that the legislature tacitly acquiesced in this particular exercise of the dispensing power formerly claimed by the Crown, nor was there any individual bold enough to challenge it by persisting in a prosecution in a court of law. This fact is not without significance, when it is remembered that the laws against recusants, though by no means uniformly enforced, had not become quite obsolete, even at the time when they were finally repealed. The Criminal Law Commissioners, in their first report published in 1845, mention a considerable number of convictions, followed by actual imprisonment of the offenders, which had recently to their knowledge taken place in different parts of the country. Though never questioned in a court of law, the immunity of the Jews did in truth rest upon sufficiently sure foundations. It could not indeed be proved that any charter or formal document of exemption had been executed in their favour, but the fact of the dispensation was sufficiently evidenced by the story of the proceedings taken against them on two important occasions in two different reigns.

There can be little doubt that in the reign of Charles II, when the Jews re-established their community here, the king still retained the power of dispensing with laws, though subject to certain limits, which even in those times could not be precisely defined, but which it was generally acknowledged that James II had in the latter part of his reign undoubtedly transgressed. Accordingly it was not absolutely condemned by the Declaration of Rights, but it was thought sufficient to declare that "the pretended power of dispensing with laws or the execution of laws, by regall authoritie, as it hath beene assumed and exercised of late, is illegall." To prevent such abuse in the future, the Bill of Rights absolutely abolished the power, except in such cases

1 See first report of Her Majesty's Commissioners for revising and consolidating the criminal law, note on pp. 32-3, and also Lord Brougham's remarks, Hans. Parl. Debat., vol. 59, p. 815 (1841), and id., vol. 85, p. 1264 (1846).

as should be specially provided for by statute, and contained a special saving clause, providing no charter, grant, or pardon granted before October 23, 1689, should be in any way impeached or invalidated. Though the Jews had no formal charter in their possession, they could claim the final words of the Order in Council of 1685-" His Majesty's intention being 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 government "-as a grant within the meaning of the proviso 1.

When the facts are properly analysed, it is difficult to Resulting anomaly suggest any other foundation for the freedom of the Jews in the law to establish synagogues, and to absent themselves from as to the church, than the exercise of the dispensing power of the tion of SyRegistraCrown. From this an anomalous consequence of no small nagogues. practical importance resulted, namely, that there never was any necessity to certify or register a synagogue in the same way as places of religious worship belonging to other Dissenting bodies. The benefit of the Toleration Act of 1688 was confined to persons who attended divine service at some place permitted by the Act, and no place for religious worship was permitted by the Act until certified to the Bishop, Archdeacon, or Quarter Sessions, and duly registered or recorded, and the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1791 contained similar provisions for the certification and registration of Roman Catholic places of worship. Furthermore, the second section of the Places of Religious Worship Act, 1812, which is still in force, imposed a penalty of twenty pounds upon every person permitting a congregation or assembly for religious worship of Protestants, at which more than twenty persons should be present, to meet in any place occupied by him before it had been duly certified.

1 For the dispensing power see the cases of non-obstante, 12 Rep., fo. 18: Thomas v. Sorrel (1674), Vaughan, p. 330, and Godden v. Hales (1686), 2 Shower, p. 475, and XI St. Tr., p. 1,166, with the notes, especially those at pp. 1,187 and 1,251, and generally Broom's Constitutional Law, pp. 492-506; Anson's Parliament, pp. 311-17; and Burnet's Reign of James II, pp. 458-60.

