The Plantation Act,

1740.

of naturalization given to foreigners engaged in the whale fishery was similarly restricted to Protestants, who might qualify themselves in the ways above stated 1.

A more liberal and enlightened policy animated the framers of the Acts for the encouragement of settlement in the American colonies. By the statute (13 Geo. II, c. 7) entitled an Act for naturalizing such foreign Protestants and others therein mentioned, as are settled or shall settle in any of his Majesty's colonies in America, and popularly known as the Plantation Act, foreigners who had resided in any of the American colonies for seven years or more might be naturalized upon taking the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and abjuration, and also receiving the sacrament. But special provisions were made in favour of Quakers and Jews. Both were exempted from receiving the sacrament; the former were allowed to affirm instead of taking the oaths, and the latter to omit the obnoxious words, "on the true faith of a Christian," which formed the conclusion of the oath of abjuration. Moreover, although the persons thus naturalized had their political rights limited by the Act of Settlement, yet in their case the incapacity to hold any office or place of trust or have any grant of lands from the Crown, applied only to offices or grants in Great Britain and Ireland, and not

1 By 22 Geo. II, c. 45, s. 8 seq., foreign Protestants serving for three years on board English ships employed in the whale fishery and qualifying themselves by taking the oaths and the sacrament were to be deemed natural-born subjects, and by 26 Geo. III, c. 50, s. 24, aliens employed in the southern whale fishery for five years, and by the amending Act, 28 Geo. III, c. 20, ss. 15 and 16, the foreign owners of ships so employed for a like period may be naturalized. It is to be observed that the benefit of these Acts relating to the southern whale fishery was not confined to Protestants, and the only condition precedent was the taking of the oath of allegiance; neither the sacrament nor the other oaths being necessary. But the Acts were not long in force, for they were repealed in 1795 by 35 Geo. III, c. 92. See s. 36 seq., which restrict the privilege of naturalization to forty families owning whalers and settling at Milford before Jan. 1, 1798.

to the colonies or elsewhere 1. The Jews who had great interests in the American colonies, and more particularly in the West Indian Islands, freely availed themselves of the benefit of this Act, as can be seen from the lists of names of persons thus naturalized, which, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the Secretary of each colony was bound annually to transmit to the office of the Commissioners for Trade and Plantations for the purpose of registration 2.

Naturali

Thirteen years later was introduced the famous Jew The Jews Bill, the merit of which is ascribed both to the Lord zation Chancellor, Lord Hardwicke, and the Prime Minister, Act, 1753. Mr. Pelham, by their respective biographers. No measure has perhaps been more thoroughly misrepresented. It was entitled "an Act to permit persons professing the Jewish religion to be naturalized by Parliament, and for other purposes therein mentioned." It recited first the Naturalization Act of 1609, under which no alien was to obtain a private Act of Parliament for his naturalization unless he had first received the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, and secondly the Plantation Act of 1740, under which Jews could be naturalized in the American colonies without the necessity of first receiving the sacrament, and then enacted that Jews might, in spite of the provisions of the Act of 1609, be naturalized by private Act of Parliament without receiving the sacrament. It further provided that the political rights excepted by the Act of Settlement should be excluded, and that no person should obtain such a private Act of Parliament who had not resided in Great

1 See 13 Geo. II, c. 7, s. 6; 20 Geo. II, c. 44, s. 5; and 13 Geo. III, c. 25. ? For the names of persons naturalized in His Majesty's plantations in America, 1740-61, see the Colonial Office Records (Board of Trade), Plantations General, vols. 59 and 66, and Jews in the British West Indies, by Dr. Friedenwald, Pub. American Jewish Hist. Soc., No. 5. In the debate in the House of Commons on Dec. 4, 1753, it was stated that 185 Jews had been naturalized during the thirteen years in which the Act had then been in operation, and of these no fewer than 130 resided in the island of Jamaica (see Lord Orford's Memoires, vol. I, p. 317).

