THE

HE question of the admission of persons professing the Jewish religion into Parliament, which had been for so many years agitated without success, derived a fresh impulse from the general election, as well from the fact of Baron Rothschild being again returned by the City of London, as from the attention called to the subject and the pledges given by candidates to their constituents at the various elections. The alteration of the oath taken by members in the House of Commons, with a view both to the admission of Jews to sit and to the rejection of the absurd and useless abjurations which the existing form contained, was one of the first objects which Lord Palmerston announced among the measures of his Government for this Session. On the 18th May the House of Commons went into Committee for the consideration of this subject. Before stating the alterations that he should propose, Lord Palmerston apologised to Lord John Russell for taking out of his hands a question which he had dealt with in a manner that entitled him to great credit. He assured him that he now took up the subject solely because it appeared likely that the measure proposed would have more chance of passing if it originated with the Government.

The moment was peculiarly favourable for dealing with the subject, because every member had recently been compelled to subscribe to oaths containing many things repugnant to his feelings. The changes intended to be proposed applied solely to oaths taken

by persons not Roman Catholic; the object of the change being to relieve Christians from oaths they ought not to take, and do away with those words that exclude Jews from Parliament. After reading portions of the oaths with a running commentary, and explaining what he should keep and what throw away, Lord Palmerston read the form of the one oath, which he proposed to substitute for the three.

"I do sincerely promise and swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will defend her to the utmost of my power against all conspiracies and attempts whatever which shall be made against her person, crown, or dignity; and I will do my utmost endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies which may be formed against her or them; and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my power, the succession of the crown, which succession, by an Act intituled An Act for the further limitation of the Crown and better securing the rights and liberties of the subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia, Electress of Hanover, and the heirs of her body being Protestants, hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any obedience or allegiance unto any other person claiming or pretending a right to the crown of this realm: and I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state, or potentate, hath or ought to have any jurisdic

tion, power, superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm." Lord Palmerston concluded with a brief recapitulation of the chief arguments for the admission of the Jews.

"The exclusion of the Jews is the last remnant of prejudice and intolerance with which we have to deal. What is it that you fear from admitting Jews to Parliament? Are you afraid that the admission of a few Jews will shake the Christian religion? Why, sir, I have heard of many Jews who have become Christians, but it never fell to my lot to hear of a Christian who became a Jew. The progress of mankind is governed by laws which admit of no retrogression. The Old Testament prepared the way for the New Testament, but the New Testament will never lead us back to the Old. Of what, then, are we afraid? We cannot for a moment suppose that the introduction into this House of a few persons professing the Jewish religion will at all affect the Christian character of the country. I am convinced that such members, from their knowledge and intelligence, would render us material assistance in our deliberations; their position as men of considerable property would be a guarantee for their interest in the welfare of the country; and by admitting them to Parliament we should carry out that system of liberal legislation for the establishment of religious liberty which has of late years made so much progress. I trust, therefore, that the House will give its most serious attention to this subject. Many Members of the House are unfettered by pledges, and are free to act upon their own judgment, I do trust that this

measure will be carried by a large majority of the House; and then, if the opinion of the House should be stamped upon the Bill in approbation of the principle it contains, I cannot but indulge the sanguine expectation that those obstacles which elsewhere have hitherto impeded the realisation of the ardent wishes of my noble friend the member for the City of London may give way to an impulse proceeding from a new House of Commons, and that at last we may have the satisfaction of giving the finishing stroke to that which has been too long delayed, but which I hope will now be conceded."

Sir Frederic Thesiger said he should not oppose the introduction of the Bill; but he wished, for the sake of consistency, that the Government had treated this question as it had treated all other questions of Parliamentary reform. Mr. Locke King was told the other night not to carry further his Bill dealing with property qualification. This was a question of oath qualification; why should not it also be postponed? For the benefit of the new members, Sir Frederic gave a history of the Jew question from 1831 to the present time. It was not a question of civil and religious liberty, but a question of power.

Lord John Russell, in reference to the apology offered by Lord Palmerston, said that he should have given him the same advice as those most interested in the question. The measure had a far better chance of success in the hands of Government; and as he only desired to see it carried, he could not feel at all envious. He briefly replied to Sir Frederic Thesiger. Sir Frederic was not under the ban,

regarded the language of the oath as ambiguous, by quoting three different constructions put on it by the Duke of Norfolk, the late Mr. Shiel, and Mr. John O'Connell. It is now an opportune time for effecting a change that would not impair the security of the Church, and would gratify the gratify the wishes of millions of their fellowcountrymen. Mr. Deasy moved that the words" temporal or civil" should be substituted for "ecclesiastical or spiritual " in clause 1.

Lord Palmerston said that he should imitate the temperate tone of Mr. Deasy and avoid religious disquisitions. He thought it would be desirable, if practicable, that there should be only one oath. If he had power to frame the oath, there are parts which he should not think necessary. But the question was, not whether Catholics should be placed on a footing of equality with those now excluded, but whether, while Protestants are relieved from superfluous declarations, we should at the same time admit a section of our fellow countrymen who for years have been excluded from Parliament. Mr. Deasy should consider the question as one of prudence as well as principle. If he succeeded in altering the oath, it would cause the failure of the aggregate measure. Mr. Deasy said the oath was not a part of the general arrangement of 1829, and he quoted Sir Robert Peel; but the stronger the evidence adduced to show that the oath was not in conformity with the opinions of Sir Robert Peel, the clearer the inference that it was a compact between Sir Robert and those opposed to him-a bridge by which some might pass over to support the Bill-an arrangement that

would justify others in ceasing their resistance. Lord Palmerston trusted that the Committee would not acquiesce in the amendment.

"At the same time, I would add, that those who vote against this proposition do not thereby pronounce an opinion that the Catholic oath is exactly in all respects such as they would wish it to be; for I am sure that there must be many who think with me that there are things undoubtedly in that oath which are unnecessary, but that this is not the time for disturbing the settlement which was made in 1829."

Mr. Henry Drummond thought that the time had come for putting an end to these distinctions and trying the effect of confidence. Mr. Stapleton objected to the amendment because it would imply an acknowledgment of the ecclesiastical and spiritual power of the Pope. Mr. Walpole also opposed the amendment.

Mr. Roebuck said there was one quality of an oath that had entirely escaped attention-truth. Is it true, as the oath declares, that no foreign potentate has any power, authority, or pre-eminence, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within these realms? In the course of his life he had been twenty times called upon to swear an actual lie, for there is not a man in the House who does not know that the Pope does exercise ecclesiastical and spiritual dominion in the realm, nay in this very city. To declare that he does not, is swearing to a lie knowing it to be a lie; and as he disliked such formal lying, he should vote for the amendment.

Sir Frederic Thesiger said that construction of the oath astonished him. The oath involved a de