to ask whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to introduce a Bill for the purpose of repealing that and similar clauses.

port, would be taken into consideration during the recess, and brought into Parlia. ment at an early period next Session.

Mr. S. Crawford said, that in 1843, he introduced a Bill having reference to the subject, and it was his intention to move for leave, before the termination of the present Session, to re-introduce it, in order that it might be under the consideration of the Government and the public during the recess. He trusted that, under these circumstances, no opposition would be offered to the introduction of the Bill.

Sir R. Peel said, that he should be very unwilling to throw any opposition in the way of the introduction of the Bill.

HEALTH OF TOWNS.] In answer to a question from Mr. Bouverie,

Sir G. Clerk said, the subjeet was one of great importance, and the clause was totally without precedent. It was calculated to establish a monopoly which might be very inconvenient to the public. It would be recollected that the clause passed through the House without resistance; and, as it was not touched by any of the Lords' Amendments, he could not get rid of it without throwing the Bill out altogether. The Report of the Board of Trade had recommended the House to take care that no Railway Bill should give any such power of transfer. The only way to meet the case would be to bring in a Bill to declare, that notwithstanding the indefinite powers granted in several Railway Bills The Earl of Lincoln said, that it was to lease or transfer their railways, it should his intention to bring in and print a Bill not be lawful to do so unless the Bill un-relating to the Health of Towns, in order der which the parties acted contained a that it might be circulated during the reclause specifying the parties authorized to cess. make such transfer, and the companies to whom it was to be made. In future, the Committee should have the proposition before them, stating the lines that were intended to be amalgamated. If it met with the general approval of the House, he was prepared to bring in a Bill of that nature. Mr. Brotherton thought that it would have been a great hardship and injustice to throw out the Bill on account of the introduction of the objectionable clause; but he was glad to hear that the right hon. Gentleman proposed to bring in a Bill to prevent the injurious consequences which might result from that clause; and he hoped that the Standing Orders would be suspended to allow of the speedy passing of

such a Bill.

Subject at an end.

JEWISH DISABILITIES.] Sir R. Peel, in rising to move the Second Reading of the Jewish Disabilities Removal Bill, said

Mr. Speaker, I am now about to call the attention of the House to a Bill which has been sent down to this House from the other branch of the Legislature, and which has for its object the removal of all obstacles to the admission of members of the Jewish persuasion to municipal offices. The Bill has received the almost

unanimous support of the other branch of be enabled to give such an explanation the Legislature; and I do trust that I shall of the objects of the Bill, and the reasons upon which it is founded, as will induce the House to receive with equal favour the measure which has been sent for our conCOMPENSATION TO TENANTS.] Mr. Currence by the other House of Parliament. Sharman Crawford inquired, whether it The object of the Bill is to remove every were the intention of the Government to impediment whatever, of every kind, to the proceed further with the Tenants' Com-admission of Jews to municipal officespensation Bill?

uniform, and to remove impediments which, at the discretion of the municipal body, may be opposed to the admission of Jews. How stand the Jews at the present moment with respect to other offices, with functions not dissimilar to those of municipal offices? In respect to the county magistracy, there is no legal impediment to the admission of Jews. In respect to the still higher office of deputy lieutenant of a county, there is at the present moment no practical difficulty; and within the last

Gentlemen of the Jewish persuasion have actually been appointed deputy lieutenants. One of the Messrs. Rothschild is a deputy lieutenant. Sir Moses Montefiore is a deputy lieutenant. He was appointed by the Duke of Wellington to be a magistrate of the Cinque Ports. In Devon there is a magistrate of the Jewish persuasion. In Surrey Mr. Cohen is a magistrate. How stands the case as to the sheriffs of the county, the immediate representatives of the Sovereign? To that high office, next to that of Lord Lieutenant, the Jew is eligible by law; nay, more, the Jew is compelled to serve the office of sheriff. The Jew is not enabled to make an excuse to relieve himself from the duty of perform

