adopt the fair, manly, and honourable promised MR. BRIGHT said, that he was not going to make a speech, but to observe upon one point which had been addressed to the House by the hon. and learned Solicitor General, in which he was wholly at fault. The question of Mr. Pease had been alluded to, and it appeared to him to be the chief stumbling block in the way of the opponents of the admission of Baron de Rothschild. If he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman, he said that you might alter what was only of the form of the oath; but that you could not in any degree change the substance of the oath. Now, observe what had been done in the case of Mr. Pease. He (Mr. Bright) came into that House by virtue of a declaration, word for word, similar to that by which Mr. Pease had been admitted. Mr. Pease came to the table and declared not against this oath, but against taking any oath at all. First of all there was the oath of fidelity. He did not take that; he did not even affirm it. Then there was the oath of supremacy, which declares “I, A. B. swear that I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure as impious and heretical, that damnable doctrine and position that princes excommunicated or deprived by the Pope or any authority of the see of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects or any other whatsoever." "to bear faithful and true allegiance," but the word "defend" was entirely omitted. He asked the House if that was not a part of the substance of the oath? Then they were to declare that they would maintain and defend the succession against the descendants of the said James, or any persons whatsoever. He understood that was an essential part of the oath, and yet neither Mr. Pease, nor he, nor the hon. Member for Leicester, made that declaration. The words "on the true faith of a Christian" were not put to them at all. Was the House asked now to do one tenth of so grave a thing, or to depart so much from the substance of the oath as it had done by an unanimous vote when it permitted Mr. Pease to take his seat in 1832 ? He was convinced that they were not now proposing to do anything near so serious as had been done in the case of Mr. Pease. But some persons answered that the precedent of Mr. Pease was not a good one, that the House had done wrong on that occasion. Whether the House had done wrong or not, the House at that time was a fair judge. He was inclined to think that the House had done right, because there could be no doubt that the common law intended that every man who was elected should be allowed to take his seat in the House. But if the House had made a stretch in allowing Mr. Pease to take his seat, it was now asked to do a much lighter thing. It was said that Mr. Pease thought it right to ask for an Act of Parliament even in his case. Pease was an exceedingly prudent man. He was perhaps in this case somewhat of a timid man, and he asked the House to pass a Bill. But this House passed the Bill unanimously, and the House of Lords passed it also without any question. There was no dispute that the House did right in allowing Mr. Pease to take his seat in that House; and seeing that he held his seat in that House in consequence of what had been done on that occasion, it would be scandalous in him (Mr. Bright) if he did not in every way give his support to the proposition for the admission of Baron de Rothschild to his seat in that House. Mr. Now, he thought that these were matters of substance, but Mr. Pease did not declare or affirm it. Then came the oath of abjuration; and did Mr. Pease affirm the substance of that oath? He (Mr. Bright) maintained that he did not. First of all they were to affirm that the Queen was their lawful and rightful Queen-to renounce allegiance to James III., or his descendants; they were to declare that they would defend the Queen, and maintain and MR. GOULBURN said, that the hon. defend the succession to the Crown against Gentleman the Member for Manchester the descendants of the said James III. and had, no doubt unintentionally, mis-stated all other persons whatsoever, and then the facts with regard to the admission of came the words "on the true faith of a Mr. Pease, and it was right that the House Christian." Now, how did Mr. Pease, should know on what grounds it proceeded how did he himself, make the affirmation. on that occasion. It proceeded by referIn the first place, they did not say a word ring the matter to a Committee, and that about defending" the Queen. They Committee finding that there was a statute 66 which allowed Quakers to make an affirma- | Knightley, Sir C. "That the words pro Knox, Col. Moore, G. H. Morgan, 0. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L. The House divided:-Ayes 166; Noes Napier, J. 92: Majority 74. Newdegate, C. N. Paget, Lord G. Palmerston, Visct. Pelham, hon. D. A. Plowden, W. H. C. TELLERS. Hayter, W. G. List of the NOES. Aglionby, H. A. Cobden, R. Collins, W. Crawford, W. S. D'Eyncourt, rt. hon. C. Disraeli, B. Duncan, G. Evans, Sir De L. Forster, M. Fortescue, C. Fox, W. J. French, F. Gaskell, J. M. