Page images
PDF
EPUB

we

Dissenters and Roman Catholics. mission of a small number of a He was aware, he said, that in mak- sect who had no desire to attack ing the proposal he laboured under our faith or to make their own this disadvantage, that the Jews religion prevail. There was no were few in number, held no ground of objection but prejudice, threatening meetings, and wielded and the plea that we were a Chrispo political influence. He had tian nation and that this was a nothing to rely upon but the truth, Christian Legislature. But the justice, and the charity, of his should remain so in spite of the proposal; but if the principle of adınission into that House of a religious liberty adopted by Par- few Jews, and he asked them, thereliament enforced these claims, the fore, to do away with the remainarguments of reason and justice ing disqualifications which attached should suffice without extrinsic to a class of British subjects upon aid. He argued that legislative dis- whose loyalty they relied, and of abilities had never been grounded whose co-operation they would be on a difference of religious faith, glad, and to remove them on the and showed that the words “on grounds of truth and justice alone. the true faith of a Christian " had The motion was opposed, and been introduced in the reign of after a debate containing little James I., immediately after the that was novel or interesting, but gunpowder plot, for the purpose of in which Sir R. Inglis, Sir R. excluding certain Roman Catholics Peel, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Wigram not true to the Crown. Mr. Baron spoke against the proposal, and Alderson, on the trial of Mr. Lord Monck, Mr. W. D. Seymour, Salomons, held the same view, and Mr. O'Connell, and Lord Druminferred that the oath could not lanrig (who had formerly opposed properly be called a test of Chris. the measure) in its favour, the tianity. The question was, whether motion was carried by 234 to 205. men were to be disqualified on The House then went into Comaccount of religious faith or not; mittee, and the following resolution whether, because a man believed was passed, " That it is expedient in the Old Testament and not in to remove all the civil disabilities the New, he was to be deprived at present existing, affecting her of political power and civil privi- Majesty's subjects of the Jewish leges. An error in faith, he con- persuasion in like manner and tended, was no ground for debarring with the exceptions as are provided men from serving the Crown and with reference to Her Majesty's sitting in Parliament. It was said subjects professing the Roman that the Jews were a separate na Catholic religion," and a Bill ortion; but they were not aliens, dered to be brought in. Upon and therefore were British subjects the motion for the second reading by force of the proposition. Then, of this Bill on the 11th of March, it was alleged that they were Sir F. Thesiger moved that it be meant to be divided from all other read a second time that day six nations; but it was not for us to months. The debate which encarry out the decrees of the Al. sued, elicited no new arguments mighty. Danger to our institutions on either side, and was listened had been suggested; but it could to by the House with great imnot be incurred through the ad- patience. Sir F. Thesiger, after

stating that he had no new argu- race, and dwelt with force upon ments, proceeded to employ very the general grounds for his beclearly and forcibly the old ones. lief that their admission into ParHe reviewed Lord John Russell's liament would be the violation previous arguments, and combated of a sacred right. He warned them one by one. He especially them that if they took that step denied that the Jews were excluded they could not stop there, but must from Parliament by the accidental be prepared to throw open Parliainsertion of certain words into the ment to men of all religions, and to oath, because up to the time in men of no religion at all. The question the Jew had never been latter declaration was hailed with considered as having the rights loud cheers, which Sir Frederick even of citizenship. The words in said he understood as giving him question might be obsolete, but an additional reason for maintainthey were a protection, and as such ing his ground. he would maintain them. As for He was supported by Lord the equality claimed by Lord John Graham, Mr. H. Drummond, Lord Russell for every person in the Adolphus Vane, Mr. Henley, and country, a proper distinction had Mr. Newdegate. The motion was not been drawn between civil and opposed by Mr. B. Osborne, Mr. political rights. Everybody had Ball, Mr. S. Herbert, and Lord J. civil rights, but political rights Russell. Upon a division the required particular qualifications, second reading was carried by 263 and the Jews were among those against 212. who did not possess them. Jews On the 14th of March, the House might hold various civil offices, went into Committee upon the but there was a great difference Bill, and the various clauses were between making a Jew even a agreed to without opposition. Almagistrate, and making him a le- though many complaints were made gislator; because a legislator was

