affect his right to civil office. It was now 25 years since a measure similar to the present Bill had first been introduced into their Lordships' House, and since that period the feelings with which the Bill had been viewed had undergone much change. At the last dissolution the question was presented to the various constituencies, and in general most warmly supported, and the Bill now came before their Lordships from the House of Commons with an increased majority in its favour. These were facts which their Lordships could not afford to despise or consider lightly, nor could they afford to place themselves as a barrier to the progress of liberal legislation.

After a few words from the Earl of Winchilsea in support, and from the Duke of Somerset in opposition, to Lord Derby's amend

ment,

The Duke of Norfolk said he should give his vote upon the Bill, not in reference to the particular clauses which it contained, but on the broad principle of whether or not Jews should be admitted to sit in the Legislature. That principle he cordially approved, for he could not conceive why an electoral body, composed of persons professing every shade of religious opinion, should not be at liberty, independent of religious considerations, to return to Parliament the man whom they considered best qualified to represent their interests. As a mere act of justice, he considered the Jews should be admitted, and he trusted that the decision of their Lordships that night would set at rest the constantly-recurring differences upon the subject between their Lordships and the House of Commons. He confessed there were many portions of the Bill to

which he entertained the strongest objections, but to those he should defer his opposition.

The Bishop of London was afraid that many persons entertained a strong opinion that the religion of the Legislature was concerned in this matter. Having carefully considered the question for many years, he confessed he could not regard it at all as affecting the religious opinions of either House of Parliament, for the religious position of the Legislature depended not upon the maintenance of any oath which excluded a portion of the community from a full enjoyment of their civil rights,

but upon the strong religious feeling which existed throughout the country, and which, he was glad to say, was deepening. He should vote for the second reading of the Bill, on the simple ground that it was a wise and just measure.

The Archbishop of Canterbury felt compelled to support the amendment.

Lord Albemarle supported the

Bill.

The Earl of Shaftesbury said he was opposed to the admission of Jews to Parliament, but felt that he could not vote against the second reading if by so doing the Oath of Abjuration was to be retained in its present form. The first part of that oath was laughable, the second almost blasphemous, and he could not take upon himself to do anything which might fix it upon future generations.

Lord Brougham ridiculed the notion of the admission of Jews to Parliament unchristianizing the Legislature. If that objection was ever worth anything at all, it was useless now, since the House of Commons had declared by large

majorities in favour of the principle; and surely, when both the House of Commons and the country were in favour of it, it could not be contended that their Lordships withholding their assent to the principle was all that stood between the nation and an unchristianized Legislature.

The Bishop of Oxford thought that their Lordships were being led away upon a false scent, by their attention being directed to the Oath of Abjuration, which was entirely foreign to the subject at issue. He was prepared to brave the charge of intolerance in the cause of truth, and should unhesitatingly give his vote in support of the amendment.

The Duke of Argyll vindicated the Government from the charges which had been brought against it in the course of the debate, and animadverted upon the inconsistency of the Earl of Derby in bringing forward such accusations. He begged to remind their Lordships that upon several occasions the Government had brought under the consideration of Parliament a Bill the object of which was directly the admission of the Jews to legislative duties.

After a few words from the Earl of Galloway, the Lords divided, when there appeared :For the second reading

