About this time a movement was set on foot in London for the reformation of the Jewish Church there. It is stated that during the first half of the present century the services in the synagogues were ill-conducted and poorly attended. Attempts were made by some zealous members of the community to bring about an improvement, but for a long time with little success, until, in 1841, matters came to a crisis. The reformers, among whom Sir Isaac Goldsmid was conspicuous, withdrew from their brethren, and built what was called the Reformed Synagogue, now situated in Upper Berkeley Street. The object of the seceders was mainly to improve the existing liturgy, partly by shortening it, partly by the removal of certain expressions in the prayers which do not harmonize with the feelings of educated Jews in the present day.[215] A good deal of angry feeling was called forth on the occasion, and the excommunications of the seceders were freely pronounced. After a few years, however, this began to subside, and has now, we are told, vanished altogether. Both the Sephardim and Ashkenazim, indeed, have made considerable alteration in their liturgies in the course of the present century. In 1847 an important step was taken by the leaders of the Jewish emancipationists. At the general election in that year Baron Lionel Rothschild offered himself as a candidate for the city of London, and was returned. When the session of 1849 opened, Lord John Russell, then Premier, brought in a Bill to omit from the Parliamentary oath the words, ‘on the true faith of a Christian,’ which rendered it impossible for a Jew to take it. The Bill was carried by a majority of 66. It was then introduced into the House of Lords by the Earl of Carlisle, who urged that the Jews were now the only persons excluded from Parliament on account of their religious opinions. As uniformity of belief on religious subjects had ceased to be required as the condition of admission to the legislature, it was obviously unjust to exclude Jews on that ground. The Bill was opposed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who argued that the measure was inconsistent with the national profession of Christianity; also by the Bishop of Exeter, who declared it to be a breach of the contract made between the sovereign and the nation—that ‘the Crown should maintain the laws of God, and the true profession of the Gospel.’ On the other side, Archbishop Whately argued that the spirit of Christianity forbids us to require the imposition of civil penalties on those who differ from it. On a division the Bill was lost by a majority of 25.