Test, and other declarations previously required. With respect to appointments generally, that declaration is to be made subsequent to the appointment to office; and consequently the passing of the Annual Indemnity Act enables those who might have been previously disqualified, by their compliance with a certain condition, to become eligible to fill these corporate offices. The enactment which was passed in 1828, was then a substitute for the Test and Corporation Acts, and was this that the declaration which was sub-three or four years several most respectable stituted for the Sacramental Test was to be taken in respect to municipal offices either within a month before the admission or upon the admission of persons to office. Serious doubts have from time to time arisen as to the proper construction of these words. It was held by the Court of Queen's Bench, that there was nothing in the law which prevented a Jew from taking the oaths of office previously to or upon his admission, and that the law would be satisfied if the declaration were subsequent. That was ruled by the Court of Queen's Bench; but upon an appeal to the Judges in the Exchequer Chamber, the judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench in that respect was reversed, and the law was laid down that the declaration to being the onerous and sometimes expensive made in the case of a municipal office must be made either previously to or upon admission to office. Consequently it rests with the authorities in a municipal corporation, if they think fit, to require the Jew to make the declaration either previouslying generally, the appointment of the gento or at the time of his acceptance of office. Now the practice of requiring the declaration has not been universal throughout this country. In the case of several corporations, the law, as laid down by the Court of Queen's Bench, though reversed by the Judges sitting in the Court of Appeal, has been practically acted upon. In the borough of Portsmouth there is now a Jew a member of that body, because the corporation have not felt themselves precluded from contenting themselves with the omission of the oaths of office, on admission to office, leaving the party to make the declaration at a subsequent period. The party has not made the declaration at a subsequent period; but the annual Indemnity Act has covered the omission. In the case of Birmingham and of Southampton, there is also a Jew a member of the corporation. The practice, therefore, having varied, the object of the present Bill is to render it

functions of the office of sheriff. The Judges going the circuit return the name of the Jew to the Privy Council; the Privy Council certify the return to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty approves, speak

tleman who stands first upon the list to the office of sheriff; and within the last two or three years Her Majesty's prerogative has been exercised in favour of the appointment of a Jew to be sheriff of a county; and not only has the Jew been appointed, but his attempt to excuse himself on account of private avocations has been refused. You impose, therefore, upon the Jew the burden of the acceptance of that office. There was a doubt whether a Jew would be eligible for the office of sheriff of a county, of a city, or borough. What course did Parliament take? Mr. Salomons was elected by the free choice of the citizens of London to the office of sheriff of Middlesex. The doubt arose in that case whether the declaration must not be made, as it must be considered a municipal office, either previously to or upon the acceptance of office; and in the year 1835 Parliament altered the law in the

Jat

respect, expressly exempted the office of sheriff from the operation of the Act of 1828, and made the sheriff to perform the duties of sheriff of a county without requiring that he should take the declaration upon the acceptance of office. Parliament gave to the sheriff of a county a period of six months for the purpose of making the declaration. Mr. Salomons, therefore, did perform the duties of sheriff. Having performed those duties in a manner which entitled him to the respect and confidence of his fellow citizens, he was subsequently elected to the office of alderman; and then this impediment arising out of the Statute took effect, and he who had served the office of sheriff, and had entitled himself to general respect and confidence, was precluded from holding the office of alderman, because he was re

whole impediment in the way of the admission of the Jew. In lieu of a simple declaration, the words were: "I, A.B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, on the true faith of a Christian." The insertion of those words "on the true faith of a Christian," constitute the impediment to the acceptance of office by the Jew. The House of Lords, the authority which inserted these words, now sends us down a Bill which removes the difficulty, and permits the acceptance of office by the Jew. I submit to the House, that we who had not insisted on the insertion of those words can hardly reject the proposition now voluntarily made by the House of Lords, that the words which constitute the difficulty should be omitted. No one objected in the House of Commons to the declaration

as originally proposed by me, on account of its permitting the Jew to accept office. The noble Lord thought it unwise to re

quired to make this declaration previously to or upon the acceptance of office. I submit to the House that the statement of that fact alone is almost sufficient to justi-ject the Bill on account of the insertion of fy the interposition of Parliament. But I must refer, in order to remove any doubt upon the subject, to the history of this declaration. In the year 1828, the noble Lord brought in a Bill for the Repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts, and having failed, at the outset, in resisting the measure, I lent him my co-operation in carrying the Bill through the House. I suggested a form of declaration to be inserted in the Bill, and to be substituted for the Sacramental Test, and that form of declaration which I suggested and which the noble Lord adopted was this:

"Every person elected to the office of mayor, alderman, or any office of magistracy or trust in any municipal corporation, is required within one calendar month next before his admission to make and subscribe the following declaration :-'I, A. B., do solemnly declare that I will never exercise any power, authority, or influence which I may possess by virtue of the office - to injure or weaken the Protestant Church, as it is by law established within this realm, or to disturb it in the possession of any rights or privileges to which it is by law entitled."

