamin Uaia . thought that that course would lower and injure the position at present occupied by Mr . Salomons . The motion for adjournment was rejected on a division by 190 to <> 9

    Mr . G . Tuomi'hon moved , by way of amendment the following addition to the motion of the noble lord at the head of the Government : — " And that this House , having regard to the rcligiouH ncmpk'H of the honourable member for Greenwich , will exorcise its undoubted privilege in that behalf , and ' proceed forthwith to cause such alterations to be made in the form and mode of fidmini » tcring the said oath an will nablc the honourable member to take and sub » cribc the nine . " Another attempt was made to adjourn the debate Mr . Ukynommi made a playful speech , in the course of which ho said : — " \ ° regretted that > o much of the time of the IIouhc IumI been taken up in diioiuaiag religion * uueationn .

    ( Oh , oh !) He thought the House would soon be entitled to the designation of a second edition of Exeterhall ; it would , if it went on in the same course , become a religious conventicle . ( ' Oh ! ' and a laugh . )" Mr . Reynolds spoke as a Catholic , and he sympathized with the Jews , though Mr . Salomons had said bitter things about the Papal aggression . He then made a lively onslaught on the oaths of abjuration , which he said were as great an absurdity as could be imagined : —

    " It required men to swear that they would bear no allegiance to King James HI ., or any of his descendants , when the fact was that they had ail been dead more than fifty years ! The person who took this oath further swore that he would bear true allegiance to her Majesty and to the descendants of the Princess Sophia of Hanover . He ( Mr . Reynolds ) was ready to observe that oath , and to bear true allegiance to her Majesty ; but how was he to tra . ee all the descendants of the Princess Sophia ? ( Laughter . ) Yet this was what was termed one of the bulwarks of the British constitution ! ( ' Hear , ' and laughter .. )"

    The discussion now became personal . Mr . Bright asked whether the House would " presume , " under ; he circumstances , to go to a decision . They should be decent , at least , in their judgments , and not shut out argument or fact . Lord John Russelx got quite cross , and selected Mr . George Thompson as a victim : — " Then there had been declamation against his conduct on the part of the honourable member for the Tower Hamlets ( Mr . Thompson ) , who , forsooth , when

    he ( Lord J . Kussell ) was endeavouring to persuade the House to agree to a law which should admit the Jews into Parliament , was lecturing or travelling in America—( Loud cries of Hear , hear *)—and totally neglecting the interests of a numerous body of constituents of the Hebrew persuasion—( renewed cries of Hear , hear ') — and now came forward , as the House had heard , having refrained from giving his vote when that vote might have had great influence , and might have contributed to change the result . "

    He continued to defend himself very fiercely ; and ultimately promised to bring in a bill which he thought , if supported by a considerable majority , would be passed by the House of Lords . The House again divided on the question of adjournment , which was negatived by 207 to 59 . It was now very late , and Lord John Russell , thinking it was advisable that the discussion carried on should not be of an angry nature , at length consented to adjourn the debate till Friday .

    The House on Wednesday granted a new writ for Limerick , in the room of John O'Connell ; advanced several bills a stage ; but transacted no business of political importance ; the chief matter debated being the Administration of Criminal Justice Improvement Bill , which was advanced in committee , the chairman reporting progress , and obtaining leave to sit again . The House held the morning sitting on Thursdajin the new chamber , which , it is reported , is acoustically improved , but architecturally disfigured . In the evening they met in the old chamber . One of I the first things decided on was , that the petition from the borough of Greenwich to be heard at the bar , should be presented on Monday , and that the adjourned debate should then be resumed .

    On the order for the third reading of the Customs Bill , Mr . Heriues moved as an amendment , an address , praying her Majesty to direct steps to be taken for giving effect to those provisions of the act or the repeal of the Navi gation Laws , whereby her Majesty is empowered to adopt towards any foreign country in which a preference is given to national vessels over British vessels , measures to countervail such disadvantages to British trade and navigation . The ground of the complaint was , that foreign nations had not reci

    procated the repeal of the navigation laws ; but instead of imitating our example they were profiting by our folly . The object of the motion was said to be , not the subversion , but the enforcement of the present system . Mr . Lahouchkuk and Mr . Wilson opposed the motion on the grounds , that the general extension of the commerce of this country ; that British shipping had derived its full share of benefit from this extension ; and that the British shipbuilder had not been injured by the change . Mr . IIkimukn was supported by Mr . Gkoiiok 1 'kkijbuick Yoi / no , who denied that under Free-trade the Hhippmg interest had partici pated in the tfeneral prosperity The debate went on very languidly , am was killed when Mr . Dihuakm recommended Ji ' multancoiisly the withdrawal of the motion , and the ad journment of the debate . The Customs Bill was of course , read a third time , after two ineffective divisions on the adjournment .