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Grace, O. D. J. Hotham, Lord Inglis, Sir R. H. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Greene, J. Grey, R. W. Hall, Sir B. Harris, R. Higgins, G. G. O. Hume, J. Hutchins, E. J. Locke, J. Lushington, C. M'Cullagh, W. T. Mahon, The O'Gorman Mangles, R. D. Manners, Lord J. Milner, W. M. E. Mitchell, T. A. Norreys, Sir D. J. Nugent, Lord O'Connell, M. J. Ogle, S. C. H. Price, Sir R. Rawdon, Col. Reynolds, J. Ricardo, J. L. Robartes, T. J. A. Roche, E. B. Roebuck, J. A. Salwey, Col. Scholefield, W. Scully, F. Sheil, rt. hon. R. L. Hindley, C. Humphery, Ald. MR. V. SMITH hoped, after what had fallen from the hon. and learned Attorney General in the course of the debate, that the oath of abjuration would be speedily taken into consideration by Her Majesty's Ministers, and so framed or amended that hon. Members on taking it would in reality understand and know what they were subscribing to. LORD J. RUSSELL said, that before he replied to the observations of his right hon. Friend, he would take that opportunity of saying, that as the House sat so late (half-past four o'clock), it would be the most convenient course if it continued to sit on until after the commission, and then adjourn for two hours. In answer to his right hon. Friend, he begged to say that the discussions which had taken place had brought most prominently in view the real difficulties which stood in the way of a Jew taking the oaths required to be taken by hon. Gentlemen on being admitted Members. These difficulties resolved themselves into this, that the House approved of the mode of swearing on the Old Testament. A Jew had no objection to taking the oath of allegiance or the oath of supremacy; and the only point on which an obstacle had arisen occurred in the latter part of the oath of abjuration. That being the only matter objectionable to an individual who had been twice elected to sit in that House, it was desirable that it should be considered distinctly and of itself. He admitted the correctness of the objections of his right hon. Friend with regard to the provisions of the other oaths. The oath of supremacy was founded on apprehended danger to the Crown, according to the belief held in the reign of Elizabeth, and was framed against such dangers as existed in the reign of Anne and George I.; but the wording of the oath did not apply to the present day. It was a matter deserving the consideration of the House; and, consequently, should not be mixed up with the variety of discussions, as well as matters discussed, that had of late occupied the attention of the House. It was a question of much importance, and the electors of the city of London regarding it in that light, he would, therefore, regret very much if its consideration should be mixed up with that given to any other question. MR. GOULBURN said, that whether they passed the resolutions then submitted to them or not, a time would come next Session when they would have full opportunity of stating their opinions on the matter. For his part he should enter his protest against the resolutions, not merely against the admission of Jews to that House, but also against the declaration of consideration in the next Session. He had sat many years in Parliament, and it had been his misfortune to hear that House pledge itself to the consideration of matters in the succeeding Session, and then falsify that pledge, by leaving the very matters in the same position as they were in which it found them on recording the pledge. For instance, there was the Roman Catholic question, which, Session after Session, was to have been taken up; but the determination was generally rendered abortive. He therefore thought that without adopting the resolutions then before them, every Member of the House would be at full liberty to pursue, in the next Session, whatever course he might think proper. He thought it impolitic to enter into the pledge required by the resolutions; and he also protested against the propriety of altering the law to facilitate the admission of Jews to Parliament, reserving to himself the right of stating his reasons on the fitting opportunity. MR. BRIGHT agreed with much that fell from the right hon. Gentleman; but he looked on these resolutions more with regard to their hold on the Government, than he did to their hold on that House. He therefore wanted to know from the noble Lord at the head of the Ministry, for the satisfaction of the public in general, and of the constituency of the city of London in particular, if the Government as a Government intended to take up this question of the admission to Parliament of Jews, and if they were prepared to stand or fall by the issue of the question? For his part, he would not give the snap of a finger for the resolutions unless the noble Lord at the head of the Govern- The ATTORNEY GENERAL said, there were three requisites to be observed in the oaths, namely, the substance, the