265 X. THE POLITICAL RIGHTS OF ENGLISH JEWS (continued). THEIR ADMISSION TO PARLIAMENT. Grant's ties Bill, The history of the admission of the Jews to Parliament is so well known and has received so much attention from the writers on constitutional history and constitutional law that it will be sufficient to indicate here its main outlines. Immediately after the passage of the Catholic Relief Act, Mr. Robert 1829, efforts were made in Parliament for the complete Jews' Civil emancipation of the Jews from all civil and political Disabilidisabilities. The leader of the movement was Mr. Robert 1830-36. Grant, who, on April 5, 1830, introduced into the House of Commons a Bill "to repeal the civil disabilities affecting British born subjects professing the Jewish religion.' Leave to bring in the Bill was granted by a majority of 18, and when it came up for second reading it was thrown out by a majority of 631. This was before the Reform Act of 1832. Mr. Grant reintroduced his measure in the reformed House of Commons and met with more success. Several petitions in favour of Jewish emancipation had been presented to the Houses of Parliament 2, and on April 17, 1833, Mr. Grant moved that the House of Commons should resolve itself into a committee of the whole House to consider the disabilities affecting Jewish subjects; despite a protest from Sir Robert Inglis the motion was adopted without a division. In committee Mr. Grant moved "that it is 1 See Hansard, Parl. Deb., 2nd series, vol. 23, pp. 1287-1336, and ibid., vol. 24, pp. 784-814; the debates are interesting, as almost all the arguments for and against the Jews were used by the supporters or opponents of the Bill. 2 Hansard, Parl. Deb., 3rd series, vol. 15, pp. 310, 559; ibid., vol. 16, pp. 10, 725, 775, 973 expedient to remove all civil disabilities at present existing affecting His Majesty's subjects of the Jewish religion, with the like exceptions as are provided with reference to His Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion." When after debate the question was put, the "Ayes" resounded through the House, but the "Noes" were few. The minority did not challenge a division, and the resolution was agreed to1. Thus the Jews' Civil Disabilities Bill was again introduced; the second reading was carried by 159 votes to 522, and the third reading by 189 to 523, but the House of Lords refused the Bill a second reading by 104 votes to 54. Nothing daunted, on April 24 of the following year Mr. Grant again brought forward and carried, by 53 votes to 9, a motion to go into committee to consider the subject, and the revived Bill was accorded a second reading in the Lower House by 123 votes to 32, and also a third reading after a motion for adjournment had been defeated by 50 votes to 14. The dwindling numbers of the advocates of the Bill in the House of Commons and the lukewarm support which it received from the Government in power encouraged the House of Lords to again reject it, and by an increased majority, only 38 voting for and 130 against the second reading". Late in the session of 1836 the Bill was again revived under the auspices of Mr. Spring Rice, the Chancellor of the Exchequer; but the second reading was not moved until August 3, when the House was so thin that it was in imminent danger of being counted out. The second reading was agreed to by 39 votes to 17. Having passed through the remaining stages, the Bill was sent up to the Lords and was read a first 1 Hansard, Parl. Deb., 3rd series, vol. 17, pp. 205-44. 2 Ibid., vol. 18, pp. 47-59. 3 Ibid., vol. 19, pp. 1075-82. For the committee stage see vol. 18, p. 1251. Ibid., vol. 20, pp. 221-55. 5 Ibid., vol. 22, p. 1372. For the second reading see Hansard, vol. 23, p. 1158, and ibid., p. 1349, for the committee stage, and vol. 24, p. 382, for the third reading. 7 Ibid., vol. 24, pp. 720-31. time on August 15, but on account both of the lateness of the session and the poor support it was likely to receive, the second reading was never moved, and the prorogation took place on the 20th of that month1. Minor measures abilities. A general and comprehensive measure was not again 1836-47. introduced, for the advocates of equal rights for the Jews recognized that their cause had not sufficient popular of relief from polisupport to overcome the resistance of prejudiced and tical dispersistent opponents who could usually count upon a majority of votes in the Upper House. They therefore wisely confined their efforts to obtain gradually and by small instalments the end they had in view-a method so frequently adopted in the making of the English constitution and so peculiarly dear to the English people. The result was the different enactments, already enumerated, altering the oath and other methods of qualification, so as to open municipal and other offices to members of the Jewish faith, but none of these statutes had any bearing upon a Jew's right to sit in Parliament. At length the question became one of practical politics by the return of Baron Lionel de Rothschild as one of the Members for the City of London at the General Election of 1847. Roths At that time before a member could take his seat or 1847. vote, he was required to take three several oaths: the oath Baron de of allegiance, the oath of supremacy, and the oath of child abjuration. The tenour of these oaths has been already represent explained, and, as has been seen, though a Jew might the city of conscientiously take the first two, he could not with Parlia 66 elected to London in any sense of decency or propriety pronounce the words ment. 1 Hansard, vol. 35, pp. 865-75, 1209, 1216, 1318. 