the profession of the law, as barrister or attorney, or attorney's clerk: he could not be a schoolmaster, or usher at a school. He could not sit as a member of either House of Parliament; nor even exercise the elective franchise, if called upon to take the electors' oath. on either Mr. Grant advocated the removal of these oppressive disabilities in an admirable speech, Arguments embracing nearly every argument which side. was afterwards repeated, again and again, in support of the same cause. He was brilliantly supported, in a maiden speech, by Mr. Macaulay, who already gave promise of his future eminence. In the hands of his opponents, the question of religious liberty now assumed a new aspect. Those who had resisted, to the last, every concession to Catholics, had rarely ventured to justify their exclusion from civil rights, on the ground of their religious faith. They had professed themselves favourable to toleration; and defended a policy of exclusion, on political grounds alone. The Catholics were said to be dangerous to the state,-their numbers, their organisation, their allegiance to a foreign power, the ascendency of their priesthood, their peculiar political doctrines, their past history,-all testified to the political dangers of Catholic emancipation. But nothing of the kind could be alleged against the Jews. They were few in number, being computed at less than 30,000, in the United Kingdom. They were harmless and inactive in their relations to the state; and without any distinctive political character. It was, indeed, difficult to conceive any poli tical objections to their enjoyment of civil privileges, -yet some were found. They were so rich, that, like the nabobs of the last century, they would buy seats in Parliament, an argument, as it was well replied, in favour of a reform in Parliament, rather than against the admission of Jews. If of any value, it applied with equal force to all rich men, whether Jews or Christians. Again, they were of no country, they were strangers in the land, and had no sympathies with its people. Relying upon the spiritual promises of restoration to their own Holy Land, they were not citizens, but sojourners, in any other. But if this were so, would they value the rights of citizenship, which they were denied? Would they desire to serve a country, in which they were aliens? And was it the fact that they were indifferent to any of those interests, by which other men were moved? Were they less earnest in business, less alive to the wars, policy, and finances of the state; less open to the refining influences of art, literature, and society? How did they differ from their Christian fellow-citizens, 'save these bonds'? Political objections to the Jews were, indeed, felt to be untenable; and their claims were therefore resisted on religious grounds. The exclusion of Christian subjects from their civil rights, had formerly been justified because they were not members of the established church. Now that the law had recognised a wider toleration, it was said that the state, its laws and institutions being Christian, the Jews, who denied Christ, could not be suffered to share, with Christians, the government of the state. Espe cially was it urged, that to admit them to Parliament would unchristianise the legislature. 2 Jewish Relief Bill lost on second The House of Commons, which twelve months before had passed the Catholic Relief Bill by vast majorities, permitted Mr. Grant to bring in his bill by a majority of eighteen reading. only; and afterwards refused it a second reading by a majority of sixty-three. The argu- May 17th, ments by which it was opposed were founded 1830. upon a denial of the broad principle of religious liberty; and mainly on that ground were the claims of the Jews for many years resisted. But the history of this long and tedious controversy must be briefly told. To pursue it through its weary annals were a profitless toil. In 1833, Mr. Grant renewed his measure; and succeeded in passing it through the Com- Jewish mons: but the Lords rejected it by a large, majority.3 In the next year, the measure disabilities 1833-4. met a similar fate. The determination of the Lords was clearly not to be shaken; and, for some years, no further attempts were made to press upon them the re-consideration of similar measures. The Jews were, politically, powerless: their race was unpopular, and exposed to strongly-rooted prejudice; and 'Hans. Deb., 2nd Ser., xxiii. 1287. 2 Ibid., xxiv. 785. See also Macaulay's Essays, i. 308; Goldsmid's Civil Disabilities of British Jews, 1830; Blunt's Hist. of the Jews in England; First Report of Criminal Law Commission, 1845, p. 13. Contents, 54; Non-contents, 104. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xvii. 205; xviii. 59; xx. 249. The second reading was lost in the Lords by a majority of 92. Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., xxii. 1372; Ibid., xxiii. 1158, 1349; Ibid., xx.v. 382, 720. their cause, however firmly supported on the ground of religious liberty,—had not been generally espoused by the people, as a popular right. Jews ad mitted to cor porations. But while vainly seeking admission to the legislature, the Jews were relieved from other disabilities. In 1839, by a clause in Lord Denman's Act for amending the laws of evidence all persons were entitled to be sworn in the form most binding on their conscience.' Henceforth the Jews could swear upon the Old Testament the oath of allegiance, and every other oath not containing the words 'on the true faith of a Christian.' These words, however, still excluded them from corporate offices, and from Parliament. In 1841, Mr. Divett succeeded in passing through the Commons a bill for the admission of Jews to corporations: but it was rejected by the Lords. In 1845, however, the Lords, who had rejected this bill, accepted another, to the same effect, from the hands of Lord Lyndhurst.3 Parliament alone was now closed against the Jews. In 1848, efforts to obtain this privilege were renewed without effect. The Lords were still inexorable. Enfranchisement by legislative authority appeared as remote as ever; and attempts were therefore made to bring the claims of Jewish subjects to an issue, in another form. In 1847, Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was 1 1 & 2 Vict. c. 105. 2 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., lvi. 504; lvii. 99; lviii. 1458. 8 & 9 Vict. c. 52; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., lxxviii. 407, 415; First Report of Criminal Law Commission, 1845 (Religious Opinions), 43. Rothschild for the London, returned as one of the members for the city of London. The choice of a Jew to represent Baron such a constituency attested the state of Lionel de public opinion, upon the question in dis- returned pute between the two Houses of Parliament. city of It may be compared to the election of 1847. Mr. O'Connell, twenty years before, by the county of Clare. It gave a more definite and practical character to the controversy. The grievance was no longer theoretical: there now sat below the bar a member legally returned by the wealthiest and most important constituency in the kingdom: yet he looked on as a stranger. None could question his return no law affirmed his incapacity; then how was he excluded? By an oath designed for Roman Catholics, whose disabilities had been removed. He sat there, for four sessions, in expectation of relief from the legislature: but being again disappointed, he resolved to try his rights under the existing law. Accordingly, in 1850, he presented himself, at the table, for the purpose of taking the oaths. Having been allowed, after discussion, to be sworn upon the Old 29th, 30th, Testament, the form most binding upon his conscience, he proceeded to take the oaths. The oaths of allegiance and supremacy were taken in the accustomed form: but from the oath of abjuration he omitted the words 'on the true faith of a Christian,' as not binding on his conscience. He was immediately directed to withdraw; when, after many learned arguments, it was resolved that he was not entitled to sit or vote until he had taken Claims to be sworn, and Aug. 5th, 1850. |