form of words, and the manner of taking; It was the form of words that excluded the hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of London from taking his seat in that House; and therefore he (the Attorney General) was desirous of altering that form of words in the next Session, for which purpose he introduced his resolutions, which were then before them. Motion made, and Question put"That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in the next Session of Parliament, take into its serious consideration the form of the Oath of Abjuration, with a view to relieve Her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion." The House divided:-Ayes 142; Noes 106: Majority 36. Hobhouse, T. B. List of the NOES. Acland, Sir T. D. Arkwright, G. Crawford, W. S. Cubitt, W. Dawson, hon. T. V. D'Eyncourt,rt.hon.C. T. Bagot, hon. W. Dodd, G. Bailey, J. Douglas, Sir C. E. Baldock, E. H. Bankes, G. Duncan, G. Dundas, Adm. Ebrington, Visct. Elliot, hon. J. E. Blackstone, W. S. Blakemore, R. Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. Boldero, H. G. Evans, Sir De L. Ferguson, Sir R. A. Hall, Sir B. Booth, Sir R. G. Bowles, Adm. Chandos, Marq. of Chichester, Lord J. L. Codrington, Sir W. Hobhouse, rt. hon. Sir J. Coles, H. B. he may have had with the Spanish Government, relative to the differential duties levied on British shipping in the ports of Spain? And whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government, in the event of British shipping continuing to be subjected to these differential duties, to put in force the provisions of the Act of last Session for repealing the Navigation Laws, by levying differential duties on the ships of Spain in the ports of this kingdom and its dependencies? VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that the question was one which had engaged for many years the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and communimany cations had passed between it and the Government of Spain on the subject, but hitherto without any satisfactory result. Those communications had been necessarily suspended during the interruption of diplomatic relations between the two countries, but would now be resumed; and in the present state of the negotiations it would not be advisable to lay the correspondence before the House. In the event of the Spanish Government not agreeing to equalise the duties, or to place British upon the same footing as Spanish vessels, it would also be unadvisable to state what course Her Majesty's Government in its discretion might think fit to pursue. MR. ANDERSON then said, that at the beginning of next Session of Parliament he should move the following resolution on the subject: MR. ANDERSON begged permission to make an observation in explanation of a question which he was about to put to the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, relative to a matter which he considered to be of much importance to the shipping and commercial interests of this country-namely, the differential duties levied on British shipping in the ports of Spain. It was surely high time now to take some measures to compel Spain to adopt a more equitable course of policy in regard to our shipping, than that in which she had persisted for about twenty-five years; and it was his (Mr. Anderson's) intention to have brought this subject fully under the consideration of the House pursuant to the notice which he had given. Like many other independent Members, however, he had never been able to obtain a suitable opportunity, and at this late period of the Session it was in vain to expect it. He should, therefore, take some other means of bringing it under public notice, and would now only beg to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he would have any objection to lay on the table of the House a copy of any correspondence which on this Bill. "That the ships of Spain having since the year 1824 been permitted to import goods the produce or manufacture of Spain into the ports of the United Kingdom, at the same rates of duty as British ships, and since the 1st of January, 1850, the carrying trade of the United Kingdom and its dependencies to and from all other countries having been opened to Spanish vessels on the same terms as to British vessels-whereas, duties have been, and continue to be, levied on during the whole of these periods higher rates of goods when imported into or exported from Spain and its dependencies in British vessels than in Spanish vessels, to the great detriment of British ble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying shipowners and the obstruction of trade, a humthat Her Majesty will be graciously pleased, in virtue of the power vested in Her by Act 12 & 13 Vict., cap. 29, to cause such rates of duty to be levied on the importation or exportation of goods Kingdom and its dependencies as may serve to in Spanish vessels at the ports of the United countervail the differential duties levied in the ports of Spain on British vessels.” STAMP DUTIES (No. 2) BILL. |