Dissenters and Roman Catholics. He was aware, he said, that in making the proposal he laboured under this disadvantage, that the Jews were few in number, held no threatening meetings, and wielded no political influence. He had nothing to rely upon but the truth, the justice, and the charity, of his proposal; but if the principle of religious liberty adopted by Parliament enforced these claims, the arguments of reason and justice should suffice without extrinsic aid. He argued that legislative disabilities had never been grounded on a difference of religious faith, and showed that the words on the true faith of a Christian" had been introduced in the reign of James I., immediately after the gunpowder plot, for the purpose of excluding certain Roman Catholics not true to the Crown. Mr. Baron Alderson, on the trial of Mr. Salomons, held the same view, and inferred that the oath could not properly be called a test of Christianity. The question was, whether men were to be disqualified on account of religious faith or not; whether, because a man believed in the Old Testament and not in the New, he was to be deprived of political power and civil privileges. An error in faith, he contended, was no ground for debarring men from serving the Crown and sitting in Parliament. It was said that the Jews were a separate nation; but they were not aliens, and therefore were British subjects by force of the proposition. Then, it was alleged that they were meant to be divided from all other nations; but it was not for us to carry out the decrees of the Almighty. Danger to our institutions had been suggested; but it could not be incurred through the ad

mission of a small number of a sect who had no desire to attack our faith or to make their own religion prevail. There was no ground of objection but prejudice, and the plea that we were a Christian nation and that this was a Christian Legislature. But we should remain so in spite of the admission into that House of a few Jews, and he asked them, therefore, to do away with the remaining disqualifications which attached to a class of British subjects upon whose loyalty they relied, and of whose co operation they would be glad, and to remove them on the grounds of truth and justice alone.

The motion was opposed, and after a debate containing little that was novel or interesting, but in which Sir R. Inglis, Sir R. Peel, Mr. Napier, and Mr. Wigram spoke against the proposal, and Lord Monck, Mr. W. D. Seymour, Mr. O'Connell, and Lord Drumlanrig (who had formerly opposed the measure) in its favour, the motion was carried by 234 to 205. The House then went into Committee, and the following resolution was passed, "That it is expedient to remove all the civil disabilities at present existing, affecting her Majesty's subjects of the Jewish persuasion in like manner and with the exceptions as are provided with reference to Her Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion," and a Bill ordered to be brought in. the motion for the second reading of this Bill on the 11th of March, Sir F. Thesiger moved that it be read a second time that day six months. The debate which ensued, elicited no new arguments on either side, and was listened to by the House with great impatience. Sir F. Thesiger, after

Upon

stating that he had no new arguments, proceeded to employ very clearly and forcibly the old ones. He reviewed Lord John Russell's previous arguments, and combated them one by one. He especially denied that the Jews were excluded from Parliament by the accidental insertion of certain words into the oath, because up to the time in question the Jew had never been considered as having the rights even of citizenship. The words in question might be obsolete, but they were a protection, and as such he would maintain them. As for the equality claimed by Lord John Russell for every person in the country, a proper distinction had not been drawn between civil and political rights. Everybody had civil rights, but political rights required particular qualifications, and the Jews were among those who did not possess them. Jews might hold various civil offices, but there was a great difference between making a Jew even a magistrate, and making him a legislator; because a legislator was superior to all law, and was sponsible to nobody for his acts. Taking another view of the question, he described the Jews as an isolated race, having no sympathies with any nation among whom they might reside; and ambitious only of a final return to the land of their fathers. A more practical objection which he urged was the incompatibility of the due observance of the Jewish faith with the performance of the legislatorial duties; and he asked particularly whether the House was prepared to follow up the measure with another, exempting Jewish members from particular duties. Arriving at last at the religious view of the question, he touched upon the history of the

re

race, and dwelt with force upon the general grounds for his belief that their admission into Parliament would be the violation of a sacred right. He warned them that if they took that step they could not stop there, but must be prepared to throw open Parliament to men of all religions, and to men of no religion at all. The latter declaration was hailed with loud cheers, which Sir Frederick said he understood as giving him an additional reason for maintaining his ground.

