That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in the next session of Parliament, take into its serious consideration the form of the oath of abjuration, with a view to relieve Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion.

The noble Lord said but few words in support of his motion, declining to enter at that stage into the well-known arguments often urged by him on the subject. Sir Robert Inglis renewed his former objections to the measure -that Christianity is part of the constitution and law of England, and that Jews are consequently debarred from legislating for the community. He was supported by Mr. Plumptre and Mr. Newdegate; the original motion being advocated by Mr. Wegg Prosser and Mr. M. Gibson. The House went into Committee, and passed a formal resolution: and Lord

John Russell had leave to bring in his Bill founded upon it. The second reading of this measure being moved on the 1st of May, Mr. Newdegate moved the postponement of that stage for six months. He supported his motion by a speech embodying the oftenurged objections to the admission of Jews to Parliament, which he strengthened by reference to the experience of France and the example of Prussia. He said that since the admission of Jews into the Parliament of France, the church of that country had gradually been alienated from the State; the character and constitution of that church, which were eminently national, had been gradually superseded by ultramontane principles, and the clergy were gradually leaning more and more towards Rome. The Cabinet of Prussia had refused to consent to the admission of Jews into Parliament unless they renounced the anti-social and anti-national doctrines of the Talmud, and the Jews had cast back the offer made under that condition.

Lord John Russell stated that he thought the preponderance of argument was against the opinion, supported by the high authority of the late Mr. Charles Wynn, that a Jewish member can take the oath as Baron Rothschild had taken it, omitting the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Deference to the House of Lords was an additional reason with him

for not acting on Mr. Wynn's view. But if the House of Commons acted with such deference to the House of Lords on a question affecting the election of members of the House of Commons only, the House of Lords ought, on the other hand, to consider what is fairly due to the people of the United Kingdom and the privileges of the Commons House of Parliament, and to the general feeling in favour of removing all political and civil disabilities from the Jews on account of their religious belief.

The other speakers in favour of the Bill were Mr. Roebuck, the Solicitor General, and Mr. J. A. Smith. On the other side, Mr. Wigram, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Goulburn, and Colonel Sibthorp opposed the measure. A division taking place, the amendment was negatived, there being

The majority for the Bill being smaller than that of the preceding year, the announcement of the division was greeted with considerable cheering by the Opposition.

Some further debate took place upon the third reading, but no division was called for. Sir Robert Inglis said he regarded the Bill as one of the most unhappy measures ever brought before Parliament, but after the division in favour of the second reading he would not do more than record his strong repugnance to make a sacrifice of the Christian character of the Legislature, which no earthly advantage could compensate.

Lord John Russell defended his measure, and made some reference to the recent election for Greenwich, at which a member of the Jewish community, Mr. Salomons, had just been returned. He also introduced an appeal to the House of Lords, founded on the mutual respect of each House for the privileges of the other. When that other House of Parliament came to consider this Bill, he hoped they would recollect that there had been of late a very great sensitiveness shown with respect to the privileges of the House of Lords. He would not say it was an undue sensitiveness, but, with regard to a Bill now before them (the Court of Chancery Bill), it was known that objection had been taken to a clause of that Bill-not to its substance, for that was right; and not to its object, for that was laudable--but because it I did that which the House of Lords deemed it right to do, and that which it ought to do by itself. He should therefore cease to insist upon that clause; and he should propose to leave the House of Lords to determine, whether by this clause, or by what other means, they could attain the object which the Legislature had in view. But the deference which he was ready to pay to the privileges of the House of Lords when they considered them in danger, he claimed for this House when, for the third time, this House declared its opinion that the Jews ought to have seats in the House. When two bodies of constituents in this country had so acted, he thought it right for the House of Lords to consider whether this was not a matter in which the people might be left to their own choicewhether, after such elections, it

was not due to the representatives of the people, and the great body of the people themselves, to allow them to consult their own wishes on the subject.

Mr. Newdegate thought that, under the circumstances, it was a work of supererogation once more to express his opinion against the Bill. Mr. Plumptre and Mr. Hodgson expressed in strong terms their repugnance to the measure, and referred to the diminished numbers that had supported it on the second reading, Mr. Henley also repeated his protest against the Bill. It was then read a third time and passed.

But the ordeal of danger which this measure had to incur, was in the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor moved the second reading in that House on the 17th of July. The noble and learned Lord reinforced the standing arguments for the Bill with long extracts from Vattel, Dr. Mendelssohn, a Jew, and Robert Hall of Leicester, to establish the natural justice of the claim; he enlarged on the liberal sentiments of the Jews; and the charitable spirit which ought to influence a Christian Legislature. He called upon the Peers of England not "to harden their hearts against the Jews, like Pharaoh."

Earl Nelson opposed the Bill, arguing, that although the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were not introduced into the oath of abjuration purposely to exclude the Jews, still, being there, they had been used for that purpose in two subsequent Acts. He moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months. The measure was supported by several Peers with the usual arguments. Lord Wodehouse, indeed,

objected to the Bill that it was limited to the relief of Jews, instead of abolishing all religious tests in relief of all religious persuasions. The Archbishop of Dublin argued that true Christianity does not meddle with "the things that are Cæsar's," even though Cæsar should be an idolatrous Emperor; and that it was not right to restrict the free choice of Christian electors. The Earl of Carlisle supported the same views. The Earl of Wicklow would not exclude Jews, while Socinians were admitted; and he blamed the Government for having narrowed the scope of their Bill. The Bishop of Norwich considered the spirit of exclusion more injurious than beneficial to Christianity. The Duke of Argyll controverted the arguments of Lord Nelson. The noble Earl said, "If the words were not in the oath I would not wish to insert them, but being there, I am not prepared to strike them out." What was the reason assigned by the noble Earl for his reluctance to strike out the words? Because the act would appear, in the eyes of the people, an abandonment of Christianity. The force of the objection, as far as it went, must be admitted by all; but might not the objection be removed by instructing the people in the historical fact, that the words were not introduced into the oath for the purpose of establishing any principle, and that their omission would involve no abandonment of principle?

The opposition to the Bill was supported at considerable length by the Earl of Shaftesbury, who contended, with much earnestness, that there ought not to be the slightest yielding in the principle incumbent on the British Legis