The debate was closed by a brief reply from the duke of Wellington. The apprehended danger to the Irish Church from the admission of a few Catholics into Parliament, he treated as futile, considering that the throne would be filled by a Protestant. Moreover, a fundamental article of the Union between the two countries was the union of the two Churches; and it was impossible that any mischief could happen to the Irish branch of this united Church, without destroying the union of the two countries. "A different topic," said his grace, “to which I wish to advert, is a charge brought against several of my colleagues, and also against myself, by the noble earl on the cross-bench, of a want of consistency in our conduct. My lords, I admit that many of my colleagues, as well as myself, did on former occasions vote against a measure of a similar description with this; and, my lords, I must say, that my colleagues and myself felt, when we adopted this measure, that we should be sacrificing ourselves and our popularity to that which we felt to be our duty to our sovereign and our country. We knew very well, that if we put ourselves at the head of the Protestant cry of 'No Popery,' we should be much more popular even than those who had excited against us that very cry. But we felt that in so doing we should have left on the interests of the country a burthen which must end in bearing them down, and further that we should have deserved the hate and execration of our countrymen. Then I am accused, and by a noble and learned friend of mine, of having acted with great secrecy respecting this measure. Now I beg to tell him, that he has done that to me in the course of this discussion which he complains of others having done to him; — in other words, he has, in the language of a right hon. friend of his and mine, thrown a large paving-stone instead of throwing a small pebble. I say, that if he accuses me of acting with secrecy on this question, he does not deal with me altogether fairly. He knows as well as I do how the Cabinet was constructed on this question; and I ask him, had I any right to say a single word to any man whatsoever upon this measure, until the person most interested in the kingdom upon it had given his consent to my speaking out? Before he accused me of secrecy, and of improper secrecy too, he ought to have known the precise day upon which I received the permission of the highest personage in the country, and had leave to open my mouth upon this measure. There is another point also on which a noble earl accused me of misconduct; and

that is, that I did not at once dissolve the Parliament. Now I must say that I think noble lords are mistaken in the notion of the benefits which they think that they would derive from a dissolution of Parliament at this crisis. I believe that many of them are not aware of the consequences and of the inconveniences of a dissolution of Parliament at any time. But when I know, as I did know, and as I do know, the state of the elective franchise in Ireland, when I recollected the number of men it took to watch one election which took place in Ireland in the course of last summer, — when I knew the consequences which a dissolution would produce on the return to the House of Commons, to say nothing of the risks which must have been incurred at each election, of collisions that might have lead to something little short of a civil war, I say, that, knowing all these things, I should have been wanting in duty to my sovereign and to my country, if I had advised his Majesty to dissolve his Parliament." (Annual Register for 1829, vol. 71, p. 94.)

214. The End of Jewish Disability

Annual Register

The long persecution of the Jewish race, which had been a blot upon the civilization of England as upon that of nearly all European countries, was finally ended with the admission of Baron Rothschild into Parliament. This measure of justice and tolerance was not effected without opposition, but the sentiment of the country was overwhelmingly in favour of the step, and its execution was not attended with grave difficulty.

On the 26th of July, that honourable member, being conducted to the table by Lord John Russell and Mr. J. A. Smith, stated, on the oath being read to him, that he could not conscientiously take it in the form in which it was tendered. He was then directed to withdraw. Upon this Lord John Russell moved a resolution, simply stating that Baron Rothschild was prevented by conscientious objections from taking the oath. This resolution, after an ineffectual protest from Mr. Warren, was agreed to; whereupon Lord John Russell moved a second resolution in the following terms: — “That any persons professing the Jewish religion may henceforth, in taking the oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words, and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian.'"

A debate ensued, in which Mr. Warren threatened to

divide the House. Lord Hotham said he had not intended to vote, but, being called upon to decide, felt bound to oppose the resolution. Mr. Walpole said he had always regarded this as a religious rather than a political question. He did not think Jews ought to sit in a Christian legislature and must oppose the resolution. But he was bound to say that Baron Rothschild had never permitted himself to do one act contrary to the law of the land. He also said that the course taken could not be too much deprecated, and if the Jews were to be admitted they ought to have been admitted in a frank and honest manner. Let them not suppose, however, that they were closing the question. Mr. Spooner and Mr. Newdegate repeated their objections to the proceeding. Mr. Fox expressed his conviction that the House had never acted more in accordance with the spirit of a Christian legislature than they were about to do by the admission of Jews to Parliament. Lord John Russell reminded Mr. Walpole that the mode of settling the question had not been proposed by the advocates for the admission of the Jews. "It is not our choice but the choice of the other House of Parliament." Mr. Walpole said this was not the end of the question; but he trusted none would hereafter attempt to deprive the Jews of the privilege about to be conferred upon them.

