Sessions, and half the Medical Relief in Unions in Ireland, as recommended by a Committee of this House in the last Session of Parliament, and in accordance with similar Grants in Great Britain since the year 1846. SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to bring forward Votes for the maintenance of Convicts and Convicted Misdemeanants confined in County Jails after sentence, and also for the expenses of Witnessess at Assizes and Sessions. Correspondence was still going on respecting the matters referred to the Select Committee last year. As to the subject of Medical Relief in Irish Unions, it was under the consideration of the Government, but he was not prepared to say when a Bill in reference to it would be introduced. "That no Resolution, under the provisions of the Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 49, shall be moved in this House, unless at least one day's notice of such Resolution shall have been previously given in the Votes ; that this be a Standing Order of the House-" that the Bill he proposed to introduce was that then no further trouble would be given a reasonable and rational measure; and to the House on the subject. His Motion would leave it optional to either House to There was no doubt that both Houses of make the Resolution a Standing Order. Parliament intended that the Resolution should have the effect of a Standing Order; because one of the arguments used by the Earl of Derby in reference to that Bill was this "If you admit the Jews by an Act of Parliament, an Act of Parliament will be required to repeal it; but if you admit by Resolution the constituency will have an opportunity of expressing an opinion whether that Resolution should be confirmed or rescinded." Now, if there were no Resolution in existence at the commencement of a new Parliament, no Resolution could be confirmed or rescinded. It was clear, therefore, that both Houses intended a Standing Order as well as Resolution; and all that he wished to do was to supply that deficiency. The House of Commons had passed a Resolution admitting a Jew twice; and thus the House was put to the trouble of repeating a Resolution, which it was clear was intended to be a Standing Order. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would be able to appeal to their constituents, if his Bill passed, and say. "Have we done right in admittting the Jews? And shall we take the same course for the future? If you think they ought not to be there. we will endeavour to rescind that Standing Order." But if such an appeal were made to the constituencies, from John o'Groats to the Land's End, they would say that the Standing Order should remain ; the people of England, from one end to the other, would say, that bigotry and intolerance, and persecuLet us have done, now and for ever, with tion, and injustice, which have marked the course of so many Parliaments, and leave the Standing Order where it is." Moreover, unless the Resolution were converted into a Standing Order, great inconvenience would arise at the commencement of a new Parliament, because a mere Resolution would not survive from one Parliament to another. Thus, through a palpable inadvertency, the right of a Jewish Member to sit might, by a manœuvre, be defeated or 46 postponed. If a Jewish Member had to wait for admission till every other Member had been sworn, and the Queen had opened Parliament, he might be kept out of his seat for a week. This was inconsistent with that religious equality which it was the intention of the Legislature to establish. All these difficulties would be overcome by the simple expedient of making the Resolution, once for all, a Standing Order; and it was with great deference that he asked the House to pass an Act to enable this to be done, and when once done he was sure that no future Parliament would then disturb it. It would remain on their Journals as a lasting memento of the bigotry and intolerance and injustice of bygone days. He begged to move for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the 21st & 22nd Vict., c. 49, in the manner mentioned. MR. BYNG seconded the Motion. sions of this Act. I believe I can show the House that both the Resolutions upon which the proposal of the hon. Member is founded were hastily adopted by the House. It will be borne in mind that the first of these Resolutions was in favour of seating the hon. Member for the City of London (Baron L. Rothschild). Now I myself, and many other hon. Members of this House, were totally ignorant as to the time when that Resolution would be moved, except that it must be moved before four o'clock on any one of four of the days of the week, on which the House sits in the evening, and at any time before four o'clock during the Wednesdays' sittings of the House. I was totally ignorant, and so were the great body of Members of the House, of the time when it was intended to move the Resolution for seating the hon. Member for Hythe (Baron M. Roths Motion made, and Question proposed-child till just before he appeared at the "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, intituled 'An Act to provide for the Relief of Iler Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion.'" table. And let me direct the attention of the House to this fact, that the Act of Parliament clearly contemplates, as you, Sir, stated, and most properly stated, that MR. NEWDEGATE: Sir, my Amend- this Resolution should, when adopted, bement is far more humble than the Motion come a Sessional order; but this House of the hon. Member for Finsbury. No one, has failed to afford its Members in their as the House well knows, deprecated more collective capacity an opportunity