He was supported by Lord Graham, Mr. H. Drummond, Lord Adolphus Vane, Mr. Henley, and Mr. Newdegate. The motion was opposed by Mr. B. Osborne, Mr. Ball, Mr. S. Herbert, and Lord J. Russell. Upon a division the second reading was carried by 263 against 212.

On the 14th of March, the House went into Committee upon the Bill, and the various clauses were agreed to without opposition. Although many complaints were made of the haste with which the measure was urged forward, Lord John Russell refused to postpone the third reading until after Easter, and it was moved on the 15th of April. Mr. Cumming Bruce then proposed that the Bill be read a third time that day six months. The debate which followed, although it included some animated speeches, was distinguished by few novelties, the subject being exhausted. The Bill was supported by Mr. Kirk, Mr. Serjeant Murphy, the Solicitor-General, Mr. Bright, Mr. Fitzroy, and Lord John Russell; opposed by Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Child, Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Ross Moore, Mr. Walpole, and Sir Robert Peel.

Mr. Whiteside, pursuing an old

argument, suggested that the member they were seeking to admit might to-morrow be prosecuted for calling Christ an impostor. This strain was afterwards followed up with a somewhat wild and broken eloquence by Sir Robert Peel, who attacked the family of the Rothschilds as having done more than any other in the world to gag liberty. He asserted, that Mr. Osborne would not have been returned for Middlesex, but for the exertions of "this Mr. Rothschild," and hinted, that after the great city had confided its political rights to a wealthy few, "a Goliath in Gath" constituencies might be purchased on Hebrew account. Mr. Fitzroy indignantly asked whether this personal attack was decent, either in regard to Mr. Rothschild, or the constituency that elected him. Mr. Bright exhorted Lord John Russell to resolve upon carrying the measure through the House of Lords. This he might do by either of two courses-by a creation of Peers, which Mr. Bright did not recommend, or by treating a defeat in the House of Lords as he would a defeat in the House of Commons. Lord John Russell declined to accept this advice. A cabinet must judge for itself of the principles on which it would stake its existence. Mr. Bright had forced him to the confession, that there is no overwhelming feeling in the country in favour of the measure. But in its favour they had-repeated majorities in that House; conformity with the general policy of the country, which is opposed to religious restrictions; and the probability that the sense of justice would convert those who have used the argument that there is no political necessity for the concession, because the

Jews are too insignificant to extort it like the Roman Catholics. "I have seen symptoms, even in the present year, of conversions upon this question. I saw with great pleasure, that in the last vote which took place, a noble Lord, the son of a late Prime Minister, added the weight, not only of his distinguished name, but of his high talents, in favour of this question. I augur from that circumstance, that the question is making progress."

On a division, the third reading was carried by 288 to 230.

In the House of Lords, the second reading of the Bill was moved on the 29th of April, by the Earl of Aberdeen, who opened the debate with a complete resumé of the arguments on which the measure rested. He explained the reasons which had induced him some time back to change his opinion with regard to this measure. That opinion was founded on a remnant of that prejudice against the Jewish race, which at one time prevailed so strongly all over Europe, and had arisen from the obloquy under which they had long lain for a crime of inconceivable magnitude. thought, indeed, by those who persecuted the race, that they were doing God good service; but when we recollected that vengeance was not ours, we ought to mitigate our resentment. This country had, at least in recent times, proclaimed absolute freedom from religious persecution. The unchristian laws which once oppressed our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, were used to test, not their religious, but their political belief. The Jew was the only man who, at the present time, was proscribed on account of his religion. Lord Aberdeen stated,

It had been

that it was at the beginning of the last year, before Lord Derby had acceded to the Government, that he changed his opinion, and he then communicated to Mr. Gladstone and the Duke of Newcastle his intention of supporting the - removal of the Jewish disabilities on the next occasion the question came before their Lordships.

