and the injunctions of Christianity, he replied that they must honestly act on their own consciences; and if they thought that special and exceptional exclusion from advantages, which ought to be common to all, could not be justified on any ground of common justice or of Christianity-if they believed that a mild and conciliatory course was more in harmony with the genius of Christianity-then, however painful it might be to incur misconstruction and the displeasure of those they respected, they must persist in the discharge of what they considered a great public duty.

Lord J. Russell and several other members complimented Mr. Peel in high terms on his maiden effort. The other speakers in opposition to the Bill were Mr. Turner, Mr. A. B. Hope, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Spooner, Lord Mahon, the Marquis of Granby, Mr. Plumptre, Mr. Bankes, and Mr. Goulburn. Those in favour of the measure were Mr. H. Williams, Mr. Trelawney, Mr. Roberts, the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, Mr. Serjeant Talfourd, Mr. Fagan, Mr. Milnes, and Mr. Roebuck. On a division, the second reading was carried by 278 to 185.

On the motion for going into Committee on the Bill, Sir Robert Peel started an important question. He had hoped it was the intention of Government to place Jews on precisely the same footing, with respect to eligibility for Parliament and for office, as other classes of Her Majesty's subjects at the present time.

As to other classes of Her Majesty's subjects dissenting from the Church of England, he imagined the law to be this: when elected to municipal offices, they became qualified to hold them upon making

was

a declaration which had been substituted for the declaration against transubstantiation. A similar declaration enabled them to sit in Parliament and to hold office; but in the latter declaration the words "on the true faith of a Christian " were introduced, which rendered it impossible for a Jew to adopt it. It was proposed by this Bill to relieve the Jews as far as the declaration in Parliament concerned; but if the Bill passed in its present shape, Jews would still be disqualified for holding civil offices. It might, to be sure, be a question whether Jews might not be able to hold civil offices by means of the Annual Indemnity Act; but he would repudiate an evasion of that nature, and wished to see Her Majesty's Jewish subjects placed on the same footing as all other classes of the community. It was not desirable that a Jew should hold a civil office by the precarious tenure of the passing of an Annual Indemnity Act.

Lord John Russell entirely concurred with Sir Robert Peel in thinking that Jews should enjoy the same privileges as were possessed by their fellow subjects. He had proved that by the Bill he introduced last Session, which was rejected by the other House of Parliament. But it would be improper to introduce into this Bill, which would admit Jews to Parliament, a provision securing their admission to civil offices. He should propose a separate Bill for that purpose.

Sir Robert Peel explained, that the observations he had made with respect to the position of the Jews had reference to all civil and military offices under the Crown in respect of which the declaration against transubstantiation was for

merly obliged to be made: they had no reference to municipal offices, because in 1845 the Jews were relieved as to those offices only, and placed on the same footing as the other subjects of Her Majesty.

In Committee on the first clause of the Bill, Mr. Vernon Smith proposed to omit the declaration of belief that "the Pope of Rome hath not, nor hath any other foreign prince, prelate, person, state, or potentate, any temporal or civil jurisdiction, authority, or power within this realm;" and also the pledge to defend the settlement of property within this realm as established by the laws." He thought the first declaration superfluous, and the second unintelligible. Lord John Russell again objected, as to the first proposition, to interfere with the settlement of 1829; but after some discussion upon the effect of the second declaration, he declared himself ready to omit that clause. He also consented to omit the words relative to the Pope's having no civil jurisdiction in this realm. The supremacy of the Pope not being allowed by the common law of the kingdom, he imagined it would remain the same whether an oath were taken or not. This course met with the concurrence and praise of Sir Robert Peel; who confessed that, for himself, he would be content to limit the oath to the simple and distinct declaration by a conscientious man that he would be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and would maintain the succession of the Crown, &c.; words that appeared to him to include everything.

Several other propositions were made during the passage of the Bill through Committee. One by

Mr. Bankes, that an oath should be taken by Protestant Members of allegiance or nonresistance to the Established Church, like that taken by the Roman Catholic Members, was opposed by Lord John Russell and Mr. Vernon Smith, and finally withdrawn. The exclusion of the words objected to by Mr. Smith was then carried, on a division, by 164 to 102. Another amendment, moved by Mr. M'Cullagh, for dispensing with the special oath taken by Roman Catholic Members, was negatived, after a debate, by 103 to 54.