Present

Proxies

For the amendment

Present

Proxies

Majority for the

amendment

The Bill was therefore lost. Although the measure of the

Government thus shared the fate of all former attempts, direct or indirect, to induce the Legislature to open their doors to the Jews, Lord John Russell, the persevering advocate of the measure, was not deterred from making another experiment in the same direction. The mode in which the noble Lord now attempted to effect his object, was by a modification and extension of an existing statute, the 1 & 2 Vict. c. 106, intituled "An Act for removing Doubts as to the Validity of certain Oaths." The noble Lord, in introducing his motion for leave to bring in a Bill, said that his object was to bring in a Bill declaratory of what he believed to be the principle of the law of this country, and to apply it to the High Court of Parliament. That principle, established in the case of Omichund v. Barker, was that oaths were to be taken in the form and manner binding upon the consciences of those who took them. In the Oath of Abjuration, the words "On the true faith of a Christian," it was clear from the origin of the oath, were not meant as a test of Christianity, but of loyalty to the Crown; and the practice of Parliament in regard to the Quakers showed that those words were not of the substance, but only of the form of the oath, to make it more binding upon Roman Catholics. It appeared to him that, with the concurrence of the Government, and with a large majority of the House of Commons in its favour, the House of Lords would not be likely to reject this Bill. Looking to the course taken by that House in the case of Lord Wensleydale, he thought it was somewhat humiliating to the House of Commons to be told that it had

not the power to permit a member elected by the City of London to take his seat in that House.

Mr. Walpole argued that the course proposed by Lord John Russell was not the proper course for attaining the object he had in view, and that it involved a danger of bringing about a collision with the House of Lords, which would cause a greater degradation and humiliation than the noble Lord had anticipated. He thought the House ought to take steps, either by Bill or resolution, to settle this question; but the power of Parliament was one thing, and that of the House of Commons another. The oath in question had been enacted by the two Houses of Parliament, and one of his three objections to the motion was, that the Bill must inevitably bring about a collision with the House of Lords.

Mr. Dillwyn desired to avoid a collision with the House of Lords, but thought that House should not be allowed to sit in judgment upon the proper privileges of the House of Commons. At the same time he had a doubt as to the expediency of the course proposed to be taken by Lord J. Russell, though he should support his motion.

Mr. Newdegate contended that, according to the standing orders of the House, this, being a religious question, should have been introduced by a resolution of the House in a committee.

Mr. Liddell, though an advocate of the admission of Jews to Parliament, considered this a matter rather of policy than of principle, and could not make up his mind to vote for the motion. He thought there was another mode of settling the question, by a resolution of the

House. Why, he asked, should not that House be competent to lay down rules for the admission of its own members as well as the House of Lords?

Mr. Ayrton did not think that that House could, or rather should, proceed in this case by resolution. It being now part of the settled law of the land, that the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," were an integral part of the oath of abjuration, if the House proceeded by resolution, it must hold that Baron Rothschild, if he did not take the oath in the present form, did not comply with the law, and could not take his seat without an Act of Parliament exempting him from penalties. He would have no objection to a Bill limited to the oath to be taken in that House, but he deprecated the discussion of this question unless it was discussed in earnest, and with the full concurrence of the Government.

Mr. Packe said that, apart from the question of the admission of Jews, he gave his most earnest opposition to the motion for leave to bring in a Bill for the same object as one which had been rejected this Session in the House of Lords.

Lord Palmerston' said he should support the motion, though he must reserve his observations upon the Bill until he saw more clearly what its provisions were. But he could not undertake to postpone Government business for the purpose of passing this Bill.

Mr. Gladstone said he was not prepared to forego confidence in the House of Lords, and if that House withheld its assent from any particular measure, nothing but the highest necessity should induce the House of Commons to interfere. As to proceeding by

resolution, very great objections offered themselves to this course, which might render a Bill of Indemnity necessary. With respect to the Bill of Lord J. Russell, he did not consider it as a substantial repetition of a proposition already carried up to the other House. It did not propose to confer upon Jews a right of admission to either House of Parliament by a modification of the oath, but to give a discretion to the authority called upon to administer the oath to do so in a form binding upon the conscience of the party taking it.

Mr. Whiteside observed, that if the exposition given of the Bill by Mr. Gladstone was correct, members would be admitted to that House not according to the fixed law of the land, but according to the particular order which the House at any particular time might give its officers as to the administration of the oath. He deprecated proceeding by resolution, which would, he said, bring the House into direct collision with the courts of justice.

Mr. Hildyard thought no one could doubt that this Bill would meet with the same reception in the House of Lords as the former Bill.

