After the division lord John Russell said he did not complain that the clause had been rejected, but that the grounds of the rejection had not been made intelligible to the government and to the country. He was satisfied that no future bill would be useful, which should not be based on a definition of the franchise; but he thought it could answer no wise or conciliatory purpose to keep up the discussion of the present measure. He then moved that the chairman do now quit the chair.

Sir Robert Peel sought no lengthened discussion on the motion; but he reminded lord John that he had endeavoured to secure a fair division on the merits of the clause. He was willing to make some allowance for lord John Russell's asperity, after what he felt on Wednesday night, when he contemplated the position in which he was placed. When lord John Russell saw Mr. Sheil and Mr. Hume, and others of his supporters, indulging in mutual recrimination with respect to the policy of government, he must have felt annoyed at the contrast with the unanimity on the other side. To show the want of purpose with which the government had acted, sir Robert Peel observed, that, to conciliate one or two individual members, they had raised the rating. test of the franchise from 51. to 81. a change which, judging by returns from thirty-one unions, swept away 76,000 out of the proposed constituency of 103,000. uncalled-for concessions must destroy all confidence in a government's adhering even to its own propositions.

Such

At the conclusion of this speech, a great majority of the members quitted the house, leaving a com

paratively small audience to lord Howick, who briefly attempted to justify his own course. Mr. Slaney said a few words, and the chairman left the chair.

Thus came to its end, after so many nights' debate and so much warm controversy, the great party struggle of the session-the ministerial measure for reforming the registration of voters in Ireland; a conclusion to which it had been from an early period pre-doomed by its opponents, if not privately predestined by its authors. There certainly appears much ground, on reviewing the history of its origin and progress, for the conclusion that this bill was introduced by the ministers without any sincere contemplation of carrying it into a law. The operations commenced in the preceding session by lord Stanley, rendered some countermovement on the part of government necessary. Lord Morpeth's bill, little differing from the other so far as the registration question was concerned, but with the popular appendage of an extended franchise tacked on to it, was suddenly put forth into the market, for the obvious and scarcely-concealed object of outbidding the rival measure. So far as the frustration of the latter was concerned, the device was completely successful. Lord Stanley, though he succeeded in overthrowing lord Morpeth's measure, was compelled, as he had himself prognosticated, when early in the session he saw the ministerial tactics developed, to abandon his own, and saw his efforts to reform the abuses of the Irish registry a second time disappointed. But though thus far the end of ministers was answered, it can hardly be doubted that the result of these debates and proceedings

was a heavy moral loss to the government, impairing in no small degree the confidence which had been placed in them, and sensibly lowering them in public opinion. The proceedings on the committal of the bill, which, as belonging to

a measure that ultimately came to nought, would in themselves have been unworthy of record, yet possess, it is conceived, some interest as striking illustrations of the decline and nearly approaching downfall of the whig administration.

A

QUESTION involving very important principles, though it occasioned but little discussion, and slight interest in the public mind, was raised in this session by a bill introduced by Mr. Divett, one of the members for Exeter, the object of which was to do away with the declaration required by the Municipal Corporations Act from all persons taking corporate offices, by reason of which members of the Jewish persuasion had been debarred from holding civic magistracies. It was opposed on the second reading, by sir R. Inglis, who firmly protested against surrendering that principle of the constitution, by which magistracies had hitherto been confined to persons professing Christianity. He was answered by lord John Russell, who supported the bill, and declared his readiness to go further, and admit Jews to seats in parliament, if they should demand that concession. On a division, the second reading of the bill was carried in a thin house by a majority of 113, only 24 members voting in the minority. Some further discussion on the principle of the bill took place on the third reading. Mr. Gladstone renewed the opposition by rising to move that it be read that day six months.

He was satisfied that it was not possible to draw a line between a bill to admit Jews to municipal offices, and one to permit them to hold other offices, including seats

VOL, LXXXIII.

s pro

in parliament. He would state his reasons for objecting to the bill. They were these. The Jew's] fession was in itself a disqualification for legislative offices in a christian country. Christianity was part and parcel of the law of England. Our laws were modelled on the principles of Christianity. The proceedings in both houses of parliament were commenced by the solemn invocation of the Almighty, and the object set before them was the promotion of true religion and the glory of God. The question, then, really was, would they destroy the distinctive Christianity of the constitution? The test for office was at present a Christian test, and this the bill went to annul. He did not know whether he was not rendering himself liable to the charge of "sheer intolerance;" but the ground he occupied was precisely the same as if he were discussing a purely civil question.

were

Let him guard himself in speaking of the Jews as a body. Who could doubt there many honest, zealous-minded men amongst them? The stronger, therefore, was the objection to investing them with the privilege of legislating for Christians. There were many Jews, doubtless, who would discharge those duties well, but still it was the duty of the state to choose those who, as a class, were most competent for the duties to which they were appointed. Now, he did not see how it could be held that the Jews

[F]

possessed the necessary qualifications. Mr. Gladstone here called attention to the great number of questions, essentially connected with the highest Christian considerations, which had come before the house during the last ten years. For instance, in England the questions of church-rates, church extension, and national education; in Scotland, the appointment of ministers of the established church; in Ireland such questions were always arising. These were the questions the most difficult to adjust, the most impossible to agree upon, and which most agitated the country.

If Christianity were a great pervading principle of our law, if most great questions were intimately associated with those principles, then those who rejected Christianity were not competent to enter on those subjects. The proposition was very different from that upon which the claims of the Roman Catholics and Dissenters were founded. With them we had the common bonds of belief in the same Redemption. There were also considerations which broadly distinguished their case from that of the Jews. The one adhered as strongly as ourselves to the text of Christianity, the other did not. The one constituted a large majority in one portion of the united kingdom the others were scarcely perceptible on the face of English society. So much as to numbers, now as to grievances. He was not aware that the Jews had any especial ones to complain of. No allegation of this kind had ever been made. It was to be borne in mind that there were still some offices to which the religious test was strictly applied. To the holder of the crown, to the lord chancellor,

and to certain great offices in Ire. land. In his mind, the constitution would be much better preserved by limiting the power of holding office to Christians, than by admitting Jews. The time might come when the parliament of England would be called upon to exercise functions still more directly ecclesiastical.

He admitted that the present house was, to a certain extent, disqualified for discussing such questions as these. He did not complain of this change; the time might come when the admixture of creeds amongst them would be so strange that it would be an insult to public opinion to think of discharging ecclesiastical functions. In introducing these men, therefore, to parliament, and to other high offices, there existed an absolute tendency to disqualify parliament for the performance of any duties connected with religion, and, by easy transitions, to overturn the very principles on which the constitution of this nation is based.

The honourable gentleman concluded by moving that the bill be read that day six months.

Mr. Pringle seconded the motion. He objected to the principle of the bill, as repugnant to the feelings of christians.

Mr. Macaulay said, that, leaving the question of religious toleration in general, he intended to confine himself to the positions advanced by the honourable gentleman op. posite. On the ground that the bill relieving the Jews from all political disabilities would render them at some future time eligible to seats in parliament, it had been said that those disabilities should not be removed. This argument was not a fair one. He had listened to the speech of the honourable