The debate which followed was for the most part calm and without novelty. The Earl of Shaftesbury, in a speech characterised by much moderation of tone, went through the standing arguments against the Bill, and moved that it be read a second time that day six months. On the same side the Earl of Darnley, in a maiden speech, deprecated the first open abdicature of Christianity by that House. The Bishop of Salisbury and the Earl of Winchilsea urged a Christian Legislature not to admit those who deny the Saviour. The Earl of Harrowby also spoke against the Bill. The speakers in support of the measure were the Earl of Albemarle, who said that 200 years ago Cromwell sought to relieve the Jews from a portion of their civil disabilities, but failed. Exactly 100 years had elapsed since a Bill removing their disabilities became law; but so powerful was the opposition raised out of doors, that it was repealed the same year. Prejudice, and not argument, had excluded the Jews then, and prejudice still tried to keep them out of the House of Com

The Archbishop of Dublin advocated the relief of electors and the right of a constituency to appoint its own representative; if passed, the Bill would prove a triumph to, rather than over, Christianity, inasmuch as the retaining these disabilities was contrary to

The

the spirit of our religion. Bishop of St. David's stated many facts, showing that the Jews do not maintain opinions or feelings antagonistic to Christians, whose mission against the Pagan they regard as divine, and to whose churches they subscribe money. Lord Brougham exposed the illogical mode of excluding the Jews by the indirect effect of the oath. After some remarks by the Duke of Argyll and Lord Colchester, the second reading was negatived upon division by 164 to 115, and the Bill was therefore lost.

On the 7th of April, the Earl of Aberdeen in the House of Lords, announced the birth of a Prince, and moved an address of congratulation to her Majesty. The Earl of Malmesbury, in the absence of Lord Derby, expressed his satisfaction at the auspicious event, and seconded the motion, which was, of course, carried unanimously. On the same day, a similar address, moved by Lord John Russell and seconded by Mr. Disraeli, was carried in the House of Commons.

Shortly after the re-assembling of the House of Commons on the 4th of April, Lord John Russell made his promised statement of the intentions and views of Government on the subject of national education. He commenced by stating what has been done with respect to education for the poorer classes since public day schools were established. He then examined the voluntary and secular systems, and decided against each. He next proceeded to give an outline of the Government measures, which embraced an extension of the present system, a plan for dealing with educational charities, and an outline of university reform. He said that early

in the present century, Joseph Lancaster and Dr. Bell were instrumental in establishing day schools for the education of the poor. The system of Lancaster was adopted by a society called the British and Foreign School Society, established in 1805, liberally patronised by George III., and promoted by the late Duke of Bedford, Lord Brougham, Sir Samuel Romilly, and others. But it was objected on the part of the Established Church, that although the Bible was read in these day schools, the formularies of the Church of England were not taught; and in 1811 the National Society was formed, in order to give instruction in the catechism as well as the Bible, making it a rule that the scholars should attend the Established Church on Sundays. Hence arose a hot controversy, the effects of which we feel to this day, as to the principles on which these schools should be conducted; and it became difficult, if not impossible, to unite the working classes in one general system of education. Under these systems, however, schools spread all over the country. In 1831 or 1832, for the first time, Lord Grey proposed that 10,000l. a year should be given to each society, and distributed in proportion to the local contributions, taking no note or regard of the kind of education given. In 1839, Lord Melbourne's Government proposed a change, which was based on a letter written by Lord John Russell, then Home Secretary, to Lord Lansdowne. It was then that a Committee of Council was proposed, and also the establishment of one large normal or training school, in which persons of different religious per

suasions should be educated, with a chaplain to instruct those who belonged to the Church of Eng land. This proposal excited great alarm, and was withdrawn by the Government, after much threatened opposition; the proposal for the Committee of Council, however, was carried in the House of Commons by a narrow majority. In 1846, and partly before, the system of training-schools was introduced, under which numbers were educated specially and properly for filling the office of schoolmaster. Since 1844 the outlay on these schools has been 353,4027.; and the grants 137,6237. In 1852 the total expended was 130,1037., and the number of schools 40. Quoting a return he had just received from the Registrar-General, he showed the amount and character of education generally.

"It comprises the public and private day schools, and contains the number of both sexes belonging to the schools, and the number attending on the 31st of March, 1851. The total number of day schools is stated at 44,898: public day schools 15,473, private day schools 29,425. The total number of both sexes attending the day schools is 2,108,473. Those who attend the public day schools amount to 1,407,569, and those who attend the private day schools to 700,904. The number attending the schools on the 31st March, 1851, when the last census was taken, including both sexes, was 1,754,976; of which there were at the public day schools. 1,115,237, and at the private day schools, 639,739. It is stated in this table that the proportion of scholars on the books is 11.76, or one scholar to 8 persons. The proportion of scholars in attendance to those on