Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

its introduction would show that they did not partake of the apathy of resting content with what had already been done.

facilities

Govern

aban

The motion for leave to bring in the Bill was opposed Not by Mr. Walpole, who stated that he took this somewhat receiving unusual course for three reasons. In the first place its from the introduction, after a Bill for effecting the same object ment the had already been before the House that session, was an Bill is evasion if not a breach of the rules of the House; in the doned. second place it was likely to lead to a conflict with the House of Lords; and thirdly there was no proper time for the discussion of the measure. In the course of the debate the Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, expressed his cordial assent to the motion for leave to bring in the Bill, but reserved for future consideration the question whether he should give it his support in its future stages, and refused to postpone Government business for the purpose of pressing the Bill forward. The motion was carried by 246 votes to 154, and the Bill read a first time. The second reading stage was postponed by its author, and ultimately abandoned, with a notice that a similar measure would be introduced next session1.

Rothschild

and is

In the meantime Baron Rothschild had applied for and Baron de obtained the Chiltern Hundreds, and been re-elected by again the citizens of London. There was some anticipation that resigns he would attempt to take his seat and obtain a resolution re-elected. from the House allowing him to omit the obnoxious words of the oath, and threatening with the penalties of breach of privilege any one who might sue him for penalties in consequence of his sitting or voting without taking the oath. Such a course would almost inevitably have caused a collision between the House of Commons and the courts of law, and, although it may have been contemplated, was never in fact attempted.

On the other hand, Lord John Russell on August 3 Select moved in the House of Commons for the appointment tee ap

1 Hansard, vol. 146, pp. 1772-80; ibid., vol. 147, PP. 134-95, 684, 929,

1287.

Commit

pointed to

consider

whether a Statutory

be substi

tuted for

Parlia

mentary Oath.

of a Select Committee to consider whether the Statutory Declarations Act of 1835 (5 & 6 Will. IV, c. 62), which Declara- permits a statutory declaration, containing nothing objection might under the tionable to Jews, to be substituted for an oath in certain Act of 1835 cases, was applicable to the oaths appointed to be taken by Members of Parliament. Though there was some discussion, no division was challenged on the motion, and the Committee was appointed. In due course the Committee, having arrived at the decision by only a narrow majority, reported that the provisions of the Act were not applicable to the oaths which members of the House were bound to take before taking their seats. The report was laid upon the table and ordered to be printed. No further step in the controversy was taken during the session 1.

The

autumn

session of

The acute commercial crisis in the latter part of 1857 rendered an autumn session necessary, and Parliament 1857: was hastily summoned to meet in the month of December. Russell's In an interval not taken up by Government business, Lord Oaths Bill. John Russell brought in a Bill "to substitute one oath for

Lord John

the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, and for the Relief of her Majesty's Subjects professing the Jewish Religion," which subsequently became known by the shorter title of the Oaths Bill. The oath now proposed was the same as that contained in the Government's abortive measure of 1857, but with the addition at the end of the following words, " And I make this Declaration upon the true faith of a Christian." On the other hand, clause 5 of the Bill provided that a person of the Jewish persuasion to whom the oath was administered might omit this final sentence. The Bill also contained a clause to extend the Jewish Disabilities Removal Act of 1845 (which applied only to admission to municipal offices) to all offices on admission to which the Declaration prescribed by the Act of 1828 for repealing the Corporation and Test Acts (9 Geo. IV, c. 17) had to be made and subscribed. The Bill was presented and read a first time, but the

1 Hansard, vol. 147, pp. 811, 933-60, 1010-20, 1119, 1223, 1287.

second reading was deferred until after the Christmas recess. On February 10, 1858, the Bill was set down for second reading, and at this stage also no division was challenged, but Sir F. Thesiger announced that he would move the omission of the fifth clause when the House went into Committee on the Bill1.

Lord Pal

ment, and

Lord

In the meantime Lord Palmerston's Government fell, Fall of being defeated in the House of Commons on the second merston's reading of the Conspiracy to Murder Bill, which had been Governintroduced by the Cabinet in deference to the wishes of the formathe French Government on account of the unsuccessful tion of a Conservaattempt to assassinate the Emperor Napoleon. The Earl tive Minisof Derby and the Conservative party came into office, but try under yet the change of Ministry was not thought to militate Derby. against the successful termination of the contest for Jewish emancipation. The former Ministry, though proclaiming themselves the friends of religious liberty, had never been really united in support of any of the numerous Jew Bills, and on the last occasion one influential member of the Cabinet had sanctioned the course adopted by the House of Lords by ostentatiously walking out of the House without voting. On the other hand several members of the new Ministry, including Mr. Disraeli, the leader in the House of Commons, Sir John Pakenham, the first Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Stanley, the Prime Minister's son, and Sir Fitzroy Kelly, the Attorney-General, were keen advocates of Jewish emancipation, and the Earl of Derby himself, though he had led the opposition to the previous Bill in the House of Lords, now that he had become Prime Minister was known to be wavering and ready to accept a compromise if any could be suggested, which, without having the appearance of a complete surrender on the part of the Upper House, might bring to an end the prolonged struggle between the two Houses.

In due course the House of Commons went into Com- The Oaths mittee upon the Bill. Sir F. Thesiger having become Lord Bill read a Chancellor, and been transferred to the House of Lords, it in the

1 Hansard, vol. 148, pp. 469-99, 1084-1118.

third time

Commons.

The Bill

in the Lords.

The fifth clause, enabling Jews to

omit the

of the oath, rejected in

commit

was left to Mr. Newdegate to move the omission of clause five, which made special provision in favour of Jews when called upon to take the new oath. The motion did not however command the assent of one third of the members taking part in the division, and was defeated by a majority of 153; 144 members voting for it and 297 against it. The Bill passed through committee intact, and in due time received its third reading1.

The next day the Bill was read a first time in the House of Lords. The following week the second reading was moved by Lord Lyndhurst and agreed to without a division, but the Earl of Derby announced that though several of his colleagues were in favour of clause five, he himself could finalwords see no reason for altering the course he had followed on previous occasions, and that he would vote for the omission of the clause when the House went into committee. At that stage the new Lord Chancellor, Lord Chelmsford, formerly Sir Frederic Thesiger, moved the omission of the clause. Lord Lyndhurst led the opposition to the motion, which was carried by 119 votes to 80, but the clause extending the benefit of the Jewish Disabilities Removal Act, 1845, to the case of Jews appointed to other than municipal offices was allowed to pass, and the Bill as amended was read a third time on the last day of April without opposition 2.

tee.

Baron de
Rothschild

of the

tee for drawing

When the Bill thus emasculated was returned to the appointed House of Commons, its author, Lord John Russell, stating a member that the chief value of the Bill had lain in the clause Commons' regarding the admission of Jews to seats in Parliament, Commit- moved that the House should disagree with the Lords' amendments. After some discussion the motion was carried, and it was also resolved that a Committee be agreeing appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords Lords' for disagreeing with their amendments. When the names of the Committee had been decided upon, Mr. Duncombe moved "that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild be one

up reasons for dis

with the

amend

ments.

1 Hansard, vol. 149, pp. 294-305, 442, 466-550, 946.

2 Ibid., pp. 946, 1477-86, 1758-97, 2009.

other member of the said Committee." The debate on his motion was adjourned in order to enable the precedents as to the legality of such a nomination to be searched. At the adjourned debate many members thought the nomination improper and inexpedient, though all agreed that it was not illegal, and the motion was carried by 251 to 196 votes1.

The appointment of Baron de Rothschild as a member The legality of the of the Committee was a master-stroke in the constitutional appointskirmish which was being maintained between the two ment. Houses. It was a convincing proof of the absurdity of the position which the Lords maintained. The Act of George the First (1 Geo. I, stat. 2, c. 13), under which Alderman Salomons had been mulcted and driven from the House, imposed penalties upon Members of Parliament, who had not taken the oaths, only in case they voted or sat in the House during a debate, but neither that nor any other Act punished an unsworn member for exercising any of the other privileges attaching to membership of the House. One of these was the important right of sitting upon a Committee, if appointed by the House; though in order to establish this it was necessary to search the precedents as far back as the year 1715, in which year it was resolved that Sir Joseph Jekyll being a member of the House was capable of being chosen of a Committee although he had not been sworn at the Clerk's table 2. The exercise of such important functions by a Jew, which the Lords were powerless to prevent, clinched the argument advanced by Lord John Russell that it was only by a sort of legislative fraud that Jews were excluded from the full rights of membership of Parliament, and also demonstrated to the House of Lords the futility of their insisting on debarring from the full rights of membership of the Lower

1 Hansard, vol. 150, pp. 336-54, 430-443.

218 Com. Jour., p. 59. Sir Joseph Jekyll was Chief Justice of the County Palatine of Chester, and his absence on circuit was the reason for his not having taken the oaths. See Cobbett, Parl. Hist., vol. VII, p. 57.

U

« ÖncekiDevam »