The praise conduct of religious liberty. The lapse of time and the extension of education, though they may have eradicated many popular prejudices, have not so altered the character of the populace as to make it welcome a policy of altering the law in order to secure political equality to the Jews with any great amount of enthusiasm. Before returning from this digression it should further worthy be remarked that throughout the controversy the Jews Baron de acted in an open and conscientious way. Over and over and again Mr. Roebuck declared in the House that, were he Mr. Salo- a Jew, he would take the oath, including the words Rothschild mons. An incon on the true faith of a Christian," though he would have regarded them as a mere farce and not binding on his conscience; and no doubt it was a case in which, if ever, the maxim of Euripides might be acted upon: ἡ γλῶσσ ̓ ὀμώμοχ', ἡ δὲ φρῆν ἀνώμοτος 1. To their credit, however, Baron de Rothschild and Mr. Salomons pursued a different course with the unanimous approval of their co-religionists. Had they chosen to follow Mr. Roebuck's advice, it was admitted by the opponents of Jewish rights that they could not have been excluded, for, as Sir Frederic Thesiger put it, it was impossible to bind an unconscientious man by any oath 2 The inconvenience of the machinery provided for carrying venience out the so-called compromise soon became manifest. The arising from the doors of Parliament had been opened to the Jew, but he the settle- could not enter as of right, for every session a resolution must be passed enabling such Jews as might desire to form of ment remedied by Act of Parliament. 1 Eur., Hip., 612. 3 However, means were taken by the House of Commons to prevent Mr. Bradlaugh from taking the oath which he had previously declared was not binding on his conscience. But this was a quarter of a century later. The legality of that decision of the House of Commons was affirmed by the Law Courts. See Bradlaugh v. Gossett (1884), L. R., 12 Q.B.D. 271. For it was held that a resolution did not remain in force after a prorogation. Report of Committee, Session I, 1859, No. 205, Com. Jour., vol. 114, p. 59, and Hansard, vol. 152, pp. 459–63. take the oath to omit the final words, and such resolution might be opposed, and was liable to be defeated on each occasion. To remedy this defect an Act of Parliament was passed two years later enabling the House of Commons to convert a resolution arrived at under the Jewish Relief Act of 1858 into a Standing Order, which would remain valid and in force until repealed, and therefore obviate the necessity of passing a fresh resolution every session 1. upset Parlia Six years later Parliament was again called upon to The "comdeal with the question. The result was the Parliamentary promise" Oaths Act of 1866 (29 & 30 Vict., c. 19). This Act by the substituted a new and simplified oath, which did not mentary contain the words "on the true faith of a Christian," Oaths Act of 1866. as the oath to be taken by members of both Houses of Parliament, in lieu of the oaths laid down by the Oaths Act of 1858 and the Roman Catholic oath, the form of which was laid down by the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829. The object of the new Act, like that of Lord John Russell's unsuccessful measure of 1854, was to create a simplified and uniform oath which all members of Parliament alike might take, to whatever religious denomination they might belong. It incidentally upset the so-called compromise of 1858 by depriving the House of Lords of the right to exclude a Jewish peer which they then retained. It met, however, with no serious opposition in either House of Parliament, and the point to which 1 See the statute 23 & 24 Vict., c. 63, and see Hansard, vol. 157, pp. 960-63, 1916–9; ibid., vol. 158, p. 305; ibid., vol. 159, p. 1507; ibid., pp. 1745-50. 2 The wording of the new oath as finally settled was as follows: "I, A.B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria; and I do faithfully promise to maintain and support the succession to the Crown, as the same stands limited and settled by virtue of the Act passed in the reign of King William the Third, intituled 'An Act for the further limitation of the Crown, and better securing the rights and liberties of the Subject,' and of the subsequent Acts of Union with Scotland and Ireland. So help me God." The debates on the measure are to be found in Hansard, vol. 181, pp. 453-9, 1712-37; and vol. 182, pp. 289-314, 480-3, 510-18, 1322-55, 1619–28, 1759, 2176. The power of the House of Lords to exclude Jews volun substantial criticism was directed was the alteration in the Roman Catholic oath. So far as it related to the Jews, Sir George Grey, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in introducing the Bill, fairly explained its scope to the House of Commons. He said, "The members professing the Jewish religion sat now in that House not by absolute right, but by sufferance, the result of a compromise adopted to terminate a long struggle, but it was impossible not to see that that arrangement must be temporary. Those gentlemen had sat there for some years, and it would be absurd to ask if any danger had arisen to the Crown, the Church, or the Constitution from Jews sitting in that House. They had taken part with credit to themselves in the discussions of the House, and had performed their duty