Relief Test and No relief was formally given to enable Nonconformists from the to fill municipal, political, or military offices, from which Corpora- all who did not take the Communion according to the rites tion Acts. of the Church of England were excluded; but after the Legisla tive relief from the given to the Jews. beginning of the reign of George II such offices were practically thrown open to Protestant Dissenters by passing annual Indemnity Acts, the first of which is 1 Geo. II, st. 2, cap. 23, in favour of those who had omitted to qualify themselves under the Corporation and Test Acts. At length in the year 1828 the statute 9 Geo. IV, cap. 17, substituted a Declaration, " upon the true faith of a Christian,' not to disturb or injure the Established Church for the Sacramental test, thus sweeping away all the political disabilities of Protestant Nonconformists, and in the following year the obligation to make a Declaration against transubstantiation was repealed, and Papists also, under certain conditions, were admitted to full political rights by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829. It is somewhat remarkable that, until the year 1846, no legislative relief from the penal laws, except in so far as penal laws some of them had been repealed in the year 1812 and the at length year 1844, was granted to the Jews. The repealing Acts were not intended to benefit the Jews; but were made in favour of Protestant Dissenters and Roman Catholics respectively. Indeed the statute passed in the last-mentioned year, which is entitled "An Act to repeal certain Penal enactments made against Her Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects," expressly restricted the repeal of many of the statutes it dealt with, to the extent to which they related to or in any manner affected Roman Catholics, The Commission for revising and consolidating the criminal law, which was appointed in February, 1845, recommended in its first report, published three months afterwards, that the Catholics the benefit of the Toleration Act, by making them subject to the same laws as Protestant Dissenters "in respect of their schools, places for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes." (6) 7 & 8 Vict., cap. 102, expressly repealed many of the penal enactments, so far as they "relate to or in any manner affect Roman Catholics." clauses in the Uniformity Acts by which a penalty is inflicted for repairing to other places of worship than churches, and also those inflicting penalties on Roman Catholics, Dissenters, and Jews for professing, exercising, or promoting any religion other than that of the Established Church, and also the Laws of Recusancy, be repealed, and further that the religious worship of the Jews be protected in like manner as that of Roman Catholics and Dissenters. These recommendations were carried out in the following year by the Act to relieve Her Majesty's Subjects from certain penalties and Disabilities in regard to Religious opinions (9 & 10 Vict., cap. 59). At length, therefore, after the lapse of more than a century and a half, the Jews were formally, by a solemn Act of the legislature, admitted to the benefits of the Toleration Act, and their religion was no longer merely connived at, but was placed under the protection of the law. During this long period the Jewish question was frequently brought to the notice of Parliament, and the Jews had always both friends and enemies in that assembly; but the Jewish question never became a burning question of the day1. The enemies of the Jewish religion, having the letter of the law in their favour, did not feel the necessity of taking any legislative action, though they may have deplored their inability to enforce the penal laws against the Jews. The friends of the Jews, on the other hand, did not care to introduce remedial measures, which would have certainly been opposed and possibly if not probably defeated, because in fact the Jewish religion, though not sanctioned by Parliament, had under the king's dispensing power, as exercised by the Orders in Council in 1674 and 1685, all the protection that was necessary. The synagogue was always open; its worshippers were not prosecuted, and a considerable and 1 An exception should perhaps be made of the events following the ill-fated Naturalization Act of 1753, but even then the right of public worship and the practical freedom from the penalties of recusancy were never seriously brought in question. Parliament and to lay upon them. increasing Jewish community gradually grew up both in London and the principal commercial centres. Every year the position became more secure, and premature attempts at legislation would have only endangered it. It cannot, however, be disputed that the Jews were the Jews. deliberately excluded from the Toleration Act, for almost Attempt immediately after its passage their status was the subject special of discussion in the House of Commons. In order to taxation provide funds for the reduction of Ireland, which still held out for the Stuart king, and the vigorous prosecution of the war against France, it was resolved in the autumn of 1689 to raise an additional supply of two million pounds. On November 7, the Committee of the whole House, which was sitting to consider the means of raising this sum, recommended that a tax of one hundred thousand pounds be laid upon the Jews, and a bill for that purpose was ordered to be brought in. On November 11 the Jews presented a petition to the House of Commons against the proposed tax. The rule of the House then was that no petition against a bill imposing a tax would be entertained, or if presented entered upon the Journals of the House. This rule, founded on the assumption that as a tax extended over all parts of the kingdom, no individual should be allowed to treat it as a special grievance to himself, was not rescinded until 1842, when standing order 82, discontinuing the former usage and enabling the House to entertain such petitions, was passed. Consequently the petition and the debate upon it are not mentioned in the Commons Journals. The petition gave a very interesting account of the condition of the Jews in England at this time: stating that about the year 1654 there came six Jew families into this kingdom, which since the Restoration of Charles II had been increased to the number of between three and four score families, who had settled in the cities of London and Westminster, under the public faith and protection of King Charles II; that many of them had been made denizens by the last two kings, and that though one half of them had moderate or indifferent estates, the other half consisted partly of persons assisting the better sort in the management of their commerce, and partly of poor people maintained by their richer brethren, and in no ways chargeable to the parish; that they paid all the taxes and fulfilled all the duties imposed upon them, and by their large commercial transactions they greatly enriched the nation, and increased the revenue from Customs: that they were wholly unable to pay the large sum proposed to be levied upon them, and could not expect any assistance from their brethren abroad; so that if the tax were proceeded with they would be utterly ruined. Though not mentioned in the petition, the rumour was spread abroad that the Jews would be forced to leave the country, and that they would remove themselves and their effects into Holland, rather than submit to the imposition1. On Nov. 19 the petition was delivered by Mr. Paul Foley, member for Hereford, and afterwards Speaker; and a debate as to whether it should be received ensued. It was questioned whether the Jews were subjects of the king having the right to petition Parliament, and stated that, if they were, they had no more right than their fellow subjects, and could not petition against an Aid. Sir Thomas Lee said: 'Pray let not such petitions be received. You will not receive it from others, pray begin not with the Jews." And though Mr. Foley answered these arguments by declaring "I think that for the honour of the House you are to hear what they will say. When you lay a general tax on a whole kingdom, you can receive no petition against it, because all are represented here, but when there is a particular tax on men they may petition." Mr. Speaker Powle stated that he never knew a petition against a Bill before the House was seised of it, and it was decided not to receive the petition 2. On Dec. 30 the Bill was read a first 1 See the Greenwich Hospital News-letter, 3, No. 77, Nov. 12; Cal. S. P. Dom., 1689, p. 318; and Luttrell's Diary, vol. I, p. 303. 2 Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. V, p. 444, and Gray's Parl. Debates, vol. IX, pp. 437-8. Jews in the Act time, and it was resolved that it should be read a second Mention of On other occasions also the permanent settlement of the Jews here was recognized by Parliament, and they are imposing more than once expressly mentioned in Acts of Parliament. The first of these Acts is 6 & 7 Will. and Mar. cap. 6, entitled "An act for granting to His Majesty certaine rates and duties upon Marriages, Births, and Burials, and upon taxation on mar riages. 1 See Macaulay's History, ch. xv; Commons Journals, vol. X, pp. 281, 319; 2 S. P. Calendar, Feb. 10, 1690. |