claration of the supremacy of the Crown; it did not mean that the Pope had no de facto jurisdiction, but that his authority was not a legal authority. Sir Frederic could not consent to omit words which he regarded as the keystone of the arch on which the Protestant religion rests in this country. In 1849 Sir Robert Peel objected to the omission of these very words, because it would give rise to a presumption that he recognised the existence of spiritual jurisdiction on the part of the Pope of Rome.

Mr. A. B. Hope opposed and Mr. Moore supported the amendment. On a division it was negatived by 393 to 83.

Mr. Roebuck then moved an amendment to the effect that the Pope had no ecclesiastical or spiritual power "by law" within these realms. This amendment was also rejected by 243 to 68.

Sir F. Thesiger next moved the amendment of which he had given notice, to add at the end of the oath, after the word "realm," the words" and I do make this promise, renunciation, abjuration, and declaration, heartily, willingly, and truly, on the true faith of a Christian." He argued that these words were essential; that they preserved the Christian character of Parliament, which had subsisted to the present time; that the onus was upon the advocates of the right of Jews to a seat in that House to show that right, whereas they had never, he said, approached the vital part of the question. They must, he contended, maintain either that it was a mistake to suppose that the House had a Christian character, or that the time had arrived when it was no longer necessary to

He main

retain that character. tained, on the contrary, that it was impossible to abandon that bulwark of our constitution-the Christian character of the Legislature of this country.

This amendment was supported by Mr. Stanhope, Mr. Wigram, and Mr. Warren, and opposed by Mr. Kinglake and Mr. Evans.

Sir J. Pakington said that hitherto he had given a silent vote in favour of the principle embodied in the amendment; but having reflected more anxiously upon the subject, the result, he was bound to say, was, that he could not conscientiously continue to vote for the exclusion of Jews. He thought it would be desirable, however, to retain in the oath the words "on the true faith of a Christian," and he was sorry that the Government had decided to change the shape of the oath in that respect. It would have been a better course, in his opinion, to allow Christians to take the oath with the solemn conclusion to which they had been so long accustomed, and to effect the emancipation of the Jews by a Bill similar to that by which Roman Catholics were emancipated, going directly to the object. But the Government having decided upon another course, as he had made up his mind that he was no longer at liberty conscientiously to resist the admission of Jews to Parliament, it only remained for him to support that course. Sir John then proceeded to argue in favour of the admission of Jews, denying that it would, as alleged, unchristianize that House, which, in the sense used by the opponents of their admission, was unchristianized already. The addition of some few Jews could not, he said,

deprive the House of the character of being, in the best and wisest sense, a Christian assembly.

Mr. Whiteside, in an eloquent oration, went at some length into history to show that the Jews had not only been excluded from Parliament by the jurisprudence of the country and the practice of the constitution, but that they had no rights, and, as Mr. Macaulay said, it was with difficulty they could keep their teeth in their heads. He reminded the House that the common law still regards all those as criminals who write against the Christian religion; and that if Baron Rothschild wrote a short exposition of the doctrines he conscientiously holds, the AttorneyGeneral, if he could spare a moment from the British Bank delinquents, would appear in the Queen's Bench and prosecute Baron Rothschild. The question they were called upon to decide was, whether Christianity should continue to be exclusively the religion of the State. Fifteen hundred years ago the Roman Senate decided that question for themselves, and "the temples of voluptuous heathenism were overthrown, the statues of the false gods were shivered, the idols and the groves were desecrated, and Christianity became the religion of the Senate and of the Empire." The argument against the Jew was, that he resisted the lessons which the wisdom of Newton, of Pascal, and of Locke, inculcated; that he was untaught by the divine song that Milton sang; and that though the sun was darkened, though

the earth quaked, and the graves gave back their dead to testify to the Creator's triumph, yet, unlike the centurion of old, Baron Rothschild

would not believe. (Cheers and murmurs.) He came there to triumph over our ancient faith, over our ancient customs, over our ancient establishments, and over the principles of our constitution. And he would add insult to victory; for after this bill became law, no Christian man, however sincere he might be, would dare to utter at that table the words "on the true faith of a Christian." It was not enough that he should not himself utter the words "on the true faith of a Christian "—no other man was to be permitted to do so. And those were charged with bigotry who stood up to oppose this state of things, and for the maintenance of that system that had for centuries preserved our common Christianity in the land. He glorified the Conservative party as "the true party after all." It is their business "to stand up for the maintenance and supremacy of that faith which they believe has been revealed from above, and for the establishment of which, in its present form among us, immortal patriots laboured and blessed martyrs died." (Much cheering.)