of hearsincerely than I did, the passing of the ing the Resolution proposed, and of inAct to which the present discussion refers: stituting those inquiries which it was obbut, however much I was opposed to the viously the intention of Parliament should object which that Bill had in view, I, for be instituted before either branch of the one, am prepared to obey the law, espe- legislature is asked to consent to a Recially when I consider that the Act itself solution under this Act. Well, Sir, what embodies a compromise between the two happened in the case of the hon. Member branches of the Legislature, which had for the City of London? Why, that he long differed upon the subject of the ad- took his seat in this House whilst holding mission to seats in this House of persons the office of and acting as Consul-General who do not profess the "true faith of a for the Austrian Empire in this country! Christian." Now, the hon. Member for Indeed, Sir, I am quite aware that the hon. Finsbury seems to impute to me a desire Member has felt that his continuance in to disturb that arrangement; but the House that office was inconsistent with his posiwill recollect that when the hon. Member tion as a Member of the British House of for Hythe (Baron M. de Rothschild) came Commons, and that he has transferred the to the table to be sworn, and a Resolution office to another Member of his family, and under the Act of last Session was proposed, not to the hon. Member for Hythe, an act I abstained from dividing the House. But which is no doubt honourable to him as an now that the hon. Member for Finsbury individual. But the House has done nothing has proposed, first, that the House shall to guard its own character and dignity. I adopt a Standing Order, in defiance of ask, is it right that the House of Comthat Act which he has abandoned, and now mons should pass a Resolution without asks for leave to introduce a Bill that may notice, and then find that it has unwittingly accomplish his object, I feel justified in admitted to a seat in this House the Conmoving, by way of Amendment, that which sul-General of the Austrian Empire? Take, I believe to be the proper course for the also, the case of the hon. Member for Hythe. House to adopt; in short, that notice It is a minute point, perhaps, but it is one should be given to the House of the inten- that should have been ascertained before tion to move a Resolution under the provi- the House was called upon to adopt the Resolution in his favour. I understand by notice; I think myself it had better be that the original paper, which attests the made by his appearing at the table, and return of the hon. Member, is not duly that then notice should be given to the colstamped; at least, it was not at half-past lective body of the House of the intention three o'clock in the day. This, as I have to proceed under this special Act, and to already said, may be a minute objection, adopt a Resolution for the admission of and may be the result of omission, but such persons. That seems the plain inmay be the result of other circumstances. tention of the Act, which, as I said before, Let us remember how carefully the House is a compromise resulting from a longof Commons has, at all times, guarded itself continued difference between the two against the introduction of an undue num- Houses of the Legislature; and I would ber of office-holders under our own Sove- earnestly urge upon the House that, for reign; how constantly, how repeatedly, the sake of its own character, one of its how perpetually it has done so ; and I ask most valued possessions, it should not prois it prepared, deliberately to sanction a ceed in these cases with the haste and want course of proceeding which has led to its of deliberation which have already led to seating the recognized and avowed repre- results so little creditable to our character. sentative of a foreign Power within its Only conceive what may happen (though I walls? Why, the hon. Member for Lon- do not pretend to say that it has happendon himself feels, and to his honour feels, ed), if such Resolutions are allowed to be that that is not a position in which the proposed without notice. A person may English House of Commons ought to stand; be elected to a seat in this House who but by the haste of your proceedings under desires that a Resolution of this sort this Act you left it to the hon. Member should be adopted. He need not present for London to do the duty which ought himself in the first week, nor the first to have devolved upon yourselves; and month, nor on the first Session after I ask the House now if it is prepared to his election; but if there is any ob. trust to the good feeling and sense of pro-jection to him his friends may watch priety of the individual Member so seatel, by a Resolution of the House, for all time to come; or whether, by adopting the ordinary course of requiring that notice should be given of any Resolution of this kind, it will place itself in a position to guard against similar errors in future? Sir, I must say that, bowing completely to the decision of the House as I do, it nevertheless appears to me that it would be advantageous to the House to distinguish between a case of privilege and a Resolution, passed by virtue of a special Act of Parliament. In the former instance, a Member comes to the table by privilege, and in deference to the rights of his constituents and the people we suspend all business until he has made his claim, and taken the oaths and his seat. But under this new law, which embodies the feelings and opinions of both Houses of Parliament, it is determined that the House shall, by Resolution, declare whe ther