Until after the decision of Godden v. Hales in Easter The ille James's term, 1686, the king had probably not gone beyond the gality of law, though he had undoubtedly stretched his prerogative proceedings. to its furthest limits, but his proceedings after that time are rightly regarded as wholly illegal. A special dispensation to a particular person or persons is very different from a general indemnity to all who might violate and incur penalties under the penal laws. However much we may at the present time approve of the wording and the substance of the declarations of indulgence, we cannot forget that if toleration was to be established, it could be secured only by an Act of the legislature, and not by the king alone usurping the authority of Parliament. James's hopes of success had lain in uniting all the dissenting sects against the Established Church, but the great mass of Dissenters were as vehement in their opposition as churchmen, partly because they regarded the indulgence offered them as illegal and unconstitutional, and a direct infringement of the liberties of the people and their right of legislation, and partly because they feared that the real object of placing the members of the different sects on the same footing as members of the Church of England, was, after destroying the supremacy of the Established Church, to gradually transfer it to the adherents of the Church of Rome. The Jews did not avail themselves of Did not the Declaration of Indulgence, but for different reasons Jews. from their nonconformist brethren. They were satisfied with the dispensation granted them by Charles II, and confirmed by James II in November, 1685, for it enabled them to escape the penalties of recusancy, and also to hold public worship in accordance with the rites of their religion; nor had they any desire to take any part in the political life of the country, which under the Declaration of Indulgence they might have done. For not only were they for the most part aliens and wholly absorbed in commercial enterprises, but one of the ascamoth or laws of the synagogue strictly forbade its members from affect the Views on at the time of the Revolution. taking any part in politics1—a very wise provision in the then condition of the newly-organized community. The position of the Jews therefore remained throughout the reign the same as it had been under Charles II, but lapse of time and the confirmation of the dispensation given by Charles and his successor rendered their settlement more secure, and their community was rapidly increasing, and still enjoying the royal favour, as is proved by the fact that thirty-four of its members were granted letters of denization by James II during his short reign. The Revolution of 1688 did not affect the status of the toleration Jews. It was indeed recognized that it was necessary to reward in some way the loyalty to the constitution of the Dissenters, who, in spite of the indulgence offered them by the deposed king, had joined entirely in the resistance to the illegal attacks on the rights and privileges of the Established Church, but it was determined that the toleration to be granted should be strictly limited. The penal laws might be divided into two classes; first those which compelled attendance at church, and punished the holding of religious services not in conformity with the ritual laid down in the book of common prayer, secondly those which disabled all who did not profess the doctrines of the Church, and join in communion with it, from sitting in Parliament, or holding any political or municipal office or any place of profit under the Crown. The gratitude felt by churchmen to their nonconformist brethren for the support rendered to the Church in her hour of need, was not strong enough to create any desire to admit them to any share of political power, and it was thought that sufficient generosity was shown in granting freedom of worship to Protestant Dissenters, and relief from the penalties incurred by absence from church. No attempt was therefore made to mitigate any of the laws falling under the second category, nor were any of those belonging to the first class amended or repealed, but, in accordance with a mode of legislation 1 Gaster, The Ancient Synagogue, p. 88. which seems peculiarly dear to the English people, the effect of disobedience was annulled by exempting Dissenters from the penalties they would have otherwise incurred. This was done by means of the statute (1 Will. & M., cap. 18) The Toleentitled "An Act for exempting their Majesties' protestant ration Act. subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the penalties of certain laws," and generally known as the Toleration Act. In spite of its high sounding title the toleration granted was strictly limited to Protestant Nonconformists, who might take the new oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and subscribe a declaration against transubstantiation; though Dissenters, such as Quakers, "who scruple the taking of any oath," were allowed instead to subscribe a declaration of fidelity to the throne, and also a profession of their Christian belief, and it was also provided "that neither this Act nor any clause, article, or thing herein contained, shall extend or be construed to extend to give any ease, benefit, or advantage to any papist or popish recusant whatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaid articles of religion." Dissenters entitled to the benefit of the Act were enabled to have their places of worship certified, and persons who should disturb the services held there were made liable to penalties. At the same time it was made clear that there was no intention to allow any relaxation of the strict observance of the Sunday, for by section 16 "all the laws made and provided for the frequenting of divine