On the motion for the third

reading, an important debate took place. Mr. Law moved the rejection of the Bill, renewing the objections often urged against it by the opponents of the measure. The amendment was se+ conded by Mr. Raphael, and supported by Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Goring, Mr. Spooner, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Plumptre. It was opposed by Mr. Keogh, Mr. Crowder, Mr. Sadleir, Mr. Page Wood, Lord John Russell, Mr. Sheil, and Mr. Roebuck. Mr. Sheil's speech was marked by his characteristic eloquence. In answer to Mr. Newdegate's argument that the Bill would unchristianize the Legislature. Mr. Sheil said"Will the Member for Warwickshire contend that the Congress of the United States, in which Jews are admitted, is less Christian than the Congress of Mexico, where Jews are excluded? There were four Jews in the late Constituent Assembly of France M. Cremieux, M. Goudchaux, M. Fould, and M. Serpent. ligious sentiment ever escape their lips; or did they expostulate against the celebration of those august ceremonies of Catholicism which happily indicate a restoration of that

Did an irre

faith of which, in the opinion of all its statesmen, France stands so much in need? I will not notice the sanctimonious sophistications of the men by whom we are informed that we should make ourselves the auxiliaries of Omnipotence, and lend our aid to the Almighty in the fulfilment of the prophecies, by shutting the Rothschilds and the Goldsmidts and the Montefiores out of the House of Commons. Their assertion deserves almost as little regard who tell us that into a genuine Englishman you cannot turn a Jew. Enough to say that the Jews are good citizens and good subjectsloyal to their Sovereign and attached to their country, lovers of order and obedient to the laws; that many of them are eminent for their virtues and distinguished by their almost boundless charity; and that upon misery in every form, whether it be of Jew or whether it be of Christian, they look with an eye of indiscriminately munificent commiseration. Not only has the City, properly so called, returned a Rothschild to Parliament, but by the representatives of the multitudinous metropolitan constituencies this Bill is zealously supported. It will hardly be said that two millions of Englishmen are indifferent to the interests of Christianity. In no city on the face of the earth is Christianity more prized and reverenced: from the summit of that majestic temple, dedicated by England to the name of that famous Jew who so essentially contributed to disseminate the religion of charity through the world-over the vast expanse of wealth, and greatness, and grandeur, and power, in which so many of the glories of Imperial England are assembled the cross approVOL. XCI.

priately ascends. It is the memorial of a great sin, but it is the symbol of a measureless mercy; it is the type of a religion with which penalties for the sake of its propagation are incompatible. The cause of Christianity and the cause of toleration are identified; they are alike high and holy. The victory of the one is the triumph of the other; and as for the achievement of that victory and the consummation of that triumph 1 fervently pray, so in that achievement and in that consummation I most trustfully confide." (Much cheering.)

A

On the general question Mr. Roebuck reminded the House, that a Jew had been an Alderman; onė was now Sheriff, and he probably would be Lord Mayor; what harm could arise from conferring another privilege upon him, and admitting him to Parliament? Jew must be sent to the House by the votes of his fellow countrymen. Would not that, in itself, constitute a guarantee for the propriety of his conduct as a legislator? Mr.、 Roebuck's experience of large constituencies had taught him that the people were steadfastly attached to the principle of religious liberty, and that they were indifferent whether that principle was to be established for the benefit of millions, thousands, or of only half-a-dozen. He hoped that when the Bill reached the House of Lords, that assembly would defer to the wishes of the people of England, twice constitutionally expressed through their representatives in the House of Commons.

Mr. Goulburn was prepared to resist this measure as altering the character of Parliament, and thereby affecting its influence. The question was, not whether Jews [N]

were excluded by accident, which was a notion founded upon misapprehension, but whether upon the principles of the Constitution Jews should be excluded, and that was capable of proof by the whole course of our legislation and by the forms of the House. Mr. Goulburn reviewed the chief arguments urged in support of the Bill, and rested his opposition to it upon the ground that it would damage the character of the legislature, and create in the minds of a very numerous class a distrust in the deliberations of Parliament matters affecting religion, and especially ecclesiastical questions. The admission of another element into that House, adverse to the Church, would give weight to the arguments of those who desired to see such subjects withdrawn from its cognizance.

upon

Mr. Napier said the question was, whether Christianity was the basis of our Constitution, and if it was, men who repudiated Christianity could not be qualified to be Members of our Legislature. He showed the inconsistencies involved in the omission of the oath of supremacy, whilst the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" were retained in the mutilated oath.