Lord John Russell protested with some warmth against the persecuting doctrines of Mr. Whiteside, for, not content with a reference to times before the Reformation, when Roman Catholics persecuted, he had gone back to the days of the Roman Senate, where the persecuting spirit, in spite of the change of religion, remained, while the Christians, instead of being persecuted, became persecutors. This was not an example to be followed. It is not by imprisonment, and still less by capital punishment, that the Christian religion is to be promoted. I be

lieve that if you open your doors wide, and the Jew is permitted to come into the House, the greatness and glory of Christianity would be more truly seen, and that you would do more to diffuse a Christian spirit, and induce others to respect and follow Christianity, than by acting upon the intolerant. laws of a former time. I therefore am of opinion that to refer to those former examples is leading the House entirely astray, and I trust that the House by its decision to-night will show that it is guided by better examples and better precepts." (Cheers.)

After speeches from Mr. Napier, Mr. Horsman, and Mr. Newdegate, Lord Palmerston wound up the debate, and having first complimented Sir J. Pakington upon the frank avowal of his change of opinion, replied to the objections offered to the proposed form of the oath, observing that that House was not a religious, but a political assembly, and that it was not entitled to inquire into the religious opinions of its members, except so far as they may tend to influence and sway their political conduct. Upon a division, there appeared:

For the amendment
Against it..

Majority

341

201

140

Some discussion then took place upon the question of the eligibility of the Jews to hold high political offices under this Bill. It was alleged that the effect of it would be to enable Jews to hold offices which Roman Catholics could not hold.

Lord Palmerston answered that the Government had no intention of making any alteration in the Bill as it stood. But if any member wished to raise a discussion on the points now started, there

would be a further opportunity of doing so.

Acting upon this view, Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, when the Oaths Bill came before the House for consideration of the report, moved a series of provisions intended to exclude Jews from holding a number of high offices, such as Regent, Lord Chancellor, Lord High Commissioner of the Great Seal, Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, and to prevent Jews from advising Her Majesty touching the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments, and providing that where the right of presentation to a benefice belonged to a Jew, it should be exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

Lord Palmerston at once acceded to these amendments. He said, "When, upon a former stage of this Bill, I was asked whether it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government themselves to propose to put into the Bill provisions resembling those which the honourable member has moved, I stated that it was not our intention to make such a proposition; and the reason was, that the contingency which these provisions were intended to guard against appeared to me to be so very unlikely to happen, that it was scarcely worth while to make special provision in an Act of Parliament for these assumed cases. But we are exceedingly anxious that this Bill should pass. (Cheers.) We think it would be a very advantageous measure, both as regards members who have to take the oaths now, and persons who are at present excluded from this House. If. therefore, as we are led to believe, the adoption of the clauses pro

posed by the honourable member would tend in any degree to render more likely the passage of this Bill into a law, we should hold ourselves deeply responsible if, from any fancied objection, we raised an opposition to that which we felt was so desirable. Therefore, Sir, upon that ground-not ourselves attaching any great importance to the provisions, but thinking them wholly unobjectionable, and thinking that by their adoption we may render more probable the successful issue of this Bill-I am happy to give my support to the clauses of the honourable gentleman." (Cheers.)

Sir F. Thesiger said he did not know what the result of this extraordinary unanimity would be. (A laugh.) Of course, if the clauses were agreed to, there was an end of the question; but he begged to say, that if any honourable member divided the House, he should not vote at all upon the question, because he should not sanction in any way the principle of admitting Jews to Parliament.

