moving the second reading on the 10th of March, the Lord Chancellor in a lucid speech explained the inconsistencies and absurdities of the present system, by reference to the cases of Sir M. Montefiore, Messrs. Salomons, Lousada, Cohen, and Rothschild. Each of these gentlemen were then magistrates, some for several counties, some also were deputy Lieutenants, and all might be elected to the office of High Sheriff. In the city of London they were not only eligible to this latter office, but if they refused to serve, they were liable to a very heavy penalty; yet if they aspired to a dignity which was the ordinary reward of an honourable performance of the sheriff's duty-that of alderman, they were excluded by a clause in the form of declaration required, which, while it added nothing to the obligation of the oath, could only be subscribed by a Christian. Nothing could be more unjust than than thus to impose a responsible and onerous office, and to debar those who discharged it of their just reward, and nothing could be more impolitic or unwise than this exclusion. If the oaths were first tendered and taken, the act of indemnity would protect the alderman who refused to subscribe the declaration, and in some towns this course had been adopted; but in London the Court of Aldermen had required that the declaration should be first subscribed, and had thus exercised a power of exclusion to which they were in no degree entitled. The object of the present measure was to remove these difficulties and hardships, and to assimilate the course to be pursued with respect to the Jews to that already taken in favour of all the Christian sects,

and even in some cases of the Jews themselves. He was most anxious that the Bill should pass; and he drew from the experience of foreign countries, and especially of Prussia, the conclusion that the removal of Jewish disabilities would produce the most happy results.

The Bishop of London said, that he would not oppose the Bill, but he protested against being precluded by forbearance on this occasion from hereafter resisting any attempt to obtain the admission of the Jews to Parliament.

The Marquis of Lansdowne reminded their lordships of the failure of two former measures for the same object as an evidence of the advantage gained by agitating such questions. He trusted that the Bill would be passed unanimously.

Lord Brougham expressed his extreme satisfaction at the introduction of the measure, which he advocated upon principles of justice and toleration.

Lord Campbell hoped that the Bill was to be regarded only as an instalment of that full and complete justice which the Jews deserved to receive.

Lord Colchester intimated his disapproval of any larger measure of relief.

The Bill was read a second time without a division. Having passed through the Upper House, it came down to the Commons, where the second reading was moved by Sir R. Peel on the 17th of July. In introducing the measure on that occasion he explained, that the impediment to the admission of Jews to municipal office existed in consequence of the Act of 1828, repealing the Test and Corporation Acts, and substituting a

declaration instead of the sacramental test as a passport to office. That declaration was, in most cases, to be made subsequently to the admission of the candidate into office; and the passing of the Annual Indemnity Act relieved him afterwards from the necessity of making it at all. But with respect to corporate offices, the declaration substituted in lieu of the sacramental test was to be made either within one month before the party was admitted into office, or at the time of his admission. Doubts, however, existed as to the law upon the point. It had been held by the Court of Queen's Bench that there was nothing in the words of the law which prevented that declaration from being made after the party had entered into office. But on an appeal to a court of error that judgment had been reversed, and the law at present was considered to be that the declaration must be made previous to the admission of the candidate into municipal office. It was, therefore, incumbent on the proper municipal officer to insist that the Jew should make it before his admission. The practice of requiring that previous declaration was not, however, universal. In many corporations - for instance, at Portsmouth, Birmingham, and Southampton-they acted as if the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench were correct, and the consequence was, that in those places there were Jews among the town-councillors. The object of the present Bill was to introduce an uniform practice throughout the country, and to remove the existing obstacles to the admission of Jews into all corporations. At present there was no legal impediment to the admission of Jews

to the magistracy or to the deputy lieutenancy of counties; and many Jews of late years, as, for instance, Mr. Rothschild and Sir M. Montefiore, had been deputy-lieutenants. A Jew might also be the sheriff of a county-nay, more, he was compellable to serve that of fice and of late years his attempts to refuse serving had been resolutely rejected by the Privy Council. A few years ago there was some doubt whether a Jew could be sheriff of a city or town corporate; but Parliament had altered the law, and had expressly admitted the Jews to such shrievalties.

Mr. David Salomons had served the office of Sheriff of London and Middlesex with universal respect and admiration; and when he was elected alderman by his fellow citizens, was excluded from the office because he was called on to make the declaration previously to his admission into it. The statement of that fact alone was a sufficient justification for the introduction of the present Bill. Sir R. Peel then reminded the House, that when in 1828 Lord John Russell brought in a Bill for the repeal of the Test and Corporation Act, he (Sir R. Peel) had suggested a form of declaration to be substituted for the sacramental test previously taken. Every person entering upon office was, within one calendar month before his admission, to sign that declaration. Jew would have had no objection to sign that declaration; but when the Bill went up to the House of Lords words were inserted in it which formed the impediment of which the Jews now complained; for they were called upon "solemnly and sincerely to testify and declare upon the true faith of a Chris