R

Britain or Ireland for three years without being absent for more than three months at any one time, or who should not bring proof that he had professed the Jewish religion for the past three years. It further contained a clause disabling every person professing the Jewish religion from purchasing, inheriting, or otherwise acquiring any advowson or right of patronage or presentation or other interest whatsoever in any benefice or ecclesiastical living. The Bill passed through the House of Lords without a division, and without any serious opposition. When the Bill came down to the Commons, it was soon perceived that political capital might be made out of it by an unscrupulous opposition. The Parliament was then nearly six years old, and there was bound to be a general election in the course of the following year. It was therefore determined to make a party cry against the government in office out of the introduction of a piece of legislation which, though a measure of justice, must have been felt even by its authors to be lacking the element of popularity. A sharp debate arose on the second reading; it was urged by the opposition that Christianity itself was dishonoured, that the Established Church was menaced, that the country would be inundated by Jews, and that all landed property, public offices, and political power would be monopolized by them. It was, on the other hand, pointed out that Jews had been living in England under the protection of the law for nearly a century, that they could already be naturalized in the colonies under the Plantation Act, that at most only a limited number would be able to avail themselves of the present enactment; and that Parliament could refuse to pass any particular Naturalization Bill which might be presented to it; but the Bill would encourage persons of wealth and substance to come to the country and so increase its commerce and credit. The second reading was carried by ninety-five votes to sixteen. The agitation in the country was, however, spreading, petitions were presented to Parliament against the Bill,

including one from the Mayor, Aldermen, and citizens of London. A division was again challenged when the Bill was read a third time upon a motion for adjournment, and this was only thrown out by ninety-six votes to fifty-five. The Bill accordingly received the Royal Assent and became law as the Jewish Naturalization Act, 1753 (26 Geo. II, c. 26).

Naturali

Repeal

The contest was not over. During the summer recess it The Jews was transferred from the Parliament House to the country. zation The flames of prejudice and intolerance which had been Act, sedulously fanned during the debate in the House of Act, 1754. Commons now burst forth with the utmost fury. Pamphlets and broadsides were issued by both parties. Sober and temperate arguments were put forward on the one side, every calumny and insult at any time levelled against the Jewish race was raked up on the other. In such an arena the issue could not be long doubtful. Reason had to yield to passion, and the cry "No Jews! No Jews! No Wooden Shoes," was heard throughout the length and breadth of the land. The Bishop of Norwich was openly insulted in several parts of his diocese when holding the annual confirmations, on account of having supported the Bill in the Lords, and members of the lower House who represented other than pocket boroughs were threatened with the loss of their seats. The Government in view of the impending general election decided to give way before the storm. On November 15, 1753, the very first day of the new session, the Duke of Newcastle, brother to the Prime Minister, and himself a Secretary of State, introduced a Bill in the House of Lords to repeal the unpopular measure, retaining, nevertheless, the clause by which Jews were disabled from purchasing or inheriting an advowson or right of patronage in the church. It was, however, objected by the enemies of the Jews that the retention of this clause in the statute book would give parliamentary sanction to the doctrine, by no means at that time universally accepted, that Jews born here are by the common law entitled to all the rights

of natural-born subjects, including the right to hold real property. The clause was in consequence omitted, and the Act of the preceding session totally repealed1.

In the Commons also no time was lost in attacking the obnoxious Act. As soon as the Address was agreed to, a motion was made and carried without opposition that the House should be called over on December 4 in order to take the Act into consideration. In the meanwhile the repealing Bill came down from the House of Lords. Both political parties being agreed upon the expediency of repeal, the debate turned upon the preamble by which Ministers thought to defend themselves from the charge of pusillanimously yielding to popular clamour. It read, "Whereas occasion has been taken from the said Act to raise discontents and to disquiet the minds of many of his Majesty's subjects"; the Ministerial contention being that the Act in reality was of no importance in the sphere of religion, and gave only a small indulgence to the Jews by relieving them from one only of the formalities the law required for naturalization as a British subject, but that it had been unjustifiably misrepresented far and wide as being of far-reaching effect upon the constitution as a whole, and the Established Church in particular, and that the uproar thus occasioned was such that to retain it on the statute book would do the cause of the Jews more harm than good. At the same time in revoking it there ought to be an expression of disapprobation at the course pursued by those who had misled the public. On the other hand it was maintained by the opponents of the Bill that the popular tumult was fully justified by so iniquitous a measure, and an amendment was moved to substitute for the words quoted, "Whereas great discontents and disquietudes had from the said Act arisen in the minds of many of his Majesty's subjects." The original preamble

1 In consequence a Jew may at the present time have the right to present a clergyman to a benefice in the Church of England. Supra, pp. 194-5.