clause repealing the guarantee; conduct which showed that they had not matured their measure, and that they could not refuse to recognise the guarantee of 1840. After the declaration of the Duke of Newcastle, that the effect of that omission would be to continue the guarantee, Lord Derby heard with astonishment that the law-officers of the Crown were of opinion the guarantee would not be worth anything whatever. It was subversive of all confidence in the statements of public men, first to tell the colonists that the measure left the guarantee unimpaired, and then that by some legal construction the provisions of the Bill fell to the ground the moment the Canadian Legislature should exercise the power given to them. He defied the Government to vindicate that transaction. It was their imperative duty to see the guarantee maintained in its integrity, and not by shuffling evasions to enable themselves to frustrate the guarantee. He maintained that the provision for existing interests is inconsistent with the argument that it is their duty to give uncontrolled power to the Colonial Legislature. He would rather the Bill passed without any reservation, because, by it they sanction the principle laid down by the Legislature that the rights belonged to "individuals and not to the "body of communicants or churchmen," and that, provided existing interests were maintained, they might deal with any property whatever.

The Duke of Newcastle said he would not follow the example of Lord Derby, who, in a speech an hour and a half long, which ought to have been delivered on Friday last, had dwelt on the principle of the Bill now in Committee.

The noble Earl was a great tactician as well as a great orator; whether or not such tactics as he had used were appropriate in discussing a Bill of this kind, in order to obtain a chance majority on a measure which he did not venture to divide against on the second reading. They were told the Bill was sacrilege, and a gross infraction of the rights of property; and yet the "Conservative party" were so conservative of the rights of the Church of England that they would not divide against the second reading of a measure so described. Lord Derby was not only a great tactician, but a great artist; for he had concealed the vicious principle of the amendment, which was liable to the same objections as those he had urged against the Bill. He, the Conservative" leader, the leader of the landed aristocracy of England, came before them that night, and called on the House to give that respect and stability to money revenue which he denied to land. It was a novel doctrine from any one, and more especially from a Conservative leader, to say that he wished, if the Bill should pass, the reservation of existing interests should be omitted. But had they no precedent for the course pursued by Government? When Lord Derby abolished ten Irish bishoprics, he saved the rights of the then existing bishops. As to the guarantee, that would stand on the same ground after the Bill had passed as it does at the present moment. It was said the amendment was just and moderate; and it was so in the sense of "splitting the difference "-saying, "We will give over to you one-half of that which you claim for your right, and retain for ourselves the other half." Lord Derby thought the Govern

ment had shown great vacillation and infirmity of purpose; but what was the purpose of the noble Earl? He stated he was willing to forego the principle of the Bill on condition that their Lordships assented to an amendment by which onehalf of the Bill was conceded and the other half rejected. It would have been far better that the Bill should have been rejected on the second reading. But Lord Derby would never take warning. Why did the Act of 1840 fail? Was it because the arrangement it sanctioned was unjust-No; but because it was made by the Imperial Parliament, without the consent of the Parliament of Canada.

The amendment was supported by the Earl of Wicklow and the Earl of Desart, and opposed by the Duke of Argyll.

The Bishop of London said it was contended that the colonial Legislature have an inherent right to discuss and decide on all matters relating to their internal affairs; but if they have that power, where is the necessity for this Bill? If they have not that power, the House should hesitate to grant it.

Earl Grey argumentatively showed, that if it is " sacrilege" to sacrifice one part of the reserves, it is equally sacrilegious to sacrifice the rest.

Lord St. Leonards followed, and argued in favour of the Earl of Derby's compromise.

The Bishop of Oxford pointed out the obvious inconsistency between the speech of Lord St. Leonards and the one he delivered on Friday last; and proceeded with a grave argument in a bantering

form.

Leonards had intended to illustrate exactly this, that their Lordships are going to be parties with the Canadian Legislature in pillaging a third party; and because they only take half of the purse, they absolve themselves from the guilt? That was a difficulty altogether inevitable in the position taken up by Lord Derby. The bishop denied that the reserves stand upon the same footing as the property of the Church of England and Ireland. The reserves were granted by Parliament to be administered for the province of Canada. The property of the Church of England was granted to specific parishes, for the purpose of providing the inhabitants with religious instruction; and it stands on the footing of private property. See what a difference there is in these cases! Equity dictates that the Canadians should manage their own affairs; and it amounts to atheism to represent equity and religion as opposed to each other.'

The Committee divided, when the second reading was carried by 117 to 77. The clauses of the Bill were then agreed to.

No opposition was offered to the third reading on the 28th of April. In reply to a question from the Earl of Wicklow, the Duke of Newcastle repeated what he had previously said, that the guarantee clause will continue on its present footing. Should the fund from which the existing incumbents are paid prove deficient, the guarantee will be valid to that extent, but should the fund be secularised, then, according to the Crown lawyers, the guarantee would fall of itself to the ground, the condition on which it was given being removed.

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 responsible 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

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