    While the conflict between Mr . Alderman Salomons and the formalists of the House of Commons batU ;! ? " , Momluy ni K ht - tue Lord » w - " - The oonlu f **}™™ ™ ™<* Assumption Bill . Man ,. dH <> f , 1 O m " liSU ? wlt T «« t « 'l to the reaS i J ' ttll 8 ll | ow » t ; . who moved the second tof lfw , ? HP <; edl WhuK te 8 tin <* hiH ^ luctance Letteh Sr " which tlie ltu - ° » I >« rh . un A ^ cutr Hurried Ministers . Of course he culled ili <> hoSitoV lulor the r " Ht ; ri l > t Im " <^ -i- r «« i ho told the House to «• reject the bill / ' if they held

    that it would interfere with the free exercise of the Roman Catholic religion in Great Britain and Ireland , or if it was a persecuting measure . He maintained that ?• titles * " were not mere forms , but things of substance , to which importance had always been very properly attached . Arid he quoted a " homely " remark of Queen Elizabeth with respect to the title of a peer then in the House , which had been conferred by-a foreign power . Elizabeth said he should not have the title— " She never had allowed , nor ever would allow , her sheep to be tarred by another shepherd . " He thought that the bill would not in the slightest degree interfere with the full performance of Roman Catholic worship : —

    " But he admitted that if he had been asked whether he considered this bill to be essential to the maintenance of the Protestant religion , he must answer that he did not—( hear , hear )—because he was one of those who thought that the Protestant religion did not rest for its support , or that it would be right that it should so rest , on acts of Parliament or on contrivances of any kind . ( Hear , hear . )" The Earl of Aberdeen was the champion of the opposition . He made a careful speech , replying to the often-urged arguments of the supporters of the measure , and earnestly appealed to the House to prevenj ; a recurrence of the persecution and the contest which preceded the victory of Catholic emancipation . That act relieved the Catholics from civil disabilities

    of a galling nature ; and though the present measure might not be felt in a material sense , he thought it would be found a " grievance intolerable" in its operation upon the conscience . The bill dealt with matters " purely spiritual ; " and he pointed out the great distinction between the bishops o £ the Church of England , who were temporal lords as well as spiritual rulers , and the bishops of the Catholic Church , who in England were only and purelv

    governors of the Church . He denied that a Church was tolerated even , to which regular government was refused . He denied that any rights of our bishops were infringed by the rescript , the only reason , on which to base a retaliatory act . He asked for the Roman Catholics only that amount of freedom conceded to every dissenting sect . He wished to place Roman Catholics and Dissenters upon the § ame footing . They were so regarded by law , and so regarded they ought to be .

    I He commented with severity on the changes which the measure had undergone ; and he contended that not only was the state of things with regard to the assumption of titles restored , which existed prior to 1829 , but made additionally stringent . He also cited the 24 th section of the llelief Act , and appealed to the House to say whether the assumption of titles not alread y appropriated was forbidden . He pointed out that while the assumption of appropriated titles was prohibited in England and Ireland , no mention was made of Scotland . Why was there no mention of Scotland ? Because in Scotland there were no bishops , no deans , no persons in possession of those

    titles who were recognized by law . Hence he inferred that the bill before them was a violation of the act of 1829 . He characterized the rescript as an "insolent manifesto , " but if the intention of the bill was to answer that , why was that intention not avowed ? Recurring again to the titles , he said the Pope must describe his bishops somehow . He had a perfect right to change the irregular and exceptional government of vicars apostolic to the regular government of bishops in ordinary . There was nothing real in the new hiernrchy . As far as their lordships were concerned , the hierarchy had no existence " except in words . " He traced back the origin of the dtsire to appoint bishops to the days of Pitt , He declared

    that the " most frightful" and " awful" consequences would ensue from the operation of the first clause , which made the appointments , and , therefore , the acts of the bishops illegal and void . He ridiculed the notion that the supremacy of the Crown had been violated , a supremacy which hud never been defined . The Queen ' s supremacy was rejected in Scotland . There was no such thing . As to Ireland , he thought the Government were quite right if the bill were passed at all , it must include Ireland ' lor to admit that the Queen stood in a diil ' crciit relation in England from that which she did in Ireland would be to decide the destruction of the Irish Church . He moved that the bill be read a second tune that day three months .

    Lord Bkaumont replied to the Karl of Aberdeen . lie explained bin position in the debute He snid ho appeared isolated from those who shared his religious convictions in the course he took . But he know that many sympathized with him , and , im they had not dared to conic forward , he had taken upon himself the responsibility of standing alone . lie described the position of the Roman Catholics in England , before the introduction of liio I ' npnl rescript , as beingoneevery way favourable to thrni , mul in dome respects enjoying advantages which they could not enjoy in any other country . VV « m thin position changed by the rescript ? Were they in u belter position ? He contended thai , the-position << i' the Roman Catholics hud not changed , but that of the Roman , see in relation to the English Crown had changed . The act of appointing u biahop , and UH » iguiiuj to him

    Untitled Article

    July 26 , 1851 . ] ®!> £ & ** & **? 695

• Citation
  • Leader (1850-1860), July 26, 1851, page 695, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/l/issues/vm2-ncseproduct1893/page/3/