Catholiques. On a peine à concevoir aujourd'hui que les zélés du temps vient parvenus à persuader à une portion considérable de la populace,' que le roy n'avait pas voulu que la justice fust faicte de l'entreprise complote par les Huguenots de tuer tous les Catholiques le jour de Noël, 1609.' Cependant rien n'est plus exact, et c'est en outre sur ce bruit adopté par lui, que Ravaillac conçut la première idée de tuer le roi."†

Besides, we need only look at the bibliographical history of the times to see that in murdering Henri IV., Ravaillac was just reducing into practice the doctrines of popular casuists, and the maxims enforced by Jesuit divines, who, although writing out of France, managed to get their abominable works circulated amongst the populace of that country. The Summa Theologiæ of Becanus, Emmanuel Soa's Aphoris-· mi Confessariorum, and Mariana's De Rege et Regis Institutione were, for a certain class of people, favourite helps to devotion, and guides for the conduct of Christians in everyday life. Now, if we turn to the writings of those authors, we find the theory of political assassination promulgated in all its extent with a naiveté which is perfectly astonishing. Mariana calls the murder of Henri III. by Jacques Clément, "facinus memorabile, nobile, insigne," the murderer is æternum Gallica decus," and, agreeably with this example if circumstances should require it, the public voice of the people, or the advice of serious and erudite men is sufficient to justify the action of him who whets his dagger for the purpose of slaying a monarch. When such were the doctrines of a man trusted with the education of a young prince, when such were the moral lessons enforced jussa superiorum, by an ordained minister of the church of Christ, and repeated in all the books on casuistry published by the Jesuits, we cannot understand the blindness of those who maintain that the Jesuits were not responsible for the crime which has rendered Ravaillac's name so wretchedly immortal.

66

But we must bring this notice to a close. M. Poirson's "Histoire du Règne de Henri IV." is a monograph which will take its place amongst the noblest treasures of an age and of a country whose historical literature can boast of masterpieces of style and of conscientious erudition. In it accuracy, research, and impartiality, have combined with genuine patriotism to produce an excellent work; and the University of France may well be proud of a writer who, after devoting a long and useful work to the training of youth, spends his well-earned leisure in describing the blessings of a strong but free government.

* Poirson, vol. ii., p. 936.

207

Quarterly Report of Facts and Progress.

THE CLOSING PARLIAMENTARY SESSION.

THESE sheets will scarcely have reached the hands of our readers ere the parliamentary session will have ended, and ministers and members be left free to the tranquil enjoyments of the recess. The departing session has effected some great changes. It has ejected Lord Palmerston and installed Lord Derby. It has refused to entertain the proposal for a revision *of the Liturgy; but it has, with scarce any opposition, moved the Crown to abolish three out of the four State services hitherto included in the Prayer-Book. It has inflicted the coup de grace on the East India Company, and has constituted the vast Indian empire as immediate a possession of the British Crown as London or Liverpool. It has thus destroyed, amid universal acquiescence, a corporation three centuries old; and (to look nearer home) it has invested with large and unprecedented powers-perhaps as a matter of absolute necessity—a certain metropolitan "Board," which has scarcely been in existence three years. It has abolished the property qualification for members of Parliament; and has provided for the admission to the Legislature of the Jew; but it has refused to abolish Church-rates. It has reduced the Income-tax, and staved off the amount due on account of the Russian war. Amid the task of legislation for a land groaning beneath the evils of a corrupt and worn-out civilisation in the East, it has founded a new colony in the extreme West, whose soil until now has been scarcely trodden by any but a half-savage race. A bare enumeration of the subjects which occupy his attention affords some idea of the responsibilities of a British legislator. Were these realised oftener than they are by the thousands of congregations that every Lord's Day, during the Session, supplicate the divine blessing upon the deliberations of the "High Court of Parliament," it would infuse into their supplications an earnestness from which the happiest results might be augured for the Church and the nation. We now proceed to examine, in detail, some of the more important facts which we have in these introductory sentences grouped together as the most noticeable results of the session.

POSITION OF THE MINISTRY.-THE INDIA ACT.