certain important words in the oath taken and subscribed to by Members generally shall be omitted in deference to the conscientious scruples of those who object to them. To me, therefore, the reasonable course appears to be, that the claim of the Member to have those words dispensed with, should be made either by his appearance at the table or from day to day until the House contains only those, or a considerable majority of those, who are favourable to his admission, and they may then bring him from some coffee-house across Palace-yard, where he has been lying perdu-present him at the table, interrupt the whole business of the House, and carry a Resolution having the binding force of law by means of a majority that may be but a shadow of the House itself, and totally or almost totally, exclude all those who entertain objections to the Resolution from giving it that consideration which it is clearly the intention of the Act to secure. I should not have mooted this question. It has been left for the hon. Member for Finsbury to do that; but as it has been mooted, I pray the House to adopt the Amendment which I now propose, as consistent with the Act in question and with that deliberate care for its own constitution which has ever been one of the most valuable characteristics of the English House of Commons. If you approve of the introduction to seats in this House of persons who cannot profess the Christian faith, at least admit them deliberately and respect the compromise which has taken place between the two branches of the legislature on this subject. This seems then to be the reasonable solution of the difficulties which have arisen, and I trust the House will not, because it emanates from one who | lution only, and did not empower them to has always earnestly and perseveringly de- pass a Standing Order for the purpose. precated the object of the recent Act, be The hon. Member for Finsbury, feeling indisposed to accept it. I will not trouble this difficulty, proposed to provide a remedy the House further. I only ask it to act by the introduction of a Bill. Such Bill in accordance with its own character and would doubtless go through its various dignity; and to accept an Amendment stages in that House, and he would himwhich is moved in no spirit of faction or of self support it; but in the Lords it might intolerance. I therefore move that no lead to a revival of the controversy, which Resolutions under the provisions of the he had hoped had been for ever brought Act 21 & 22 Vict., c. 49, shall be moved to an end. Under these circumstances, in this House unless at least one day's therefore, he would suggest whether it notice of such Resolution shall have been would not be better to let the law stand as previously given in the Votes; and that it was for the present, and wait for a more this be a Standing Order of the House. favourable opportunity to place the law in a more satisfactory state. Amendment proposed,— "To leave out from the word That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words no Resolution, under the provisions of the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 49, shall be moved in this House, unless at least one day's notice of such Resolution shall have been previously given in the Votes,' instead thereof." Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." MR. MALINS said, he wished to point out to the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) the practical difficulty which existed in the course he had taken. In doing so, however, he must state that he entirely concurred in his view of the question. Parliament had now decided that Jews should sit in the House of Commons, and in the other House also, if that House, as the House of Commons had done, should so resolve; and knowing the most mature deliberation with which the question had been discussed in every possible form before that conclusion was arrived at, he was most anxious that the discussion should not be renewed. With that view, if it were competent for this House now to pass a Standing Order, he should most cordially concur in the passing of it, with the express object of avoiding such renewal. Now the Jews had been admitted he could not think it expedient that any Member of that religion who might be elected to this House should, on presenting himself at the commencement of the Session, be exposed to that kind of discussion and those inconveniences which the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down thought it expedient to preserve. But the hon. Member for Finsbury, by the form of his Motion, showed himself fully alive to the fact that the House had not the power of passing such an order; because the Act enabled the House to admit Jews by Reso MR. BENTINCK said, he did not intend to trespass on the time of the House on the question of the admission of the Jews to Parliament. He had always considered it one of the most painful questions brought under discussion, and that pain would be increased considerably in the event of its being again discussed, by the consideration that the House had now Gentlemen of that persuasion sitting amongst them. He rose for the purpose of stating his entire concurrence with what had fallen from the hon. Member for North Warwickshire, and of expressing his dissent from the course which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Finsbury. It appeared to him that that hon. Member had somewhat contradicted himself by the course he had taken. The hon. Member had said he believed it to be the wish of the country that Jews should have a seat in that House, and he went on to describe what he called the bigotry and intolerance of bygone days. He