That was the declaration which I suggested, and which the noble Lord saw no difficulty in inserting, and so the Bill went to the House of Lords. The declaration was required to be made within one month before admission to office, but then it was a declaration to which the Jew would not have objected. In the House of Lords, words were inserted which constitute the

those words; but I very much doubt whether the words were inserted with a view to disqualify the Jew. The House of Lords now make the proposal to us to restore the Bill to the state in which it was originally sent from the House of Commons; and I do hope that the House of Commons will receive the proposition which has been made. Observe what was the effect of the Act of 1828. It clearly was intended to relieve the Dissenters from the Church of England. It repealed the Test and Corporation Acts, partly because it was thought a sacramental test was a bad test-that there was a tendency to degrade a most important religious ceremony, and partly because it went to exclude Dissenters. Parliament, therefore, passed an Act, the manifest object and intention of which was to relieve the Dissenter from the disability under which he previously laboured; but, as far as the Jew is concerned, unless we alter the law, he will be in a worse state than he would have been in if the Test and Corporation Acts had not been repealed. Before that time there was nothing to disqualify a Jew from serving in a municipal office, because the sacramental and other tests were to be taken subsequent to the acceptance of office, and an annual Indemnity Act was passed; whereas the impediment to the admission of the Jew now arises solely from the obligation to take the new declaration previously to or upon the acceptance

of office. We have taken the same course | right hon. Friend-able and clear as all his as to other classes of our fellow sub-speeches were-was not more conclusive to jects who dissent from the Church. The his mind than similar arguments addressed Moravians, Separatists, and Quakers, could from the opposite side of the House; and not reconcile it to their conscientious con- if he were unconvinced by the arguments victions to make the declaration, and they and eloquence of his noble Friend the have been admitted to municipal offices Member for the city of London, his right without subscribing the declaration. The hon. Friend the Member for the city of Bill proposes to take the same course with Edinburgh, and by him whom all would respect to the Jew, and enable him to admit to be most worthily ranked with make the same declaration in substance, them in any competition of talent in the only relieving him from the necessity of House-viz., his late lamented Friend Sir declaring that he makes it on the true Robert Grant, to whom the advocacy of faith of a Christian. You will have from this measure was first entrusted, he hoped him the same security you have from his right hon. Friend at the head of the others, that he will not exercise any privi- Government would not consider it disrelege that he may possess to the detriment spectful if he owned that he was not conof the Church of England. Under these vinced by the address which he had just circumstances, I submit, it is but just and heard. In the first place, his right hon. Friend had fallen into a great historical reasonable to pass this Bill. I am aware and legal error in leading the House to bethat it is a measure of a limited character; lieve, as it was his object to do, that the at the same time it is one which will be disabilities of which the Jews complained, acceptable to the feelings of a very large and of which it was the purpose of the preportion of the Jews themselves. I think I have proved that sufficiently, by the peti- them, were created by the Act of 1828, and sent Bill, in a certain degree, to relieve tion which I have presented in the course by the declaration, as modified in the of this evening, signed by a considerable House of Lords, inserted in that Act. He body of the most respectable members of apprehended that nothing was more clear the Jewish persuasion, who are willing to than that at no period in the history of accept this measure, not as entirely satis- England, up to the year 1828, was any Jew factory, but as gratifying to their feelings. ever admitted to any municipal office whatI have great gratification in proposing that ever in any city or borough in England. which is acceptable to the feelings of a The reason was this:-In no instance large and powerful body, the members of could any individual be admitted except which are entitled to our respect. I need upon oath; and the oath was always adonly mention the names of Rothschild, ministered upon some Christian symbol, Salomons, and Montefiore, to induce the such as the Cross, or on the Book of the House to look favourably at a measure Gospel, or on some relic which was holy which they, as the representatives of a and revered in the sight of a Christian; great body of the Jews, say will be ac- but conveyed no sanctity to the mind of a ceptable. When I consider what is the Jew. He therefore held that it was not benevolence of that people-that it is not correct, legally or historically, to allege, that restricted by any sectarian views-when that disability was created against the Jew I look at the patronage they give-when by the Act to relieve any other member of I look at the rewards and distinctions they the community dissenting from the Church have received when they have entered into of England. His right hon. Friend then the honourable career of academical com- proceeded to state that the law was uncerpetition when I see the prizes gained at tain. He could understand that when a the University of London by members of decision upon privilege or any other point the Jewish persuasion, I must say it is a had proceeded from the Court of Queen's matter of personal gratification to me to Bench, any gentleman was at liberty to propose a measure which shall give to argue that the law was uncertain, because them unrestricted admission to municipal the extreme resources of the law had not offices, and shall, at the same time, be acbeen finally exhausted by an appeal to a ceptable to the feelings of so great and higher court; but he defied the Attorney powerful a portion of my fellow country-General to say that the law was at this momen. I therefore move" That this Billment uncertain, when you had the decision be now read a second time." of the Court of Queen's Bench on one side,