of the haste with which the measuperior to all law, and was re sure was urged forward, Lord John sponsible to nobody for his acts. Russell refused to postpone the Taking another view of the ques- third reading until after Easter, tion, he described the Jews as an and it was moved on the 15th of isolated race, having no sympathies April. Mr. Cumming Bruce then with any nation among whom they proposed that the Bill be read a might reside ; and ambitious only of third time that day six months. a final return to the land of their The debate which followed, alfathers. A more practical objection though it included some animated which he urged was the incompati- speeches, was distinguished by few bility of the due observance of the novelties, the subject being exJewish faith with the performance hausted. The Bill was supported of the legislatorial duties; and he by Mr. Kirk, Mr. Serjeant Murasked particularly whether the phy, the Solicitor-General, Mr. House was prepared to follow up Bright, Mr. Fitzroy, and Lord the measure with another, exempt- John Russell ; opposed by Mr. ing Jewish members from particular Whiteside, Mr. Child, Mr. Goulduties. Arriving at last at the burn, Mr. Ross Moore, Mr. Wal. religious view of the question, he pole, and Sir Robert Peel. touched upon the history of the Mr. Whiteside, pursuing an old

argument, suggested that the mem- Jews are too insignificant to extort ber they were seeking to admit it like the Roman Catholics. “I might to-morrow be prosecuted for have seen symptoms, even in the calling Christ an impostor. This present year, of conversions upon strain was afterwards followed up this question. I saw with great with a somewhat wild and broken pleasure, that in the last vote eloquence by Sir Robert Peel, who which took place, a noble Lord, attacked the family of the Roths. the son of a late Prime Minister, childs as having done more than added the weight, not only of his any other in the world to gag distinguished name, but of his high liberty. He asserted, that Mr. talents, in favour of this question. Osborne would not have been re- I augur from that circumstance, turned for Middlesex, but for the that the question is making proexertions of this Mr. Rothschild,” gress.” and hinted, that after the great On a division, the third reading city had confided its political rights was carried by 288 to 230. to a wealthy few, “a Goliath in In the House of Lords, the Gath" constituencies might be pur- second reading of the Bill was chased on Hebrew account. Mr. moved on the 29th of April, by Fitzroy indignantly asked whether the Earl of Aberdeen, who opened this personal attack was decent, the debate with a complete resumé either in regard to Mr. Rothschild, of the arguments on which the or the constituency that elected measure rested.

He explained him. Mr. Bright exhorted Lord the reasons which had induced him John Russell to resolve upon some time back to change his carrying the measure through the opinion with regard to this meaHouse of Lords. This he might sure. That opinion was founded do by either of two courses—by on a remnant of that prejudice a creation of Peers, which Mr. against the Jewish race, which at Bright did not recommend, or by one time prevailed so strongly all treating a defeat in the House of over Europe, and had arisen from Lords as he would a defeat in the the obloquy under which they had House of Commons. Lord John long lain for a crime of inconceirRussell declined to accept this ad- able magnitude. It had been vice. A cabinet must judge for thought, indeed, by those who peritself of the principles on which it secuted the race, that they were would stake its existence. Mr. doing God good service; but when Bright had forced him to the con we recollected that vengeance was fession, that there is no overwhelm- not ours, we ought to mitigate our ing feeling in the country in favour resentment. This country had, at of the measure. But in its favour least in recent times, proclaimed they had—repeated majorities in absolute freedom from religious that House; conformity with the persecution. The unchristian laws general policy of the country, which once oppressed our Roman which is opposed to religious re Catholic fellow-subjects, were used strictions; and the probability that to test, not their religious, but the sense of justice would convert their political belief. The Jew was those who have used the argument the only man who, at the present that there is no political necessity time, was proscribed on account of for the concession, because the his religion. Lord Aberdeen stated,

that it was at the beginning of the the spirit of our religion. The last year, before Lord Derby bad Bishop of St. David's stated many acceded to the Government, that facts, showing that the Jews do not he changed his opinion, and be maintain opinions or feelings anthen communicated to Mr. Glad- tagonistic to Christians, whose stone and the Duke of Newcastle mission against the Pagan they his intention of supporting the regard as divine, and to whose - removal of the Jewish disabilities churches they subscribe money. on the next occasion the question Lord Brougham exposed the illocame before their Lordships. gical mode of excluding the Jews

