related to the penalties against recusancy, was gone; for all the laws relating to recusancy had been repealed. Then the enactment as to access to the king, that had also been repealed. So here was a limb of this immortal law lopped off; leaving only the mutilated bust of Titus Oates to represent this immortal statute, till the act of William 3rd. He would not pretend that there might not be good reason for enacting it, or that the Catholics might not be dangerous, or that they ought not to have been excluded from office owing to their adherence to the dangerous designs of the Crown. But what was meant by saying that that law was consummated at the Revolution? Was that act of 30th Charles 2nd incorporated in the Bill of Rights? No such thing. Did the Bill of Rights trouble itself with all the trumpery of the invocation of saints and transubstantiation? No such thing. The framers of that bill thought only of settling the principles of the constitution so far as they had been invaded, and they had not room in their heads for the consideration of such things as these. They scouted such trash and trumpery, whilst they were intent upon securing the rights and liberties of their fellow-subjects which had been invaded by the Crown. These wise and great men were no system-mongers, no grinders of theories or dogmas, but sound and practical statesmen; and no light toil had they incurred. There were thirteen particulars stated. The Bill of Rights did not say, upon abstract principle, that the Church and State are necessarily Protestants, but it stated "Whereas it has been found by experience that it is necessary to the safety and welfare of this Protestant kingdom that the throne should be unalterably Protestant:" and it then goes on to enact, that, should the king become a Papist, or marry a Papist, he should thereby forfeit his title to the throne, it being found by experience that such a security was necessary for this Protestant kingdom. He had been asked, whether this was a Protestant kingdom; he had been asked triumphantly, was this not a Protestant government, a Protestant Parliament? In one sense he admitted it was a Protestant kingdom, but did not exclude Papists. So he admitted that the Parliament was essentially and predominantly Protestant, and in that sense, but in no other, the Parliament was Protestant. The act of Ist of William 3rd forbade Papists to carry arms; this was considered as necessary to the security of this Protestant state. The principle of that act was transferred to the Bill of Rights, which recognized the claim of the Protestants to

carry arms, but did not refer to the right of the Roman Catholics to carry arms. Those, who argued by inference, took advantage of this; but it so happened that throughout the Bill of Rights this was the only passage the construction of which was hostile to the Roman Catholics; and this was the only passage in it which had been repealed. It had been repealed by an act of George 2nd, which also repealed the law by which Roman Catholics were forbidden access to the throne. By the law previous to 30th Charles 2nd, no person could be admitted into the army unless he had previously taken the Oath of the Declaration; but by that act, he could take the oath subsequent to taking the commission. Then came the act of William, saying that that provision was not a sufficient security, and that the oath must be taken previously. Then the present law precisely and practically repealed the act of William, for it restored the mattter to the state it was in at the period of the 25th Charles 2nd; and the act, for which lord Eldon had told their lordships he was responsible, had taken greater liberties with the Bill of Rights than the noble duke had done. Their lordships probably had not been apprised, when the act of 1817 passed, that they were repealing the act of king William. The act recited, "Whereas by certain. laws now in existence, there were sundry embarrassments in respect to the oaths taken by the army and navy," - and, in order to clear up doubts, and to assimilate one to the other, it enacted that the oaths prescribed by the former act need not be taken. Thus was there an utter abandonment of the act of William, and that too without providing any oath or security in its stead. The present bill did not give the Roman Catholics any benefit without an oath, an oath too, which combined in its language every possible security that such a form could afford; but under the act of the noble and learned lord, the provisions of king William's act were done away, and not even an oath was substituted in their stead.

(Annual Register for 1829, vol. 71, p. 92.)

213. The Duke of Wellington on Emancipation

Annual Register

The attitude of the Ministry was set forth in a brief speech by the duke of Wellington at the close of the debate. While there is little in the utterance beyond a personal explanation of the secrecy maintained, it is inserted as being the final word on the great question which had for so many years troubled the heart of England.

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.