1847-48. Russell's Jewish Disabili ties Bill. tion of the House in favour of any particular member or class of members, though such an indulgence was a matter of favour and not of right1. The House, however, had no power to waive the oaths themselves or to alter their form, for the statute (I Geo. I, st. 2, c. 13, ss. 16, 17) expressly enacted that no one should vote in the House of Commons or sit there during any debate until he had taken the oath of abjuration, and imposed a penalty of £500 as well as several important disabilities upon any one who should presume to vote without having taken the said oath 2. These provisions being laid down by statute could not be removed or dispensed with by a single branch of the legislature, but only by an overriding or repealing Act of Parliament. Accordingly in December, 1847, the Prime Minister, Lord John Lord John Russell, who happened to be one of Baron de Rothschild's colleagues in the representation of the City of London, took precisely the same course as Mr. Grant had taken in 1833, and the House of Commons, having resolved itself into committee, moved a resolution in the same terms as that adopted fourteen years earlier. The resolution was agreed to by 257 votes to 186, the increased numbers in the division showing the increased interest aroused. The Jewish Disabilities Bill, which placed Jews 1 In 1833, Mr. Joseph Pease, the Quaker member for South Durham, had been allowed to make a solemn affirmation instead of taking the oath; this was by virtue of the Statute 22 Geo. II, c. 46, s. 36, and earlier statutes enabling Quakers to substitute an affirmation for an oath in all cases where an oath was required, thus including promissory as well as juridical oaths (see Hansard's Parl. Deb., 3rd series, vol. 15, pp. 387, 476, 639. Mr. Pease had even been allowed to omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian," to which he objected as being unnecessary in the same way as if they had been "on the true faith of a gentleman" (see Hansard, vol. 113, p. 508), but then the Acts prescribed the form of the oath, but not that of the affirmation which might be substituted. 2 But there was no provision here or elsewhere for vacating the seat of a member who omitted to take the oath of abjuration, if he did not attempt to exercise the power of voting. See May's Parl. Practice, p. 158. Hansard, Parl. Deb., 3rd series, vol. 95, pp. 1234-1331, 1356-98. Lord John Parlia on the same footing as Roman Catholics, was subsequently brought in and carried through the House of Commons, 277 members voting for and 204 against the second reading, but thrown out in the House of Lords by a majority of 35; 125 lords voting for and 163 against the second reading1. In the following session Lord John Russell brought forward 1849. another measure with a similar object, but confined its scope Russell's to an alteration of the parliamentary oath in favour of Jews. mentary The Bill which was known as the Parliamentary Oaths Bill Oaths Bill. was successfully steered through the House of Commons, being carried on the second reading by 275 votes to 185, and on the third by 272 to 206, but it was again wrecked in the Lords, who refused it a second reading by 95 to 702. After the failure of this measure Baron de Rothschild 1850. vacated his seat by applying for and receiving the steward- Roths Baron de child Iship of the Chiltern Hundreds. He offered himself for having re been to take re-election and was returned by a large majority. The signed and Government, however, brought in no Bill to enable him re-elected to take his seat, and on July 26, 1850, he came to the table attempts of the House of Commons, and requested to be sworn upon his seat. the Old Testament, whereupon the Speaker directed him to withdraw. After a long debate, including an adjournment and three several divisions, this request was conceded. The next day the baron again came up to be sworn; the oaths of allegiance and supremacy were duly administered on the Old Testament, but when the oath of abjuration was tendered the newly elected member refused to repeat after the clerk the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," and upon 1 Hansard, vol. 95, p. 1421; ibid., vol. 96, pp. 220-83, 460-540; ibid., vol. 97, pp. 1213-50; and ibid., vol. 98, pp. 1329-1409. Of the debate in the Lords the Earl of Malmesbury in his Memoirs writes: "The Jew Bill was thrown out in the Lords by a majority of 35. Mr. Lionel de Rothschild and his brother Anthony were present. I never saw the House so full. The Rothschilds stood like elder sons of Peers on the steps of the throne, and would not even retire when the division took place" (Memoirs of an Ex-Minister, vol. I, p. 230). 2 Hansard, vol. 102, pp. 1188-1202; ibid., vol. 104, pp. 1395-1449; ibid., vol. 105, pp. 431-66, 670-83, 1373-1434; vol. 106, pp. 871-922. |