be elected the same may be said of any man whose property is below the legal qualification. Again, the Sultan, who is a Mahometan, nominates the Patriarch of Constantinople, the chief bishop of the whole Eastern Church; but does it follow that a Mahometan could be patriarch? So the Protestant king of Prussia selects the Roman Catholic archbishop of Cologne; but would the Chapter consider no new principle involved in the appointment of a Protestant primate? This argument, therefore, is insufficient, even if the Jews were recognised by the Constitution as electors; but farther, we deny that they are so recognised. On the contrary, the Constitution assumes all English subjects to be Christians; though it does not require any test of their being so, except when they are called to do some political act. In 1752 a Bill was passed to permit the naturalization of Jews by other special acts. This Bill,' says Smollett, supported by petitions from merchants and manufacturers, who however appeared, on examination, to be Jews or their dependants, was countenanced by the ministry, who thought they foresaw in the consequences of such a naturalization a great accession to the monied interest, and a considerable increase of their own influence amongst individuals of that community.'iii. 324. It was violently opposed by the City of London and by the great body of merchants and traders, and with much difficulty passed; but such alarm was by-and-bye created in the public mind by great exaggerations of the immediate danger, that the Bill became an object of national horror and execration,' and the Ministers were obliged, at the opening of the ensuing session, to bring in a bill to repeal the former. We by no means partake of the fears that influenced the public at that day; we see little danger from the Jews themselves-though we do see infinite danger from the more extensive and in every way more important principle now proposed; but we allude to the proceedings of 1752-3 chiefly for the purpose of saying that we know of no legal immunities or privileges granted to the Jews since that period, when assuredly it cannot be pretended that they were either eligible to Parliament or electors, or indeed in any other way invested with direct political power. But the argument may be carried a step farther. It is clear that the law does exclude the Jews from being electors. Up to very recent times electors were subject to various oaths-for most of them we believe some form of declaration has been substituted-but we suppose the bribery oath on the Holy Evangelists is still applicable to every elector. If, therefore, any infidels exercise the elective franchise, it is not because the State has by any positive enactment permitted them to do so, but because it has neglected to establish any special tests against them-and that no individual chooses to to impede them by a vexatious imposition of the Bribery Oath. In consequence of a similar lapse, Jews may be churchwardens, and a Jew was actually churchwarden of a London parish some years ago; but it would be absurd to infer that our ecclesiastical Constitution contemplated the existence of Jewish churchwardens. In the same way a Jewish undergraduate was, not long ago, resident at one of the colleges of Cambridge. Not that the University recognises the existence of unbelieving students—it is only that she assumes them all, both by her theory and by her practice, without further inquiry to be Christians-but that no questions are asked, no tests imposed, until the time when she is about, by a degree, to confer upon them power and position in the academic commonwealth. We trust that we have now fairly met all the arguments which have been urged in favour of the change demanded. To this change we are opposed because it would be a retrograde movement in the path of civilization-a return to the old heathen condition of religious indifference. We are opposed to it because we believe that the Christianizing of the State gives the greatest hope for the well-being of the people-because we believe that national Christianity is the source of national happiness, and identified with national goodness--because we believe that the more Christianity is blended with every act, whether public or private, of our earthly life, the nearer will our human nature be raised to the divine. We could not sum up our reasons against it better than in the words of Arnold: 'True it is that the perfection of the Christian church is as yet far distant-true it is that the kingdoms of the world are not yet become wholly and in spirit the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ; yet it is no less true that some steps have been made towards this perfection; that the kingdoms of this world are become, not wholly and really, but in name and profession, the kingdoms of Christ. And what can be the wisdom of undoing the work already accomplished, instead of endeavouring to complete it; to be so dissatisfied that the fabric is not finished, as to wish to pull down the courses of stone which are already built up, that so we may have the whole work, from the very foundation, to begin over again? 'As marriage has been corrupted by polygamy and the licence of divorce, so has government been corrupted by tyranny or by lawlessness; but yet, like marriage, it has been still the source of some of the greatest blessings of humanity. Law is more or less the expression of man's reason, as opposed to his interest and his passion. I do not say that it has ever been the expression of pure reason; it has not been so, for man's best reason is not pure. Nor has it been often free from the influence of interest, nor always from that of passion; there have been unjust laws in abundance; cruel and vindictive laws have not been wanting. Law in short, like everything human, human, has been greatly corrupted, but still it has never lost its character of good altogether: there never, I suppose, has been an age or country in which the laws, however bad, were not better than no law at all; they have ever preserved something of their essential excellence-that they acknowledge the authority of right, and not of might. Again, law has, and must have, along with its inherent respect for right and justice, an immense power; it is that which, in the last resort, controls human life. It is, on the one hand, the source of the highest honours and advantages which man can bestow on man; it awards, on the other hand, the extremity of outward evil-poverty, dishonour, and death. Here, then, we have a mighty power, necessary by the very condition of our nature; clearly good in its tendency, however corrupted, and therefore assuredly coming from God, and swaying the whole frame of human society with supreme dominion. Such is law in itself; such is a kingdom of this world. Now, then, conceive this law to become instinct and