Accession

of the law that was against them, proved as good as his word. At the very beginning of his actual reign we have the earliest reliable evidence of a meeting-place for public worship according to Jewish rites. At first these services, though open to all Jews, were carefully concealed from the general public; yet after a lapse of three years it was possible to hold them openly; and the criminal proceedings which were threatened, or actually took place in consequence, were prevented or rendered abortive by the intervention of the king, and by the year 1674 the community, already firmly established, was able to obtain a long lease of a house, and especially reconstruct it for the purposes of a synagogue. No less than seventy members of the new congregation were granted during the reign letters of denization, and thus acquired the rights of English citizenship. Questions concerning the customs and rights of Jews, as would necessarily happen as soon as an actual settlement took place, now for the first time were discussed and decided in the courts of law-for instance, it was held that a Jew should be sworn on the Old Testament in legal proceedings whether at common law or in chancery; that it was right to alter the venue in a case where a Jew would be a necessary witness so that it should not be heard on Saturday, the Jewish Sabbath, and that a Jew might maintain an action in this country unless expressly prohibited by the king from carrying on trade here1. Under the aegis of the king, and protected by the exercise of his dispensing power, a Jewish community had been practically established, requiring only the like recognition and protection from succeeding monarchs to make itself permanently and legally secure.

On February 6, 168, Charles II died, and his brother of James James was proclaimed king. The new sovereign was from religious the first determined that the crushing disabilities under

II. His

policy.

1 See the cases of Robeley v. Langston (1667), 2 Keble, p. 314; and Anon. (1683), 1 Vern., p. 263; Barker v. Warren (1675), 2 Mod., p. 271; and case in Lilly's Practical Register, vol. I, p. 4 (1684).

which his fellow Papists laboured should no longer press upon them, and was quite willing to give similar relief to other Dissenters. In his speech made to the Privy Council at the time of his proclamation as king he promised “to preserve the government both in Church and State as it is now by law established," and to defend and support the Church of England. On March 5, to the great grief of all Protestants, mass was publicly said at Whitehall 1, but in his speech at the opening of Parliament on May 22, the king repeated the promise he had made to preserve the government both in Church and State. This assurance, it is plain, did not give universal satisfaction, for, fashionable as it was in those early days of his reign to profess unbounded confidence in the king, there was still some misgiving and jealousy of the royal power in religious matters which was bound to find expression. On May 27, the grand committee for religion reported that they had agreed upon two resolutions, of which the second was "That the house be moved to make an humble Address to his Majesty to publish his royal Proclamation for putting the laws in execution against all Dissenters whatsoever from the Church of England." This resolution gave great offence at court, and the court party in the House managed to defeat it by moving the previous question, which was carried, and the following motion was then unanimously adopted: "That this house doth acquiesce, entirely rely, and rest wholly satisfied in his majesty's gracious word and repeated Declaration, to support and defend the Religion of the Church of England, as it is now by law established; which is dearer to us than our lives 2." Though no pro- Jews arclamation was issued, an attempt was a short time after- rested and charged wards made to enforce the penal laws against the Jews; with refor one Thomas Beaumont issued process under the statute cusancy. made in the 23rd year of Queen Elizabeth, which inflicted

1 Evelyn's Memoirs, vol. I, p. 551.

• Commons Journals, vol. IX, p. 721; Parl. Hist., vol. IV, p. 1357.

On the

petition of

and others

a formal Order in Council

a penalty of £20 a month for non-attendance at church, against no fewer than forty-eight Jews, of whom thirty-seven were arrested" as they were following their occasions on the Royal Exchange"; whereupon Joseph Henriques, Abraham Joseph Delivera, and Aaron Pacheco, the overseers of the Jewish synaHenriques gogue, presented a petition to the King in Council praying his Majesty to permit and suffer them as heretofore to have the free exercise of their religion, during their good bemade stay-haviour towards his Majesty's Government." King James ing the following his brother's example by a formal Order in Council, exercised his dispensing power in favour of the Jews by ordering the Attorney-General to stop all the proceedings against them; " His Majesty's intention being (so the order runs), "that they should not be troubled upon this account, but quietly enjoy the free exercise of their religion, whilst they behave themselves dutifully and obediently to his government1."

proceed

ings.