Sir R. Inglis said, that the speech of his and that decision reversed by a writ of

error:

From the right hon. Baronet's, they were relieved they would be relieve statement of the way in which the declara ed as a nation. They could not put for. tion had been drawn up, and thrown over ward any claim of right either under the the Table, any one would conclude that the Common or under the Statute law; they alteration made by the House of Lords in came to England for their own purposes, introducing the words, the “true faith of and it was their duty to conform to the law a Christian," was made almost per saltum, of the country into which they introduced and without consideration, and not ad- themselves. Dr. Arnold drew a strong visedly and with special reference to a par- distinction between the Christian, and him ticular purpose.

His impression was who was not a Christian; in fact between directly the reverse. Whether the House the Christian and the Jew. He said, “The of Lords did right or wrong, they advisedly Jews are strangers in England ; and they made the alteration for the very purpose to have no more claim to legislate for us than which it had been applied -- viz., to exclude a lodger has to interfere in the concerns of Her Majesty's Jewish subjects from muni- his landlord. They are voluntary strangers cipal offices: the law up to 1828 not hav- here, and have no right to legislate, unless ing permitted Jews to hold municipal they acquiesce in our moral law, which is offices. The phrase, “ Jewish subjects of the Gospel.” Such was the view taken by Her Majesty," reminded him of the singu- Dr. Arnold of this subject, from whom, inlar expansion which this Bill had gradually deed, he differed in his views of church attained. When it was first introduced by government ; but with whom the majority Sir R. Grant in 1830, it was a Bill “to of the supporters of the present measure relieve British-born subjects of His Ma. as certainly agreed. He did not think that jesty;" it was afterwards changed to "sub- for the sake of a handful of men they should jects of His Majesty professing the Jewish declare that they no longer regarded Chrisreligion ;" but now the terms of the Bill tianity as an element in the administration were extended, not to Sir Moses Monte- of the affairs of England. He believed that fiore or Mr. Salomons, and other gentle for the sake of those Jews they were going men, whose petition had been presented to- to destroy that identification of the institunight, but to every portion of the professors tions of England with Christianity which of the Jewish religion. The Bill was, in heretofore subsisted, and which constituted fact, a measure for naturalizing a whole her glory, and, he might say, her defence. nation. Let the House pass it,

and there His right hon. Friend stated that in Southwould be nothing in the law to prevent any ampton, Birmingham, and other towns, German Jew from arriving at any dignity Jews had been admitted to municipal in the city of London without taking any offices. If, in point of fact, such appointoath whatever, either of loyalty to the ments were contrary to the existing law; Queen, or giving any security that he he thought it was a bad recommendation would be a good subject in all the relations to the present Bill to state that the Jews of life. He did not think there was any having successfully violated the law, we thing in the circumstances of the Jews to should give them perfect indemnity for entitle them to the special exemption in the past, and impunity for the future. their favour which was proposed by the It was said that in other countries Jews present Bill. He would not refuse to any were admitted to all civil rights that it man what was his right, and what was due was so in France, America, Holland, and to him, however weak; but he was not Belgium. Now, upon inquiry, he found that disposed to make concessions in favour of Jews in those countries were admissible, but any, however high and powerful, when they were not admitted. In France a Jew those concessions might be opposed to duty; might be a deputy, a member of the Adminand in the present case they should take istration, or a judge; but the fact was, that care that they were not hazarding, in favour there was no instance of a Jew ever of such persons, those high considerations having held either office. Even if it were on which the integrity of the Christian con otherwise, not one of the offices in the stitution hitherto depended. Up to the last countries he referred to, was of the same sixteen years no person would have thought importance, for instance, as that of the of making such concessions. The Jews could Lord Mayor of the city of London. It never be spoken of as a merely religious sect; was quite clear that the object of this in every sense of the word they were a Bill was to allow Mr. Salomons and Sir M. nation ; it was as a nation they stood out as Montefiore to hold the otfice of Lord Mayor. a iniraculous spectacle to the world; and if But even if the precedents of other coun