inspired, as it were, by the spirit of Christ's Gospel, and it retains all its sovereign power, all its necessity, all its original and inherent virtue; it does but lose its corruptions; it is not only the pure expression of human reason, cleansed from interest and passion, but the expression of a purer reason than man's. Law in a Christian country, so far as that country is really Christian, has, indeed, to use the magnificent language of Hooker, her seat in the bosom of God; and her voice, inasmuch as it breathes the spirit of divine truth, is indeed the harmony of the world. It is then no slight thing that the law and government of our country shall be Christian; shall be conducted, that is, on Christian principles, and to Christian objects; putting down all injustice, evil ambition, ignorance, and ungodliness, and advancing all things just, true, good, and holy. It is our pledge that this nation shall be guided, in short, on those principles to which each one of us was pledged at his baptism; the principles being one and the same which should direct a Christian man and a Christian people. And if we say that this pledge is often broken, that our government and laws have left good undone, and have done evil, is it not even in this same way that we each of us have often broken our pledges made in baptism? And yet, is it not true, that whatever of good we have done in the whole course of our lives, has been done when we did not break those pledges, but fulfilled them? And should we act the more wisely by renouncing those pledges altogether, because we many times break them? or by amending our lives with all diligence, so that we may break them less and fulfil them more? Even so should we cherish every pledge of our national Christianity; not foolishly and wickedly renouncing it, to make our principles as bad as our practice, but clinging to it, and using it to reprove and shame our evil practice, if it may be that our practice may itself become better.'* *Arnold's Sermons, vol. iv. p. 437, &c. ART ART. IX.-1. The Parliamentary Companion. Fifteenth Year. New Parliament, 1847. By Charles R. Dodd, Esq., Author of the Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage,' &c. London. 2. Speeches of Lord J. Russell at the Election for the City of London. 1847. 3. Letter from Sir Robert Peel to the Electors for the Borough of Tamworth. 4. Speech of Lord George Bentinck in the House of Commons, on Sir Robert Peel's Letter to the Electors of Tamworth, July 20, 1847. 5. Letter to the Electors of King's Lynn. By Lord George Bentinck. 1847. 6. An Answer to Lord George Bentinck's Address. By Plain Facts. IT is possible that the new parliament may be assembled before our next periodical appearance; and, as there seems reason to apprehend that the session will open with one of a series of unconstitutional and anti-national measures with which we are not obscurely menaced, we think it our duty to invite, thus early and while there is time for reflection, our readers' particular attention to some of the more important questions raised at the late election, discussed in the works before us, and to be decided, we are told, by the approaching debates. We shall begin with a slight view of the composition of the House of Commons, not taken with the least intention to excite undue confidence or unfounded alarm in the Conservative party, but simply-be the effect what it may-to arrive at the facts by the best and most impartial light which we have been able to obtain. We find, in the first place, from Mr. Dodd's useful, though not always strictly accurate manual, that there has been a vastly greater change in the persons of members than ever occurred before-except only after the passing of the Reform Bill, which, abolishing so many seats, and creating so many others of a different kind, necessarily produced an unprecedented alteration. There were 280 new members at that election, and we have 223 at this-which, under the circumstances, is a still more considerable change, and indicates, we think, a growing instability in the governing powers in this country. There seems also to be a good deal of alteration as to the classes of society from whom the members are drawn. It appears that there have been returned 'A greater number of railway directors, engineers, and contractors. 'A greater number of barristers. 'A greater number of merchants. VOL. LXXXI. NO. CLXII. 2 N A greater "A greater number of political writers and lecturers. A smaller number of naval and military officers. 'A smaller number of persons connected with noble families. A smaller number of country gentlemen.'--Dodd's Advert. It is foreign from our present purpose to speculate on the consequence of this new balance of classes in the legislature; but for any reader who wishes to pursue that inquiry, we beg leave to recommend Mr. Burke's philosophical and prophetic analysis of the first National Assembly of France, in which he shows that the predominance of the same classes that have increased in our new parliament was the ominous precursor and immediate cause of the mischiefs and misfortunes of that Revolution. Let us hope, however, that the predominance is not yet so alarming. No doubt the tendency of the Reform Bill is to bring forward classes of persons whom we do not think likely to make the best legislators; but upon the present occasion we believe the peculiar change in the character of the House has been chiefly produced by the distrust and disgust which so many recent instances of political inconsistency had spread throughout the country; and that whatever superiority Lord John Russell's ministry may have obtained, they owe it mainly, indeed solely, to the disunion of the Conservative body. We cannot quite rely on Mr. Dodd's classification of the numbers supposed to belong to each party, but the calculation of those whom we consider the safest authority in such matters is as follows: Whigs, Radicals, Repealers, and Chartists Protectionists Two double returns Sudbury disfranchised Undeclared and doubtful 327 80 It would, we conceive, be very difficult to distribute, with any accuracy, the first item-327-into its component parts. The Whigs proper may perhaps be about two hundred; but no one, we think, can as yet venture to guess in what proportions they could on various questions command the services of their undisciplined allies. We believe that if the ministers were to conduct their government on the ordinary principles of maintaining the constitution and institutions of the country, they could not stand a day without the help of the Conservatives; but we fear it may be safely assumed for our present purpose, and looking only at the great lines of policy, that for any destructive measure, any pretended reform, but really vicious disturbance of the ancient influences and institutions of the monarchy which the ministers |