Mr. Wigram, Mr. Newdegate, and Mr. Bentinck objected to the measure in terms equally strong, notwithstanding the assent of the Government to the clauses. They considered that the clauses afforded a strong argument of objection against the measure. The Bill declared persons not Christians to be capable of framing laws for Christians, and yet not capable of administering those laws. The clauses were then agreed to.

On the third reading of the Bill being proposed, the Marquis of Chandos, seconded by Mr. H. Drummond, moved that it be put off for six months. After some discussion on the part of the Roman Catholic members, some

declaring their intention to oppose the Bill, while Mr. Deasy and others, unwilling to vote against a Bill that would remove an unjust disability from the Jews, said that they should not vote at all, the House divided, when the Bill was read a third time and passed by 291 to 168: majority 123.

It was in the House of Lords, however, in this as in preceding sessions, that the measure had to undergo its chief ordeal. On the 10th July, the Bill came on for a second reading in a full House.

Earl Granville, in the speech with which he prefaced the motion, pointed out the absurd and profane nature of the oaths as they at present existed-equally absurd and profane to Protestants and Roman Catholics-compelling the former to take God to witness that they did not believe what even Roman Catholics did not hold, and forcing the latter to invoke the name of God with reference to a family which did not exist. As those oaths applied to their Jewish fellow-subjects, they were both oppressive and intolerant in their operation, for it was not less oppressive to keep from a man that to which he had a right, than to strip him of that of which he was already possessed. A favourite argument in their Lordships' House was, that the admission of the Jews would unchristianize the Legislature, though not one of the noble speakers who stated this ever attempted to support the assertion by any sound reasoning. A Legislature could scarcely be more Christian than the people for which it legislated; and the people were a mixed community of all creeds, including large numbers of Jews and Unitarians, both of whom could vote for the election of mem

bers of Parliament, while Unitarians and open infidels could sit in the House of Commons itself. In some few countries the disabilities of Jews were maintained, but through the great Catholic kingdoms of France, Sardinia, and Belgium, and even in some parts of Italy, and the Protestant country of America, they had treated the question in a far more enlightened spirit. The subject, he admitted, was one which excited no very strong or passionate feel ing out of doors; but none could doubt that the cool and deliberate judgment of the people was in favour of the measure, and he appealed to their Lordships, by assenting to the second reading, to do an act of justice to a deserving, peaceable, and orderly class of the community.

The Earl of Derby, after paying a high tribute to the prudence, ability, and moderation which characterised the members of the Jewish persuasion, said he felt himself compelled by a sense of duty to move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The Hebrews were scattered by a Divine decree over the entire face of the earth, but they still retained their nationality unbroken, looking forward to the time when their ancient rights and privileges should be restored, living in seclusion from their fellow citizens, between whom there was, in fact, an impassable gulf. To use the words of Lord Lyndhurst on a previous occasion, They were looked upon as aliens in blood, religion, and in language." He was surprised to hear the argument adduced by Lord Granville, that Jews had a right to sit in the Legislature, as at the very time the oath complained of became the law of this country, all VOL. XCIX.

the members of that persuasion were under a sentence of banishment from the land. He did not for a moment attempt to deny to Jews the full possession of all the civil rights which were enjoyed by the rest of the community, but he was prepared to dispute the propriety of conferring upon them the power of legislating for a Christian nation so widely differing in customs, interest, character, and religion. Lord Granville complained that it was persecution to withhold the right to sit in Parliament from any person on account of his religious opinions. Yet it was not greater persecution to prevent his being a member of Parliament than to prevent his being Lord Chancellor, to which high office, under the clauses of this Bill, he could never attain. To some offices, no doubt, a Jew would find himself peculiarly adapted, but there were situations which he (Lord Derby) would own he would not feel comfortable at seeing filled by members of that persuasion-such, for instance, as the post of Chancellor of the Exchequer. He trusted that their Lordships' House would assert its independence on this great question of principle. He trusted they would not be led away by the bait attached to this objectionable measure, that they would, rejecting all compromise and combination, refuse to sanction a law against the policy of which he believed their Lordships were as decided now as they had been on previous occasions.

Lord Lyndhurst supported the second reading of the Bill, and entered at length into the question of the alteration of the oaths at the time of the revolution of 1688, expressing his conviction that no man's religious opinions ought to