was a heavy moral loss to the government, impairing in no small degree the confidence which had been placed in them, and sensibly lowering them in public opinion. The proceedings on the committal of the bill, which, as belonging to

a measure that ultimately came to nought, would in themselves have been unworthy of record, yet possess, it is conceived, some interest as striking illustrations of the decline and nearly approaching downfall of the whig administration.

A

QUESTION involving very important principles, though it occasioned but little discussion, and slight interest in the public mind, was raised in this session by a bill introduced by Mr. Divett, one of the members for Exeter, the object of which was to do away with the declaration required by the Municipal Corporations Act from all persons taking corporate offices, by reason of which members of the Jewish persuasion had been debarred from holding civic magistracies. It was opposed on the second reading, by sir R. Inglis, who firmly protested against surrendering that principle of the constitution, by which magistracies had hitherto been confined to persons professing Christianity. He was answered by lord John Russell, who supported the bill, and declared his readiness to go further, and admit Jews to seats in parliament, if they should demand that concession. On a division, the second reading of the bill was carried in a thin house by a majority of 113, only 24 members voting in the minority. Some further discussion on the principle of the bill took place on the third reading. Mr. Gladstone renewed the opposition by rising to move that it be read that day six months.

He was satisfied that it was not possible to draw a line between a bill to admit Jews to municipal offices, and one to permit them to hold other offices, including seats VOL. LXXXIII.

in parliament. He would state his reasons for objecting to the bill. They were these. The Jew's profession was in itself a disqualification for legislative offices in a christian country. Christianity was part and parcel of the law of England. Our laws were modelled on the principles of Christianity. The proceedings in both houses of parliament were commenced by the solemn invocation of the Almighty, and the object set before them was the promotion of true religion and the glory of God. The question, then, really was, would they destroy the distinctive Christianity of the constitution?

The test for

were

office was at present a Christian test, and this the bill went to annul. He did not know whether he was not rendering himself liable to the charge of "sheer intolerance;" but the ground he occupied was precisely the same as if he were discussing a purely civil question. Let him guard himself in speaking of the Jews as a body. Who could doubt there many honest, zealous-minded men amongst them? The stronger, therefore, was the objection to investing them with the privilege of legislating for Christians. There were many Jews, doubtless, who would discharge those duties well, but still it was the duty of the state to choose those who, as a class, were most competent for the duties to which they were appointed. Now, he did not see how it could be held that the Jews

[F]

possessed the necessary qualifications. Mr. Gladstone here called attention to the great number of questions, essentially connected with the highest Christian considerations, which had come before the house during the last ten years. For instance, in England the questions of church-rates, church extension, and national education; in Scotland, the appointment of ministers of the established church; in Ireland such questions were always arising. These were the questions the most difficult to adjust, the most impossible to agree upon, and which most agitated the

country.

If Christianity were a great pervading principle of our law, if most great questions were intimately associated with those principles, then those who rejected Christianity were not competent to enter on those subjects. The proposition was very different from that upon which the claims of the Roman Catholics and Dissenters were founded. With them we had the common bonds of belief in the same Redemption. There were also considerations which broadly distinguished their case from that of the Jews. The one adhered as strongly as ourselves to the text of Christianity, the other did not. The one constituted a large majority in one portion of the united kingdom the others were scarcely perceptible on the face of English society. So much as to numbers, now as to grievances. He was not aware that the Jews had any especial ones to complain of. No allegation of this kind had ever been made. It was to be borne in mind that there were still some offices to which the religious test was strictly applied. To the holder of the crown, to the lord chancellor,

and to certain great offices in Ire. land. In his mind, the constitution would be much better preserved by limiting the power of holding office to Christians, than by admitting Jews. The time might come when the parliament of England would be called upon to exercise functions still more directly ecclesiastical. He admitted that the present house was, to a certain extent, disqualified for discussing such questions as these. He did not complain of this change; the time might come when the admixture of creeds amongst them would be so strange that it would be an insult to public opinion to think of discharging ecclesiastical functions. In introducing these men, therefore, to parliament, and to other high offices, there existed an absolute tendency to disqualify parliament for the performance of any duties connected with religion, and, by easy transitions, to overturn the very principles on which the constitution of this nation is based.

The honourable gentleman concluded by moving that the bill be read that day six months.

Mr. Pringle seconded the motion. He objected to the principle of the bill, as repugnant to the feelings of christians.

Mr. Macaulay said, that, leaving the question of religious toleration in general, he intended to confine himself to the positions advanced by the honourable gentleman opposite. On the ground that the bill relieving the Jews from all political disabilities would render them at some future time eligible to seats in parliament, it had been said that those disabilities should not be removed. This argument was not a fair one. He had listened to the speech of the honourable

member for Newark, and could discover no arguments which could not with great facility be applied to the members of that house. (Cheers.) Who was to decide on points of faith ?-to say which was the true religion? He thought it would be inferred that there was a great deal of false religion in that house. The honourable member had mistaken the object of the bill. It was not to admit Jews into the house. The case of our excluding Roman Catholics from the throne, which had been alluded to, was a different one. Mr. Macaulay here compared the treatment of the Jews with that of Roman Catholics and Dissenters, as being much worse, and if carried out, leading to actual and open persecution. He thought their exclusion from civil offices a practical grievance of which they had a just right to complain. The Roman Catholics amounted to 6 or 7,000,000. It was found impossible to resist the determination of disaffected millions. But it was said the Jews were insignificant in point of numbers-that there was no need to fear a revolution in Petticoat-lane. If they were so insignificant a sect, why refuse to remove their disabilities? He apprehended no danger from it. The Jews were not a proselytising people; and he had seen how little influence certain articles of faith had in binding the ingenuity of certain casuists. He should be glad if those of Oxford would instruct the Jews in some of their ingenuity, and then he had no doubt they would make any declaration required of them. (Cheers.) He did not believe that, after removing the disabilities from the Roman Catholics and Protestant Dissenters, the house would be

guilty of so great an injustice as to refuse the same boon to the portion of her majesty's subjects belonging to the Jewish persua

sion.

Mr. Goulburn opposed the bill. He said that Christianity was part of the law of the land, and there were many cases connected with the duty of corporate magistrates, in which a Jew could not consistently enforce the law. He instanced charges of blasphemy, and the obligations connected with the observance of the Lord's day.

Sir R. H. Inglis followed on the same side. Lord Sandon expressed himself in favour of the bill. After a little more discussion the house divided, when there appeared-For the third reading 108; against it 31-Majority 77.

The bill was then read a third time and passed.

In the House of Lords, however, the measure experienced a different fate. The bishop of Llandaff moved its rejection on the third reading, and was supported by the earl of Winchelsea, the earl of Galloway, and the bishop of London, who protested with much energy against the principle involved in the bill, while he expressed a sincere respect for many individual members of the Jewish body. He knew that many of them were men of unbounded liberality, and of indiscriminate charity, and he would not shrink from pronouncing them worthy of imitation by many of their Christian fellowmen. He knew them, too, to be men of honour and veracity; but let it not be concealed from their lordships, that the leading men of the European Jews were not so much influenced by the religion of Moses as by the visionary doctrines of the Talmud, by which