rights of a citizen. A Jew could not hold any office, civil, military, or corporate. He could not follow 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. Mr. Grant advocated the removal of these oppressive disArguments on abilities in an admirable speech, embracing nearly either side. every argument which 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 favorable 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 organization, 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 political 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 favor 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 coun 66 try; they were strangers in the land, and had no sympathies with its people. Relying upon the scriptural 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 recognized 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. Especially was it urged, that to admit them to Parliament would unchristianize the legislature. Bill lost on The House of Commons, which twelve months before had passed the Catholic Relief Bill by vast majorities, Jewish Relief permitted Mr. Grant to bring in his bill by a ma- second read jority of eighteen only; and afterwards refused ing. it a second reading by a majority of sixty-three. The arguments by which it was opposed were founded up- May 17th, on 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 1 Hans. Deb., 2d Ser., xxiii. 1287. 1830. 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. tedious controversy must be briefly told. through its weary annals were a profitless toil. Jewish dis 1833-34. - To pursue it In 1833, Mr. Grant renewed his measure, and succeeded in passing it through the Commons; but the Lords abilities bills, rejected it by a large majority.1 In the next year, the measure 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 reconsideration of similar measures. The Jews were, politically, powerless: their race was unpopular, and exposed to strongly rooted prejudice; and their cause, however firmly supported on the ground of religious liberty, had not been generally espoused by the people, as a popular right. 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. 1845, however, the Lords, who had rejected this bill, accepted another, to the same effect, from the hands of Lord Lyndhurst.5 Jews admitted to corporations. 66 In Parliament alone was now closed against the Jews. In 1 Contents, 54; Non-contents, 104. Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xvii. 205; xviii. 59; xx. 249. 2 The second reading was lost in the Lords by a majority of 92. Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., xxii. 1372; Ibid., xxiii. 1158, 1349; Ibid., xxiv. 382, 720. 8 1 & 2 Vict. c. 105. 4 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., lvi. 504; lvii. 99; lviii. 1458. 5 8 & 9 Vict. c. 52; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., lxxviii. 407, 415; First Report of Criminal Law Commission, 1845 (Religious Opinions), 43. 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. returned for London, In 1849, Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was returned as one of the members for the city of London. Baron Lionel The choice of a Jew to represent such a constitu- de Rothschild ency attested the state of public opinion, upon the the city of question in dispute between the two Houses of 1849. Parliament. It may be compared to the election of 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 two 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 Claims to table, for the purpose of taking the oaths. ing been allowed, after discussion, to be the form most binding 1850. upon the Old Testament, 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 the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law.1 --- be sworn, Hav- July 26th, sworn and Aug. 5th, 29th, 30th, 1 Commons' Journ., cv. 584, 590, 612; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxiii. 297, 336, 486, 769. Mr. Alder man Salo mons, July 18th, 1851. In 1851, a more resolute effort was made to overcome the obstacle offered by the oath of abjuration. Mr. Alderman Salomons, a Jew, having been returned for the borough of Greenwich, omitted from the oath the words which were the Jews' stumbling-block. Treating these words as immaterial, he took the entire substance of the oath, with the proper solemnities. He was directed to withdraw; but on a later day, while his case was under discussion, he came into the House, and took his seat within the bar, whence he declined to withdraw, until he was removed by the Sergeant-at-Arms. The House agreed to a resolution, in the same form as in the case of Baron de Rothschild. In the mean time, however, he had not only sat in the House, but had voted in three divisions;1 and if the House had done him injustice, there was now an opportunity for obtaining a judicial construction of the statutes by the courts of law. By the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, it was soon placed beyond further doubt, that no authority, short of a statute, was competent to dispense with those words which Mr. Salomons had omitted from the oath of abjuration. There was now no hope for the Jews, but in overcoming Further legis- the steady repugnance of the Lords; and this was lative efforts. vainly attempted, year after year. Recent concessions, however, had greatly strengthened the position of the Jews. When the Christian character of our laws and constitution were again urged as conclusive against their full participation in the rights of British subjects,2 Lord John Russell, and other friends of religious liberty were able to reply:- Let us admit to the fullest extent that our country is Christian, as it is; that our laws are Christian, as 1 Commons' Journ., cvi. 372, 373, 381, 407; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxviii. 979, 1320. 2 See especially the speeches of Mr. Whiteside and Mr. Walpole, April 15th, 1853, on this view of the question.- Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cxxv. 1230, |