Dispute between

James II and Par

liament concern

ing the

This Order in Council was made on November 13, 1685, at the very time when Parliament, newly reassembled after the suppression of Monmouth's rebellion, was questioning the power of the king to retain in his service Roman Catholic officers who had served against the rebels by Dispensing Power. granting them dispensations from the Test Act. In his speech to both Houses, at the resumption of the session on November 9, James openly expressed his intention of continuing them in their employment, saying: "And I will deal plainly with you, that after having had the benefit of their service in such time of need and danger, I will neither expose them to disgrace, nor myself to want of them, if there should be another rebellion to make them necessary for me 2." On November 14 the House of Commons resolved to present an address dealing with this matter which, when finally drawn up and adopted, ran as follows: "We further crave leave to acquaint your Majesty that we have with all duty and readiness taken into consideration your Majesty's

1 Hag., Cons. Cas., Appendix, p. 3.

2 Commons Journals, vol. IX., p. 756; Lords Journals, vol. XIV, p. 73.

gracious speech to us, and as to that part of it relating to the officers in the Army not qualified for their employments according to an Act of Parliament made in the twenty-fifth year of the reign of your Majesty's Royal Brother of blessed memory, intituled an Act for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants, we do out of our bounden duty humbly represent unto your Majesty, that these officers cannot by law be capable of their employments; and that the incapacities they bring upon themselves thereby can no ways be taken off but by an Act of Parliament: Therefore out of that great deference and duty we owe unto your Majesty who has been graciously pleased to take of their services to you, we are preparing a Bill to pass both Houses for your royal assent to indemnify them for the penalties they have now incurred. And because the continuance of them in their employments may be taken to be a dispensing with that Law, without Act of Parliament (the consequence of which is of greatest concern to the rights of all your Majesty's dutiful and loyal subjects and to all the laws made for the security of their religion) we therefore, the knights, citizens, and burgesses of your Majesty's House of Commons, do most humbly beseech your Majesty, that you would be graciously pleased to give such directions therein, that no apprehensions or jealousies may remain in the hearts of your Majesty's good and faithful subjects." A motion was made that the concurrence of the Lords be desired to the said Address, but was rejected by 212 votes to 138. And so, as had happened in the year 1673, the denial of the dispensing power of the Crown was embodied in a resolution of the Lower House only. The Lords, however, did not desire to be left behind in this matter, for on Thursday, November 19, they resolved "that Monday next be appointed for reading and considering His Majesty's speech." But in the meantime the king, who had been highly incensed with the Commons Address when presented to him, and had expressed dissatisfaction and surprise at their want of confidence in him, prorogued Parliament,

The strug

gle trans

ferred to

the Law

Courts.

which never met again for the transaction of business during his short reign 1.

The struggle was now transferred from the Parliament House to the Law Courts. A decision that the king had power to dispense with the penalties inflicted by the Test Act was obtained2, and James proceeded to make the utmost use of this judgment in his favour, but not content with tion of In- granting dispensations wholesale, at length in April, dulgence. 1687, he published a Declaration for liberty of conscience,

James is

sues his Declara

suspending all the penal laws, and remitting all penalties incurred under them; allowing the free exercise of every form of religion, and announcing that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and the recently enacted tests, should no longer be required to be taken or subscribed by any person," and further declaring that this royal pardon and indemnity should be as good and effectual to all intents and purposes as if every individual person had been therein particularly named or had particular pardons under the great seal." A year afterwards this Declaration of Indulgence was reissued, and ordered to be read in all churches, but now the storm, which had long been brewing, at length burst, and James was driven from his throne.

1 Commons Journals, vol. IX, pp. 758, 759, 761 ; Lords Journals, vol. XIV, p. 88. 'The case is Godden v. Hales, which was decided in Easter term, 1686. The action was brought against Sir Edward Hales to recover a penalty of £500 incurred by holding the office of colonel in the army without having taken the oath required by the Test Act. The defendant, in answer, pleaded a dispensation from the Crown. Sir Edward Herbert, Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, after taking time to consult the other judges, declared that he and all the other judges (except Street and Powell, who doubted) were of opinion (1) that the kings of England are sovereign princes; (2) that the laws are the king's laws; (3) therefore it is an inseparable power in the kings of England to dispense with penal laws in particular cases, and upon particular necessary reasons; (4) that of those reasons and those necessities the king himself is sole judge; (5) that this is not a trust invested in or granted to the king, but the ancient remains of the sovereign power and prerogative of the kings of England, which never yet was taken from them nor can be. And therefore, such a dispensation appearing upon record, judgment ought to be given for the defendant. See 2 Shower, p. 475; XI St. Tr., p. 1166 seq.