On a division the resolution was carried by 69 to 37. Baron Rothschild, being again introduced, was greeted by loud cheers. He took the oath on the Old Testament, omitting the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," and took his seat on the Opposition benches. Thus ended the long controversy which had for so many years divided the two Houses of Parliament.

(Annual Register for 1858, vol. 100, p. 163.)

215. The Oaths Act

(21 & 22 VIC., c. 48, July 23, 1858)

Statutes of the Realm

While the recognition of Jews as possessing equal rights removed the great barriers against any inhabitant of the realm, it was not until 1858 that all citizens were legally placed upon the same footing in regard to their nominal duties. The oaths of allegiance to be taken by a Catholic, a Protestant, and a Jew differed in form, though but little in substance. At length, in the year named, the last distinction was removed, and a general form of oath was devised. The "rider" to the Bill, whereby the act of participating in the Sacrament of Communion was not made obligatory upon aspirants for office, was the last needful concession to liberty and justice.

AN ACT TO SUBSTITUTE ONE OATH FOR THE OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE, SUPREMACY, AND ABJURATION; AND FOR THE RELIEF OF HER MAJESTY'S SUBJECTS PROFESSING THE JEWISH RELIGION

Whereas it is expedient that One Oath should be substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration now required by law: Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the Authority of the same, as follows:

I. Instead of the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, where the same are now by Law required to be taken, and taken and subscribed respectively, the following Oath shall be taken and subscribed:

"I, A. B., do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, and will defend Her to the utmost of my Power against all Conspiracies and Attempts whatever which shall be made against Her Person, Crown or Dignity, and I will do my utmost Endeavour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, all Treasons and traitorous Conspiracies which may be formed against Her or them; and I do faithfully promise to maintain, support, and defend, to the utmost of my Power, the Succession of the Crown, which Succession, by an Act, intituled 'An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject,' is and stands limited to the Princess Sophia Electress of Hanover, and the Heirs of Her Body being Protestants, hereby utterly renouncing and abjuring any Obedience or Allegiance unto any other Person claiming or pretending a Right to the Crown of this Realm; and I do declare that no foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate hath or ought to have any Jurisdiction, Power, Superiority, Preeminence, or Authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this Realm; and I make this Declaration upon the true Faith of a Christian. So help me God."

II. Wherein the Oath hereby appointed the Name of Her present Majesty is expressed or referred to, the Name of the Sovereign of this Kingdom for the Time being, by Virtue of the Act "for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liber: 'es of the Subject," shall be

substituted from Time to Time, with proper Words of Reference thereto.

III. The Oath hereby appointed shall be taken and subscribed in the same Cases, and by and before the same Persons, and at the same Times and Places, as the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration are respectively now directed to be taken, and taken and subscribed; and the taking and subscribing of the Oath hereby appointed shall have the like Effect as the taking, and taking and subscribing respectively of the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration would have had if this Act had not been passed; and the Refusal, Neglect, or Omission to take and subscribe the Oath hereby appointed shall be attended with the like Disabilities, Incapacities, Penalties, Liabilities, and Consequences, as now by Law provided in the Case of Refusal, Neglect or Omission to take, or take and subscribe respectively the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration; and all Provisions now in Force shall be construed and take effect accordingly: Provided always, that no Person, having before the Commencement of this Act taken the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy and Abjuration, shall be required to take and subscribe the Oath hereby appointed, unless and until he would be by Law required to take the said Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration in Case this Act had not been passed.

IV. Provided always, that every Person of the Persuasion of the People called Quakers, and every other Person now by Law permitted to make his solemn Affirmation or Declaration instead of taking an Oath, shall, instead of taking and subscribing the Oath hereby appointed, make and subscribe a solemn Affirmation in the Form of the Oath hereby appointed, substituting the Words "solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm" for the Word "swear," and omitting the Words "And I make this Declaration upon the true faith of a Christian. So help me God;" and the making and subscribing of such Affirmation by a Person hereinbefore authorized to make and subscribe the same, with such Omission as aforesaid, shall have the same Force and Effect as the taking and subscribing by other Persons of the Oath hereby appointed.

V. And whereas by a certain Act passed in the Ninth Year of the Reign of King George the Fourth, intituled "An Act for repealing so much of the several Acts as imposes the Necessity of receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as a