of Commons. He especially dwelt on the fact, that the exclusion of the Jews was not by virtue of the ancient laws of the kingdom, but was an innovation of recent times; that the very declaration which now operates to their exclusion, "on the true faith of a Christian," was not originally directed against Jews, but against Popish recusants in the reign of James the First; that from the earliest introduction of their faith Christians had repudiated the connection of theology and politics, and that the general eligibility of the Jews for civil offices renders their exclusion from legislative power anomalous and inexpedient.

The Earl of Ellenborough then rose to move" that the Bill be read a second time on that day six months." He took his stand against the Bill on the ground of Christian obligation; and insisted that the Jew was not only a citizen of a distinct nation, but a member of a class having scarcely any social relation with the community. In an agricultural and manufacturing nation the Jew was neither an agriculturist nor a manufacturer. He did not labour, he only bought and sold, at a small profit, the labour of others. There were few rich men among his persuasion, but some very rich. They could not intermarry with the people of this country; and, except among the higher classes, they mixed but little socially with the members of other religious persuasions. They were citizens of the world rather than of any particular country. Though they were not aliens in the sense of owing allegiance to another country, there were no people who could transfer themselves to another country with the same facility as the Jews. Where

ever the Jew went he found his own people; the same religion and the same language were common to them all; and when he removed to another country he found persons of his own nation engaged in transactions similar to his own. Lord Ellenborough quoted from the "Memoirs of Sir Fowell Buxton" the anecdote related by Mr. Rothschild, the founder of the house in London, who said that he first came to England from Frankfort because an English manufacturer had refused to show his patterns, and who boasted of having acted on the most selfish principles: such was the origin of the great house of Rothschild, and of the present Bill.

Lord Ellenborough warned the House against the public danger of acceding to the measure, after the warnings of Providence, in the shape of famine and distress-nations convulsed on every side-the most ancient and powerful dynasties of Europe crushed in one daythe great empire of Austria broken in pieces like a potter's vesselthe disruption of some of the most ancient and important alliances of states-the present age forgetting the history of the past. How could this country hope to escape the contamination of these principles, except by obtaining aid from above; and he trusted that they would not deprive themselves of heavenly aid by giving up the distinction which had hitherto belonged to this country of the exclusively Christian character of its Legislature.

The Duke of Cambridge, professing great personal respect for the Jews, could not consent to admit them into Parliament, so long as the government of the country was to remain a Christian one.

The Duke of Argyle, addressing

the House for the first time in favour of the measure, distinguished himself by a speech of calm and earnest argumentation.

The Earl of Winchilsea, in support of the amendment, treated the subject with much more warmth of language. He declared the Bill to be a greater insult to the honour and glory of God than any which had been brought before the House; he protested against admitting one rich Jew to Parliament in order to reward him for favours rendered to the Minister of the day; and he hoped that none of the Bishops would vote in favour of the Bill, for if it passed, within a year not one of them would have a seat in that House.

The Bishop of St. David's surveyed the subject in an historical and philosophical point of view, reviewing the relations of Christians and Jews doctrinally and socially; he traced the effects of mutual persecutions in still surviving asperities; showed how much they have in common; and maintained the real sin of this country in respect of the Jews was in the old persecutions, not in the recent indulgences.

The Bishop of Oxford entered into the more familiar and popular topics of the controversy. He maintained that the sitting in Parliament was no right, but a trust conferred at the will of the constituents, who had a perfect title to exclude Jews from that trust. He quoted documents, especially "A Manual of Judaism " by Mr. Joshua van Oven, to show that the Jews were really a distinct and alien race, and that the earnest men among them deprecated any social or political connection with other nations, as weaning the affections of the Hebrew people from the true Jerusalem and

Canaan. That people had gone on for 1800 years, receiving a weakened tradition from their half unbelieving fathers; and how could it be expected that a race immersed in the pursuit of gain, with nothing to counteract that passion but a belief in the truth of their religion, would be benefited by an admission into the British Parliament? Abhorring as he did the cruelty with which the forefathers (so called incorrectly) of the Jews were treated, he contended that that cruelty was based upon truth, and was kinder than the false humanity which would teach this people that the revelation made to them was either a false or an immaterial one.

He must remark, that every Jew who was now in England had come to England (or his immediate ancestors had done so) within the last two hundred years; and they had come on the condition that they should have shelter and kindness, but not political privileges.

No doubt there might have been in certain cases certain advantages derivable from the election of Jewish representatives. Far be it from him, however, to say that he knew any such instance. He professed to have no knowledge of those "secrets of the prison-house." He repeated, that though he knew nothing about the secrets of the late election for the city of London, yet that he was not without some know. ledge of the public history of that transaction. ("Hear, hear.") It was pretty well known that the Prime Minister's election for that City was not a feat of very easy accomplishment, and that there were no small difficulties to be overcome, where there was a good deal of character on the one side and much capital on the other. Declarations in fa

vour of removing Jewish disabilities might under such circumstances have been found exceedingly convenient.

He called upon the House to beware of doing what this measure would do-unchristianize the country; a measure which would yield nothing in return-not the smallest accession of strength, or of consistency, or of character-a measure which would injure all and strengthen none.

The Earl of Ellesmere contended that the British Jew never sheltered himself from civil responsibility and patriotic duties under the plea of being an alien, and that it was neither equitable nor safe to exclude from the making of laws those who had so large an interest in the well-being of the community.

Lord Stanley contended against the admission as a right. If there was no law excluding the Jews from Parliament before the time of James I., it was because no Jew had a right to set his foot in this country while the statute which now operates to his exclusion was suspended during the reign of William and Mary, he could not obtain letters of naturalization; and if born here, he could acquire no freehold qualification.

The Earl of Dysart deemed it inexpedient to admit Jews, because a Jew must wish to see our Christian institutions destroyed.

Lord Brougham argued in support of the Bill, replying especially to the speech of the Bishop of Oxford. He denied the alleged partnership at the London election, between Lord John Russell and Baron Rothschild: it was slanderously said, and if a Bishop had not said it he should have said that it was false. (Laughter.) Lord John had always refused to be a party to

the putting forward of Baron Rothschild, because of the contest it would provoke; so that his only obligation" to Baron Rothschild was the injury which he sustained by the contest which ensued.

66

As to the danger of admitting the Jews, Lord Brougham pointed to the analogous case of the Roman Catholics since Emancipation-the Protestant Establishment had been as efficiently vindicated as ever. As to the fear of "unchristianizing" the Commons, they were unchristianized already. (Laughter.) Would the Commons come to the bar of that House by message, or in any other way, and by their words, acts, or desires, pretend to call themselves a Christian assembly? He did not know what would become of them; but assuredly it was not to be denied that we had a motley sort of legislation, half infidel, half Christian. Of Her Majesty he would only say, may God long preserve her in her Christian character to reign over a tolerant and enlightened people. As for the Ministry, they were undoubtedly nearly as unchristian as the Commons. (Laughter.) So that he was afraid they must stand before the world as half Christian, half Pagan -a Pagan House of Commons, and a perfectly Christian House of Lords. (Laughter.) He saw little use, therefore, of so much argument about unchristianizing the Legislature.

The Bishop of Oxford explained. He regretted that any words should have fallen from him in the warmth of debate which might appear susceptible of the meaning which his noble and learned friend had affixed to them. He had not the smallest idea that the noble Lord at the head of the Government had been privy to any bribery what