Mr. Horsman observed, that in the House of Lords, throughout the whole discussion respecting the case of Lord Wensleydale, the principle was laid down that that House was the sole judge of the grounds of admission to its own body.

Lord J. Russell repeated the statement he had given on Friday of the general purport of the Bill; and, adverting to the remarks of Lord Palmerston with reference to the state of public business, observed that he could hold out no

hope that it would be in his power to carry the measure through Parliament this Session; but he had done his duty.

The opponents of the motion having divided the House against the introduction of the Bill, it was carried against them by 246 to 154.

Pending the further progress of this Bill, however, a new method of effecting the desired object suggested itself to the advocates of the claims of the Jews. The Act of the 5 & 6 Wm. IV., cap. 62, was passed with the view of enabling a solemn declaration to be substituted in lieu of an oath in those numerous cases in which that solemn obligation had been required by Acts of Parliament to be taken either for purposes of revenue, or on still more trivial occasions. The desire of diminishing the number of these oaths, the present taking of which had led to much perjury and profanation, had induced the Legislature to pass this Statute, which enabled various public bodies and inferior jurisdictions, in cases where the taking of an oath had formerly been necessary, to adopt a declaration instead. It had, however, never been suggested hitherto that the terms used by the Act were large enough to include the oaths required to be taken by Members of the Houses of Parliament. That was the question which Lord John Russell now sought to raise by moving, on the 3rd of August, that it be referred to a Select Committee to inquire whether the Act in question were applicable to members of the House of Commons, and, if so, in what manner the Act could be so applied. In stating the grounds on which he proposed this motion, the noble Lord said that

he had a Bill upon the paper-the Oaths Validity Act Amendment Bill-which stood for a second reading that evening; but Baron Rothschild had informed him that he had been advised that, under the Act referred to, the House might, by an order, enable him to make a declaration in lieu of the Oath of Abjuration, and that, if the House took that course, he was ready to make such declaration. Anticipating an objection that the declaration must contain the words "on the true faith of a Christian," Lord John argued, upon the strength of Mr. Pease's case, and upon other authorities, that the House might omit these words. If the House could do so, he was sure that it would be a great relief to many; and where a person had been duly elected a member, and had a primá facie right to take his seat, it would be desirable to find that the law interposed no insuperable obstacle.

Sir F. Thesiger said he did not intend to divide the House upon the motion, although it proposed to delegate the functions of the House to a Committee; but he argued, from the proceedings in Mr. Pease's case, and in that of Baron Rothschild, that the omission of any reference to the Act in question was owing to a belief that the Act had no bearing upon the question. He showed what he considered to be the inconsistency of Lord J. Russell's present course with his past opinions upon this subject, and he read the words of the Act, contending that it never could have been intended by the Legislature that the House of Commons should be comprehended therein. That House, he insisted, had no power to omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian" from a declaration in lieu of the

Oath of Abjuration, Mr. Pease, he observed, having been seated, not by a resolution of that House, but under the Act of the 22nd George II., which authorised the omission of those words.

Lord Palmerston said he should consent to the motion, considering the matter to be of sufficient inportance to justify referring it to a Select Committee.

The motion was agreed to; and, after some discussion as to the mode in which it should be constituted, it was resolved that it should consist of a certain number of eminent members taken from either party, and of all the gentlemen of the long robe being members of the House. On the 10th of August, the Report of the Committee was made in the following terms:

"The Committee have considered the matters referred to them. The following resolution was proposed by a member of the Committee: That, in the opinion of this Committee, the House of Commons is included within the following words of the 8th section of the 5 & 6 Wm. IV., cap. 62that is to say, All bodies now by law or statute or by any valid usage authorised to administer and receive any oath.'

"Upon deliberation the resolution was passed in the negative."

In moving that the report should be laid upon the table, Lord John Russell said that he did not propose to proceed further with the Oaths Validity Bill, and he moved that the order be discharged. At the same time, he wished to say that the subject was in that state which made it necessary that it should be considered by Parliament at the commencement of the next session. He therefore gave notice, that early