service on the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, shall be still in force, and executed against all persons that offend against the said laws, except such persons come to some congregation or assembly of religious worship, allowed or permitted by this Act." Yet, such as it is, the Toleration Act is not unjustly regarded as the charter of freedom of conscience in this country, for it in practice gave all the liberty which at the time it was intended to allow. Nonconformity was still regarded in theory as a crime, but exceptions were introduced, which in the course of time became so numerous as to eat up the rule. The true effect of the Toleration Act is well expressed by Lord Mansfield in his speech in giving judgment in the House of Lords in the case of the Chamberlain of London v. Evans in the year 1767; he says, that in former days nonconformity was "in the eye of the law a crime, every man being required by the canon law, received and confirmed by statute law, to take the sacrament in the church at least once a-year, . . . but the case is quite altered since the Act of Toleration; it is now no crime for a man, who is within the description of that Act, to say he is a Dissenter; nor is it any crime for him not to take the sacrament according to the rites of the Church of England; nay, the crime is, if he does it contrary to the dictates of his conscience. . . . The Toleration Act renders that which was illegal before now legal; the Dissenters' way of worship is permitted and allowed by this Act; it is not only exempted from punishment, but rendered innocent and lawful; it is established; it is put under the protection and is not merely under the connivance of the law. . . . Dissenters, within the description of the Toleration Act, are restored to a legal consideration and capacity; and an hundred consequences will from thence follow, which are not mentioned in the Act. For instance, previous to the Toleration Act, it was unlawful to devise any legacy for the support of dissenting congregations, or for the benefit of dissenting ministers; for the law knew no such assemblies and no such persons; and such a devise was absolutely void, being left to what the law called superstitious purposes. But will it be said in any court in England, that such a devise is not a good and valid one now?" but then he adds later," the case of Atheists and Infidels (among whom Jews are included)" is out of the present question; they come not within the description of the Toleration Act 1." 1 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. XVI, pp. 313-27. of the ration Act. The benefit of the Toleration Act was extended to Extension Unitarians in the year 1813, and to the Roman Catholics, benefits of who had received considerable measures of relief by the Tolestatutes passed in 1778, 1791, 1829, in the year 1832, and finally to the Jews in the year 1846, but until the reign of Queen Victoria there had been no legislative enactment exempting the Jews from the penalties of the penal laws, which were finally repealed in the years 1844 and 18461. 1 In 1812 three of the most intolerant Acts passed in the reign of Charles II, namely, the Act against Quakers, the Five Mile Act, and the Conventicle Act, were repealed by the Places of Religious Worship Act, 1812 (52 Geo. III, cap. 155), which also made it necessary, under a penalty of £20, to certify and register all places for religious worship of Protestants, at which more than twenty persons should be present. In 1813, 53 Geo. III, cap. 160, admitted Unitarians to the benefit of the Toleration Act, by repealing the last two lines of sect. 17, which exclude any person who shall deny the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. The Acts relieving Roman Catholics are (1) Sir George Savile's Act (18 Geo. III, cap. 60), which exempted Roman Catholics who took the prescribed oath, expressing allegiance to King George and disclaiming the Stuarts and the deposing power of the Pope, from many of the disabilities and penalties imposed since the Revolution by 11 & 12 Will. III, cap. 4. Catholics were henceforth allowed to purchase and inherit land, and the provisions allowing a Protestant kinsman to enter and enjoy the estate of a Catholic heir, and imposing perpetual imprisonment for keeping a Roman Catholic school, were repealed. (2) The Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1791 (31 Geo. III, cap. 32), which among other things exempted all persons who should make a declaration professing the Roman Catholic religion, and take the prescribed oath of allegiance to the king and the Hanoverian succession, from all penalties for not resorting to the parish church, and from being prosecuted for being a Papist, or for hearing or saying mass, or taking part in any other ceremony of the popish religion, provided that all places of worship should be certified, and provided also “that all the laws made and provided for the frequenting of divine service on the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday, shall be still in force, and executed against all persons who shall offend against the said laws, unless such persons shall come to some congregation or assembly of religious worship permitted by this Act or by the" Toleration Act, i.e. a Roman Catholic or Protestant Nonconformist chapel. (3) 43 Geo. III, cap. 30, substitutes the declaration and oath prescribed in the Catholic Relief Act of 1791 for the oath prescribed in Sir George Savile's Act of 1778. (4) The Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829 (10 Geo. IV, cap. 7), admitted Roman Catholics to full political rights, with certain exceptions, by exempting them from the provisions of the Test Acts and the Corporation Act. (5) The Roman Catholic Charities Act of 1832 (2 & 3 Will. IV, cap. 115) extended to Roman M |