Mr. Wood hailed the Bill as a measure by which the last badge of the anti-Christian and persecuting spirit was parted with, and it was as a Christian no less than as a politician that he gave it his support.

Lord John Russell replied to the argument of Mr. Goulburn that Roman Catholics would avail themselves of the Bill, by taking an oath to which they had no objection, instead of that prescribed to Roman Catholics. He could not believe they would do so, and

subject themselves to penalties; but if they did, men guilty of such equivocation could be bound by no oath at all. Lord John then noticed briefly the chief arguments used against the Bill, which, he observed, differed but little from those which had been urged on former occasions, and he adopted the view taken by Mr. Roebuck, that this was regarded by the electors of London as a question of religious liberty, and he believed the character of the country was involved in making that liberty full and complete.

The House then divided, when the third reading was carried by 272 against 206. The diminished majority excited much cheering from the minority. The Bill then passed.

In the House of Lords, the second reading was moved on the 26th of July, by the Earl of Carlisle. After remarking that it was not identical with the measure rejected by the House in the last Session, the noble Earl proceeded to state the grounds on which he thought it entitled to the favourable consideration of their Lordships. The substance of his argument was, that, unless there were some grounds of overpowering necessity to the contrary, in no case ought civil disqualification to be attached to religious opinions; and in such a spirit all recent legislative enactments on religious subjects had been framed, for the political disabilities of the Roman Catholics and various classes of Dissenters had been successively abolished. The Jews, though admitted to municipal privileges, were the only religious community debarred of political rights; but there was not, as far as he could see, a single valid reason upon which they could

be refused a seat in the House of Commons. The noble Lord then combated in detail the various objections against the measure, and concluded an eloquent speech by moving that the Bill be read a second time.

The Earl of Eglintoun admitted that the lapse of years and the extinction of families might have rendered necessary some alteration in the Parliamentary oaths, but the real object of this Bill was to remove Jewish disabilities, and to enable Baron Rothschild to sit for London. That constituency must have known that the person they elected as their representative, however worthy in his private character, and distinguished by worldly position, was really ineligible because he could not take the oaths prescribed by Parliament. This was, therefore, a retrospective measure. But he objected to it chiefly on religious grounds. The Jews suffered no persecution in this country; but the solemn duty of their Lordships was not to permit those who did not believe in Christ to legislate for a Christian church and nation. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day three months.

The Duke of Cleveland thought that after Quakers, Moravians, and every class of Dissenters had been admitted to seats in Parliament, it would be a great hardship and injustice to exclude Jews, being British born subjects of Her Majesty.

The Archbishop of Canterbury believed the effect of the Bill would be to lower the character and obligations of Members of Parliament, by making it a matter of indifference whether they belonged to the Christian communion. The events which had occurred

within the last year made it imperative on their Lordships to reject this Bill. England stood in a peculiar position, a monument of freedom and social order, and he did not hesitate to attribute her pre-eminence among the nations to her national Christianity, which would be grievously disparaged by the admission of Jews to seats in the Legislature.

The Archbishop of Dublin had always been a firm and unflinching advocate for the removal of all religious disabilities. It was inconsistent with the principles, and repugnant to the genius, of Christianity that civil disqualifications and penalties should be imposed on those who did not conform to it. Parliamentary electors should be left to decide for themselves as to the eligibility of Jews to seats in Parliament; their hands should not be tied by any restriction, which nothing but a strong public necessity could justify, and no such justification existed for the exclusion of the Jews. Their Lordships must either retrace their steps, and exclude from office all who did not belong to the Established Church, or they must in consistency consent to the abrogation of this last restriction.

The Bishop of Exeter opposed the Bill. In a republic every citizen had an equal right to all franchises, distinctions, and offices, but in a monarchy like ours, which rested upon a distinct contract with the nation that the Sovereign should maintain to the utmost the laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel," no one had a constitutional right to any franchise or honour, unless he could serve the Crown in those particulars to which the monarch had pledged himself. A Jew could