would only say on that part of the question that his conviction was that the great majority of the people of this country were opposed to the admission of members of the Jewish persuasion to seats in that House. But he further wished to call the attention of hon. Gentlemen to the position in which they were now placed by the course proposed to be taken by the hon. Member for Finsbury. The hon. Member proposed to make that a permanent arrangement which was at present only a temporary one. He seemed to forget the great difficulties in which the question had herertofore been involved. He seemed to forget that, however inconvenient and incomplete was the mode which had been adopted by the two Houses of Parliament in coming to a settlement of the question, it was considered by many Gentlenien in both Houses that at last a settlement had been arrived at, and by large majorities in both Houses the proceeding finally resolved upon had been so accepted. He contended, therefore, that those who had been dissentient to the admission of persons of the Jewish persuasion to seats in that House might fairly complain of this attempt to depart from the arrangement which had been come to by the two Houses of the Legislature. It appeared to him that the extreme anxiety of the hon. Member for Finsbury to make the arrangement permanent, instead of temporary, arose very much from the belief in his own mind that there was a strong feeling of hostility throughout the country to the admission of members of the Jewish persuasion to seats in Parliament; and, therefore, he desired to prevent if possible the revival of a discussion on the question at a future period. But he (Mr. Bentinck) was of opinion that in the circumstances under which the arrangement of last Session was made, those who were opposed to the admission of persons of the Jewish persuasion to that House, had a perfect right to call upon the House to adhere to that arrangement, and give those who differed from the majority upon the question an opportunity of re-opening it hereafter, and of testing what was the real opinion of the people on the subject. MR. BYNG said, he believed that the present was a very suitable opportunity for remedying an admitted defect in the Act of last Session, with respect to the admission of Jews to Parliament. The House had shown by repeated majorities that they were resolved to admit Jews, and they were bound to place the admission of those persons upon sure and certain ground. The hon. Member for Finsbury, taking a fair and constitutional view of the question, asked leave to introduce a Bill, to make what had hitherto been simply a Resolution, a Standing Order. The House would pass that Bill through its various stages; it would then go to "another place," and he hoped and believed would there meet with a favourable reception. Seeing that no possible disadvantage could arise from placing the admission of Jews upon a firm foundation, and that the House was bound to do so in justice to itself, he would cordially support the proposition of the hon. Member for Finsbury. MR. CONINGHAM said, he wished to ask Her Majesty's Government, whether in their opinion the House was not competent to deal with the question at issue with out a Bill? and, if not, whether they would be so good as to inform the House what they thought should be done? Entertaining the views he did upon the subject of oaths, he could not hesitate to give his support to the Motion of the hon. Member for Finsbury, and he must say that he was surprised at the opposition of a man so earnest and sincere as was the hon. Member for North Warwickshire. His (Mr. Coningham's) opinion was, that oaths which were administered as a matter of course, were, in their effect, demoralizing, and very soon become nothing but a matter of form. It was only as a matter of form that an oath was administered to the Members of that House. It was a sham. It was hypocrisy. He asserted that the administration of oaths could only tend to create hypocrisy and promote perjury throughout the land. It was the opinion of that eminent and learned man the present Archbishop of Dublin, that if oaths were abolished-leaving the penalties for false witness-on the whole, testimony would be more trustworthy than it is. Whilst no less distinguished a writer than Mr. Buckle, the author of The History of Civilization in England, spoke of oaths which were enjoined as a matter of course as at length degenerating into a matter of form. He said that what was lightly taken would be easily broken. Fortified by such authority he denounced the administration of oaths as a relic of barbarism and ignorance, and earnestly trusted that at no distant day the whole system might be abolished, and that they would content themselves with a solemn declaration, which would constrain the conscience of no man, and yet be equally binding upon the honour of an Englishman. THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, that in the opinion of the Government, if the House were determined to convert their Resolution into a Standing Order, it would be necessary to proceed by Bill. For his own part, he very much regretted this proposition had been brought forward by the hon. Member for Finsbury. Remembering what took place last Session he would not say the compact that had been entered into-but the representations that had been made to many hon. Gentlemen to induce them to come to an arrangement which on the whole was highly satisfactory to the majority of the House, he certainly did regret that a course should now be taken which would re-open that question, and perhaps lead again to painful discussions, and possibly misunderstandings |