The

government in New Zealand, and the establishment of local self-government by municipal bodies; but they complained that no indication had been given by the Colonial Office of an intention to realize these promises. It was true that Captain Fitzroy had been removed from his office, but it was no satisfaction to the public that he was made the scape-goat, unless they saw the Government bona fide adopting a different course from that hitherto pursued. These arguments were enforced by several members. Mr. Roebuck, in addition, commented in strong terms upon the conduct of the missionaries, upon whom he laid most of the blame of the recent disasters. He alleged that the Colonial Office was under the sway of missionary influence, through Mr. Stephen the Under Secretary, who governed Lord Stanley, being himself governed by the missionaries. Mr. Roebuck's attack upon the latter class of persons was warmly repelled by Sir R. H. Inglis as unjust and unfounded; and the insinuation upon Mr. Stephen, which, however, Mr. Roebuck qualified by a subsequent explanation, called forth emphatic panegyrics upon that gentleman, from Lord John Russell, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Labouchere.

On the part of the Government, the arguments urged by Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Under Secretary Hope, the Attorney General, and other speakers, completely exculpated Lord Stanley from the blame of the late transactions. In answer to the imputation that the Colonial Office had been actuated by a spirit of hostility towards the Company, they referred to the instructions given by Lord Stanley, on the 27th of June, to the suc

cessor of Captain Fitzroy, in which he had stated that the early settlement of the Company's claims was an object of more paramount importance than the opening of questions of strict right, and the carrying on of an unfriendly controversy. With regard to the blame laid on the Government for not providing troops for the defence of the colony, it was denied that Captain Fitzroy had made such requisitions for more troops as he had stated to his Council, and observed that the members of the Government alleged that statement with as much surprise as Mr. C. Buller had. When the colony was first settled, Lord John Russell had determined that 100 men should be the whole amount of force sent out for its protection. Remonstrances were made against that determination, but Lord John persisted in it, and declared that no greater force could be sent out. The next correspondence showed that a vessel of war was sent out to New Zealand with orders to cruise off its coast, and along with it 150 more soldiers. Afterwards Lord Stanley directed the militia of the colony to be enrolled; and the non-enrolment of the militia was an act of Captain Fitzroy, in direct defiance of his orders, and was one of the grounds of his recall. Lord Stanley had since directed a regiment to be sent to New Zealand, and had caused letters to be written to the admiral on the Indian station, requesting him to send an armed steamer to that colony. Moreover in the Australian colonies there was now, and would be in future, a force of 4,000, instead of 2,500 men, which hitherto had been stationed there. The late disturbances were not occasioned by any act of the

Government; they were caused by the dislike of the natives to any regular government, and by Heki's desire to exhibit a warlike spirit in resisting the authority of the Queen. It was not true that Lord Stanley had supported Captain Fitzroy in all his proceedings: on the contrary, Captain Fitzroy had been recalled on account of Lord Stanley's dissatisfaction with his financial policy, his neglect to embody the militia, and his hasty legislation. The promises which had been held out by Sir Robert Peel with respect to the establishment of a representative government in New Zealand had not been departed from; Sir Robert Peel had spoken with reference to a future period: such institutions would not be practicable in the present condition of the colony. It was indispensable that the treaty of Waitangi should be adhered to. If it were meant that the Government should do its best to put the Company in possession of the land at the earliest possible period, by legitimate means, there was no question between the two parties; but Government would not be justified in guaranteeing to the Company certain amounts of land without reference to the title of the natives. The original impolicy was in the instructions given by Lord Normanby to Captain Hobson, in 1839, acknowledging New Zealand as "a sovereign independent state." But however unwise such pledges might be, they must now be maintained on the ground of expediency, as well as of good faith.

Upon a division, Mr. Buller's motion was negatived by 155 to 89; majority, 66.

A few nights afterwards, on the vote being proposed, in a com

mittee of supply, of 22,5657. for New Zealand, Mr. J. A. Smith stated that negotiations had been resumed between the Colonial Office and the New Zealand Company, and that the result only wanted the final approval of Lord Stanley, who was unavoidably absent from town; but he asked, if the hope of a favourable issue were not realized, whether Sir Robert Peel would afford another

66

opportunity, before the close of the session, for some remarks on the present state of New Zealand? Sir Robert Peel promised to do so, but expressed a strong desirea very strong desire"-to co-operate in the colonization of New Zealand, and to bring the differences with the Company to a conclusion. Mr. Hope stated, that a gentleman quite unconnected with the subject had been called in to give his advice, and he was now engaged in arranging the matter for his full consideration.

A question of vital interest, in connexion with our foreign relations, was stirred in both Houses of Parliament shortly before the Easter recess our controversy with the United States as to the territory of the Oregon. The inaugural address of the new President, Mr. Polk, which reached England at this time, contained a passage which created strong apprehensions in the public mind of an intended encroachment upon our rights in that direction.

On the 4th of April, Lord Clarendon, in the House of Lords, introduced the subject, with a view to elicit from the Government some information as to our relations with the United States upon this question, and the course it was intended to pursue in case Congress, acting upon the