The debate which followed was by the indirect effect of the oath. for the most part calm and without After some remarks by the Duke povelty. The Earl of Shaftesbury, of Argyll and Lord Colchester, the in a speech characterised by much second reading was negatived upon moderation of tone, went through division by 164 to 115, and the the standing arguments against Bill was therefore lost. the Bill, and moved that it be On the 7th of April, the Earl read a second time that day six of Aberdeen in the House of Lords, months. On the same side the announced the birth of a Prince, Earl of Darnley, in a maiden and moved an address of congratuspeech, deprecated the first open lation to her Majesty. The Earl abdicature of Christianity by that of Malmesbury, in the absence of House. The Bishop of Salisbury Lord Derby, expressed his satisfacand the Earl of Winchilsea urged tion at the auspicious event, and a Christian Legislature not to seconded the motion, which was, admit those who deny the Saviour. of course, carried unanimously. The Earl of Harrowby also spoke On the same day, a similar address, against the Bill. The speakers in moved by Lord John Russell and support of the measure were the seconded by Mr. Disraeli, was carEarl of Albemarle, who said that ried in the House of Commons. 200 years ago Cromwell sought to Shortly after the re-assembling relieve the Jews from a portion of of the House of Commons on the their civil disabilities, but failed. 4th of April, Lord John Russell Exactly 100 years had elapsed made his promised statement of since à Bill removing their dis- the intentions and views of Go. abilities became law; but so power- vernment on the subject of naful was the opposition raised out of tional education. He commenced doors, that it was repealed the same by stating what has been done year. Prejudice, and not argu- with respect to education for the ment, had excluded the Jews then, poorer classes since public day and prejudice still tried to keep schools were established. He then them out of the House of Com- examined the voluntary and secu

The Archbishop of Dublin lar systems, and decided against advocated the relief of electors and each. He next proceeded to give the right of a constituency to ap- an outline of the Government point its own representative; if measures, which embraced an expassed, the Bill would prove a tension of the present system, a triumph to, rather than over, Chris- plan for dealing with educational tianity, inasmuch as the retaining charities, and an outline of unithese disabilities was contrary to versity reform. He said that early

in the present century, Joseph suasions should be educated, with Lancaster and Dr. Bell were in a chaplain to instruct those who strumental in establishing day belonged to the Church of Eng schools for the education of the land. This proposal excited great poor. The system of Lancaster alarm, and was withdrawn by the was adopted by a society called Government, after much threatened the British and Foreign School opposition; the proposal for the Society, established in 1805, libe- Committee of Council, however, rally patronised by George III., was carried in the House of Comand promoted by the late Duke of mons by a narrow majority. In Bedford, Lord Brougham, Sir 1846, and partly before, the system Samuel Romilly, and others. But of training-schools was introduced, it was objected on the part of the under which numbers were eduEstablished Church, that although cated specially and properly for the Bible was read in these day filling the office of schoolmaster. schools, the formularies of the Since 1844 the outlay on these Church of England were not schools bas been 353,4021.; and taught; and in 1811 the National the grants 137,6231. In 1852 the Society was formed, in order to total expended was 130,1031., and give instruction in the catechism the number of schools 40. Quoting as well as the Bible, making it a a return he had just received from rule that the scholars should at- the Registrar-General, he showed tend the Established Church on the amount and character of educaSundays. Hence arose a hot con

tion generally: troversy, the effects of which we "It comprises the public and feel to this day, as to the prin- private day schools, and contains ciples on which these schools the number of both sexes belongshould be conducted; and it be- ing to the schools, and the number came difficult, if not impossible, attending on the 31st of March, to unite the working classes in 1851. The total number of day one general system of education. schools is stated at 44,898 : public Under these systems, however, day schools 15,473, private day schools spread all over the coun schools 29,425. The total numtry. In 1831 or 1832, for the ber of both sexes attending the first time, Lord Grey proposed day schools is 2,108,473. Those that 10,0001. a year should be who attend the public day schools given to each society, and distri- amount to 1,407,569, and those buted in proportion to the local who attend the private day schools contributions, taking no note or to 700,904. The number attendregard of the kind of education ing the schools on the 31st March, given. In 1839, Lord Melbourne's 1851, when the last census was Government proposed a change, taken, including both sexes, was which was based on a letter written 1,754,976; of which there were at by Lord John Russell, then Home the public day schools, 1,115,237, Secretary, to Lord Lansdowne. and at the private day schools, It was then that a Committee of 639,739. It is stated in this table Council was proposed, and also that the proportion of scholars on the establishment of one large the books is 11.76, or one scholar normal or traiving school, in which to 84 persons. The proportion of persons of different religious per- scholars in attendance to those on

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »