JEWISH DISABILITIES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume VIII, Issue 526, 18 November 1857, Page 4

JEWISH DISABILITIES.

- (From the Spectator.) The bulk of the Liberal party appear to j have bestirred themselves in earnest on the Jew question. A meeting" called by a requisition signed by no fewer than 92, and attended by 112 members of the House of Commons, was held at the King's Arms Hotel, Palace-yard, to take into consideration the rejection of the Parliamentary Oaths Bill by the House of Lords. Mr. Horsman being called to the chair, opened the business by stating that they were met to consider what course they should adopt to give full effect to the principle of religious liberty. Mr. Dillwyn had given notice of a motion proposing* that the House of Commons should pass a resolution directing- that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should be omitted from the oath, in order that Baron Rothschild might take his seat. Mr. Horsman justified that proposition by the precedent set by the Lords as sole judges of the qualification to sit in their House, when they excluded Baron Wensleydale. Lord John Russell had given notice that he should ask for leave to bring in a bill that would enable each House to regulate the oath for the admission of its own Members. That would be aconvenient mode of settling the question, and would be adopted by the Government. He complained that the names of all the Cabinet Ministers did not appear in the late division in the House of Lords; but he defended Lord Palmerston from any charge of insincerity. Mr. Crawford proposed, and Mr. Evans seconded, a resolution requesting Mr. Dillwyn to postpone his motion until Lord John Russell's had been disposed of. Here Sir James Graham rose and stated that he attended without having had any previous conversation with any person whatever. He maintained that the Liberal party is bound, under the present circumstances, not to sit down quiescent under the negative which has been imposed upon the bill sent up by a large majority from the House of Commons to the House of Peers._ He thought they occupied the vantage-gTOund. The Oaths Bill had been sent up to the Peers by a commanding majority; the Pi*ime Minister is unequivocally in its favour; support had been given to the bill by seven members of the Episcopal bench, and by eminent members of the Tory party. If the defaulting Cabinet Ministers "had another opportunity of voting, he hoped it would not be thrown away. "I do not think it possible with prudence to wait for another session. I think something must be done before Parliament rises. (Cheers.) The question is narrowed to this—Shall we try the House of Lords again—(Cries of "No, no!") —or shall we, setting aside legislation, by the exercise of our own inherent power, proceed by way of resolution? Allow me to refer to the opinion of a person remarkable for prudence, but still no less remarkable in his later years for his very liberal opinions—l allude to the late Sir Robert Peel. He communicated with me upon this very point—that of proceeding by resolution; and he, looking at it carefully, could not make up his mind to support it. He saw grave objections to that course; and he greatly feared, if they were forced, to proceed in that direction, two consequences detrimental to the object in view would result,-~-first, that Parliament would be brought into. collision with the courts of law; and next, that it would confirm the House of Lords in their resistance to any legislative change, and also it might revolt public opinion out of doors. On the whole, SirRobert Peel came to the conclusion that he could not bring his mind to proceed by way of resolution. But, if we proceed by resolution, and if, united, we should carry that resolution in the House of Commons, still, without legislation, a Jew so talcing* his seat will, under the statute law as it now stands, be subject to penalties."

Would it be wise to adopt such a course except in the last resort? Lord John Russell had shown that he thought one more legislative effort should be made, and the measure he proposed is an extremely good one. It will give the Lords I an opportunity of reconsidering their decision. "I do not believe that in the history of this country, since the Revolution and since the Parliamentary government has been established, there has occurred an instance where the House of Lords during four successive Parliaments have offered an uncompromising resistance to "a bill which has been sent up for one and the same object successively by large majorities of the House of Commons. If the House of Lords should adhere to their former decision in this instance, they will do it for the first time, with great danger to their legislative independence. I think that must be distinctly understood, and that that warning will not be thrown away upon their Lordships." (Cheers.) Mr. Dillwyn expressed his readiness to abide by the decision of the meeting, but he thought Lord John Russell's proposal dangerous and unconstitutional. Mr. Roebuck took the same view. If Lord John Russell's bill be carried, will it not be a confession that the House of Commons is wanting- in the power to regulate the oaths ? Sir James Graham admitted that no legislation ought to be tolerated that would compromise the privileges of the House of Commons; and that the course taken by the Peers in Lord Wensleydale's " case did fortify the House of Commons in asserting the right to determine what oath should be taken by its members. The resolutions having been agreed to, the.meeting unanimously resolved — " That the fact that in the late division in the House of Lords all the members of the Cabinet did not support the Oaths Bill is calculated to cause deep pain and disappointment to the Liberal party. "That the time has arrived when the long-vexed question of the removal of Jewish disabilities should be finally settled; j and, considering the repeated manifestations of opinion in the House of Commons and in the country in favour of this act of , policy and justice, all the energies of the I Liberal party should now be united towards its accomplishment," The meeting-was adjourned until Tuesday, with the view of then proceeding to Lord Palmerston to represent to him its opinions.

For the first time, a Jewish gentleman has been elected to a muncipal office at Liverpool; Mr Mozley, banker, having been appointed Town Councillor for Rodney Street Ward—a high Tory ward—without opposition.