In the year 1855 the Act for securing the liberty of religious worship (18 & 19 Vict., cap. 86) considerably modified this stringent provision, by excepting from its operation assemblies for religious worship conducted by the incumbent of the parish, or a person authorized by him, and congregations meeting in a private dwelling-house, or meeting occasionally in a building not usually appropriated to religious worship. The second section of the same Act, by providing that the expression in the Act of 1846, Her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion, in respect of their places for religious worship, shall be subject to the same laws as Protestant Dissenters are subject to, shall mean are subject to for the time being after the passing of this Act, seems to imply that at that time it was necessary to certify a Jewish synagogue. But it is certain that there was no provision for certifying a synagogue before 1846, and it is hardly consonant with the true principles of the interpretation of statutes to extend the scope of a highly penal section of an Act of Parliament in this indirect way, especially by an enactment entitled "An Act to relieve Her Majesty's subjects from certain penalties and disabilities in regard to religious opinions," the manifest intention of which was to grant relief from former burdens, but not to impose any new obligations. However, by the Places of certifying Religious Worship Registration Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict., cap. 81), a Jewish synagogue may be certified in writing to the Registrar-General of births, deaths, and marriages, and will then be registered in due time. Although, as has been said, this course is optional and not compulsory, it is to be recommended, because it ensures the following advantages. A building so certified is exempt from uninvited interference by the Charity Commissioners, and is also, if exclusively appropriated to public religious worship, not liable to be rated for parochial or municipal purposes1. In

Advantages of

a syna

gogue.

1 See 16 & 17 Vict., cap. 137, sec. 62; 18 & 19 Vict., cap. 81, sec. 9; and 32 & 33 Vict., cap. 110, sec. 15, as to the provisions of the Charitable Trusts Act; and as to the exemption from rates, 3 & 4 Will. IV, cap. 30; 5 & 6 Will. IV, cap. 50, sec. 27; and 38 & 39 Vict., cap. 55, sec. 151.

addition, a synagogue not certified is not entitled to any of the advantages conferred by the legislature in 1846: a gift or legacy to it is void, nor can contracts to hire seats in it be enforced, or disturbers of the service be punished.

of the

Jewish

With the mention of this somewhat curious anomaly, the Summary consequence of this method in which full legal recognition foregoing has been given to the Jewish religion, it is time to bring account of the legal the foregoing inquiry to a close; nor is it necessary to recognirecapitulate at any length the conclusions already arrived tion of the at. In the year 1290 the Jews were banished from the religion. kingdom by royal edict, but this edict, now lost, would not avail to absolutely exclude from the country centuries afterwards Jews in no way connected with the former bondsmen of the king. From time to time isolated Jews came and lived in England, but the severity of the laws enforcing uniformity of religion was sufficient to prevent the formation of a Jewish community, and as late as the reign of James I the Jews that were here fled the country through fear of the commissioners appointed to execute the laws against Jesuits. The treaty with Spain in 1630 made it somewhat easier for Jews to settle here, by allowing them to evade some of the penalties imposed on recusants, but this advantage, such as it was, was lost by the outbreak of the war with Spain in 1656, though restored after the return of Charles II. Availing themselves of this advantage a small number of Jews settled in the country in the reign of Charles I, and at the time of the execution of that king a formal request was made for the recognition of the Jewish religion, but it was not successful, and being renewed seven years later, in spite of the fair words used and the courtesy shown to Menasseh, it again proved a failure. During Cromwell's régime nothing was done; but there is evidence that the Protector allowed some halfdozen families of persons he knew to be Jews to remain in the realm, but this was a special favour which did not enable them to form a distinct body or set up a synagogue. During his exile Charles II made a formal promise to

relax the law in their favour; but no legislation was introduced, nor, if introduced, would it have had a chance of success. But the promise was fulfilled. A considerable number of Jews received the rights of citizenship; a distinct Jewish community arose, and a synagogue was established. At first the services were kept strictly secret, for fear of the enforcement of the penal laws, but, under the protection of the king's dispensing power, before the end of 1663 it was possible to hold them with open doors, and the attacks made upon the Jews were successfully repelled. On the accession of King James II a further and last attempt was made to visit with the rigour of the law the still young and struggling community, which was again saved by the exercise of the dispensing power of the Crown. After the Revolution the power of dispensation was swept away, but it was expressly provided that charters or grants already made should not be held invalid, and the formal Order in Council of November 13, 1685, granting the Jews the free exercise of their religion, was thus confirmed. At length, in 1846, after an interval of more than a century and a half, the Jewish religion, the profession of which had been frequently recognized by the legislature, was formally made legal by Act of Parliament.