with integrity and ability. He thought the time was come when the members professing the Jewish religion should be admitted to all the privileges which were enjoyed by the members of other religious denominations. By the adoption of the measure he proposed members would be relieved from the necessity, on coming to the table after a general election, of ranging themselves in three divisions on taking the oaths. Let no man be asked any question as to his religion, but let him take his seat in the House if qualified to sit there, in the opinion of those who sent him there, on taking the oath of allegiance as a loyal subject of the Crown 1." When the Bill reached the House of Lords, Lord Chelmsford, who years before had been the leading opponent of Jewish emancipation, proclaimed himself content with the new proposal. Before the second reading he said: "With regard to the omission of the words 'upon the true tarily abandoned faith of a Christian' I have always contended against the admission of Jews to Parliament as a matter of principle. opponents I have never thought that there was the slightest danger of Jewish to the state in admitting a few Jews to the legislature; emancipation. but upon principle, and upon principle alone, I have main by the former 1 Hansard, vol. 181, p. 456. tained my opposition. Now, in the year 1858 an Act was passed which involved a compromise upon this long-vexed question, and it was enacted that either House of Parliament might by a resolution dispense in the case of a Jew with those words of the oath which declare it to be taken 'upon the true faith of a Christian'. Now, my Lords, it appears to me that the principle is as much violated by admitting a Jew by the side door of a resolution as it would be if you admitted him by throwing open the principal door, and giving him a seat in Parliament by the express words of the Act itself. Therefore, in my view, there really is on this subject nothing left worth contending for, and I am not at all disposed, having certainly failed in maintaining the principle which I defended, to take any further part in resisting the complete admission of the Jew to his seat in the legislature1." Again, at a later stage, when it was proposed to insert the words "on the true faith of a Christian" in the new oath, the same speaker repeated his former statement, and further said: "The House of Commons had chosen to adopt a resolution by means of which a person of the Jewish faith presenting himself at the table could be admitted on taking the oath, omitting the words 'on the true faith of a Christian,' and that resolution had now become a standing order of the House; it was, therefore, clear that, so far as the House of Commons was concerned there was no impediment whatever to the admission of the Jews to Parliament. The resolution had broken down the barrier completely, and the Jew walked in without any difficulty and took his seat. With regard to their Lordships' house-suppose Her Majesty were to be advised to raise a Jew to the dignity of the peerage, would their Lordships refuse to pass a resolution dispensing with that portion of the oath which required him to say he made the declaration 'on the true faith of a Christian'? Their Lordships would hardly be disposed to adopt a course which would be an insult to the Crown; 1 Hansard, vol. 182, p. 1349. Lord Rothschild created a peer in 1885. The Office Act 1867. and, therefore, he considered that there was practically no impediment to the admission of Jews to their Lordships' house. Under these circumstances there was, as he had said, nothing left to fight for! Immediately the principle he had maintained was sacrificed all grounds for further resistance were gone; therefore he did not oppose the second reading of the Bill, and must now decline to vote for the amendment1." The amendment was not pressed to a division, and the one relic of intolerance which had survived the eleven years' struggle between the two Houses was swept away, practically without any effort to retain it. It was not, however, for nearly twenty years that any Jew was able to avail himself of the rights now thrown open to his community. At length, in July, 1885, Sir Nathaniel de Rothschild, the first Jew to receive a patent of peerage, under the title of Lord Rothschild, was sworn in as a member of the House of Lords, and took his seat accordingly 2. The simplified oath established by the Parliamentary and Oaths Oaths Act of 1866 was to be administered only to persons about to take their seats in either House of Parliament, but the following year another Act, the Office and Oaths Act 1867 (30 and 31 Vict., c. 75) was passed. It enacted that the new and simplified form of oath should be taken as a qualification for the exercise of any office, franchise, or civil right, instead of the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, or any form of oath substituted for them (as, for instance, under the Oaths Act and Jewish Relief Act of 1858). Inasmuch as the necessity for making the declaration had, as we have seen, been previously removed by the Qualification for Offices Abolition Act 1866 (29 and 30 Vict., c. 22), henceforth Jews when qualifying themselves for holding any office or civil right would go through precisely the same ceremonies as their Christian fellow subjects. The Promissory Daths Act The Promissory Oaths Act of 1868 (31 and 32 Vict., |