PERHAPS the most remarkable feature, within the last few months of our parliamentary history, is the altered position of the government of Lord Derby at the present moment as compared with what it was immediately after his lordship took office in February last. The ministry, which, when it first assumed power, few believed would last for a month, may now be considered to have gained a permanent hold on the country; and if it fall not to pieces from internal dissensions -of which there is no present appearance, though all the elements are there-it is safe for the next six or nine months. The weakness of their opponents may be taken as the measure of their own power-the decline of Lord Palmerston's influence, the most striking evidence of their own newly-acquired strength. Not much more than a year has elapsed since the country returned to Parliament a majority of nearly 100 members pledged to the support of the ex-Premier; and so powerful was he that friends and foes alike recognized him as the English Dictator. Even at the beginning of the session just closing, his power and influence remained unbroken. One false step precipitated him from power, and with the loss of power the influence which rendered him supreme in the Lower House entirely disappeared. The majority that a few months ago rallied around him, has dwindled down to following of a few attached friends, or to those connected with him by the memory of past official associations and the hopes of future. In a house sent expressly to support him, he cannot command a majority on a single question on which the present government put themselves at issue with him. This has been shown on many questions, but on none more conspicuously than on the India Bill. Every attempt that the late Prime Minister made to modify that measure and bring it into accordance with the bill he himself introduced on the same subject has failed. It was so with his endeavour to limit the number and the duration in office of the Council; it was so with his effort to change the mode of their appointment from partial election to exclusive nomination. And yet his own measure, when he was in power, was supported by a large majority, and there was every indication, if he had remained in office, that it would ere this time have passed into a law. The mention of that measure in the House was lately received with shouts of laughter. To this has come the general greeting with which every appearance of the veteran statesman was hailed only a few months ago. So

FACTS AND PROGRESS.

209

evanescent has proved the popular breath which lately bore him to the topmost pinnacle of power! There is only one palliation to be urged for this state of things. The difference between the Indian measures of the late and the present government were not very marked, and they were sure to appear still less important in the eyes of members who do not profess to have much acquaintance with Indian affairs, or to be able to decide upon the merits of competing schemes for Indian government. In such a dilemma they chose the only course that was fairly open to them, of accepting that measure which was offered to them on the authority of a responsible government. In the jaded state of the House, no one could blame them for adopting this method of solving the difficulty; and Lord Palmerston showed less than his usual wisdom in not sufficiently recognizing the fact. He has paid the penalty of his want of tact; for his struggles to regain his influence have only served to show how much of it he has lost.

REMOVAL OF JEWISH DISABILITIES.

THE Jew question is settled in a way somewhat unprecedented. The Lords dismissed the subject from their House with permission for the Commons to admit a Jew to their assembly by resolution, if they choose to do so; but they accompanied that permission with a warning, couched in the most solemn terms, that such an admission would be an unchristian act. The Commons, guided in their conduct by Lord John Russell, have accepted the permission, while they reject the warning, and in no ambiguous terms intimate that they will be responsible for their own conduct. Whatever may be thought of the result as a practical settlement of this much-vexed question, we cannot say there is much cause for satisfaction in the mode by which that result has been attained. It is but a partial recognition of the principle after all; and we think there is much force in the argument used by Lord Redesdale, that by assenting to the measure, their Lordships were setting a precedent of allowing the House of Commons to alter the laws of England on its own authority, which may afterwards be used against the other two estates of the realm with mischievous effect. The constitutional principle has hitherto been that no Royal Order in Council, and no resolution of either House of Parliament standing singly by itself, could either alter an old law or create a new one. Now, for the first time, an alteration in this principle

VOL. XLIV.

P

is proposed, and proposed by the very House which has the greatest interest, so far as its own dignity is concerned, in the establishment of the new precedent. Were this one principle violated for the sake of maintaining another, we might respect the motive; but as it is plain that the Lords only adopt this course to save their own consistency, we can but regret that their false pride on this occasion has led them into a policy which may ere long be brought to bear with fatal effect against their own authority. In the meantime, it appears probable that when the time arrives, the Commons may find not one but two Jews to admit. The seat for Greenwich, which has long been in a doubtful condition owing to the bankruptcy of Mr. Townsend, is, it appears, at last about to be vacated by him. What occult connexion there may be between the passing of the Jew Bill and his readiness to resign, it is not for us to say; but certain it is, that Mr. Alderman Salomons, who was once before selected for the borough, is again a candidate. He is not, however, to be allowed to walk over the field, there being at the moment we write, two other competitors. We know nothing of them, but we earnestly hope that either will succeed in preference to Mr. Alderman Salomons. The electors of England have done enough to uphold the principles of civil and religious liberty in establishing the eligibility of a Jew; it is time now to think a little of their own Christianity, in refusing to elect one. Without insisting too much upon the fact that the House of Commons is part of a Christian Legislature, it is still true that there are thousands of questions coming before the Parliament every Session-questions connected with the Christian religion, and deeply interesting to the community, in which a Jew could have no sympathy whatever. In so far, therefore, a Jew would be a most unfitting, because he would be a most imperfect, representative of the feelings of his constituents. It would, perhaps, be going too far to say, that no circumstances could arise where a Jew could fairly command the suffrages of a Christian man; but we are at a loss to imagine them. The Legislature has virtually ceased to declare that a Jew is ineligible, just as it is silent as to a Whig or a Tory being ineligible; but the gates of the constitution being open to all classes, we, as individual Christians, would no more vote for a Jew, than a Whig would vote for a Tory, or a Tory for a Whig. And as for Baron Rothschild and Alderman Salomons, the support of either is the less excusable, as they have nothing to recommend them but their enormous wealth.