Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

was ultimately adopted by 113 votes to 47, and the repealing Bill passed into law.

cessful

away the

natural

Notwithstanding, a few days afterwards, on December 4, Unsucthe day appointed for the call of the House, Lord Henley attempt moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal so much of to take the Plantation Act of 1740 as enabled Jews to obtain right of naturalization in the colonies, but the party in power Jews to be feeling that they had already paid sufficient attention to ized in the mere clamour, and that it would be dangerous to still colonies. further gratify the spirit of intolerance and fanaticism that was abroad, strongly opposed the reopening of the subject, and the motion was thrown out by 208 to 88.

Such is the story of the famous Jew Bill, creditable neither to the intelligence of the mob nor the courage of the Ministry; of it let us say with Blackstone, "Peace be now to its manes 1."

naturali

zation.

Seventy-two years afterwards Parliament passed the Recent statute 6 Geo. IV, c. 67, which was not confined to Jews, in th changes but abolished in all cases the necessity of receiving the law of sacrament imposed by the Naturalization Act of James I on all applicants to Parliament for Naturalization Bills 2. Moreover, in 1844 Mr. Hutt's Naturalization Act (7 and 8 Vict., c. 66) introduced the system of acquiring British nationality by means of a certificate from a Secretary of State. This system is as convenient and available for Jews as for other aliens. It was improved and extended by the Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict., c. 14), which with the amending Acts, is still in force, and except in very exceptional cases the old systems of denization

The repealing Act is 27 Geo. II, c. 1. For the whole controversy see Cobbett's Parl. Hist., vol. 14, pp. 1365-1431; 15, pp. 91-163; Lord Orford's Memoires, vol. I, pp. 310-19; Coxe's Administration of Henry Pelham, vol. II, pp. 245-53, 290-8; Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, vol. V, pp. 123-4; and Lord Mahon's History of England, vol. IV, pp. 35-7.

2 Jews could, however, obtain naturalization in Ireland after 1816 by virtue of the Irish statute 36 Geo. III, c. 48, passed in that year. See Evans' Collection of Statutes, vol. I, p. 4, and Gabbett's Digest of Statute Law, vol. I, pp. 307-9.

The
Parlia-

mentary

and naturalization by private Acts of Parliament are now obsolete 1.

Having once acquired the rights of a British subject, either by birth or naturalization, the Jew, provided he franchise. was a freeholder in a county or a freeman in a borough, or otherwise duly qualified, was at common law entitled to exercise the franchise at Parliamentary and other elections. The legislature, however, provided machinery for preventing Roman Catholic voters from exercising this right. The statute 7 and 8 Will. III, c. 27, enacted that no person should be admitted to vote in any Parliamentary election who should refuse to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy which the sheriff or other officer taking the poll was empowered and required to administer at the request of any of the candidates. This provision would not affect Jewish voters who, as has been seen, would find nothing objectionable in either of these oaths. However, a few years later, in the Act making provision for the election of sixteen peers of Scotland, in accordance with the terms of the then recently passed Act of Union between England and Scotland, a clause was inserted disabling from voting at any Parliamentary election in Great Britain any person who refused to take in addition the oath of abjuration which the presiding officer was likewise required to administer at the request of any candidate. The oath of abjuration ended with the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," and thus Jews as well as Roman Catholics might be, and were on occasion, debarred from recording their votes 2. This provision was not repealed until the Statute Law Revision Act of 1867 (30 and 31 Vict., c. 59), but the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829 (10 Geo. IV, c. 7, s. 5) allowed Roman Catholic electors to substitute an oath they were willing to take. Needless to say, in the case of Jews and other conscientious

1 For the present law see the author's treatise on the Law of Aliens and Naturalization.

2 See 6 Anne, c. 78 (Ruff. 23), S. 13.

objectors, it had been allowed to become obsolete long before 1867, or it would have been swept away when their disabilities were being removed.

Ballot

voting on

So complete a change has been effected in the attitude Provision of the legislature towards this question, that in the Ballot in the Act of 1872 special provision is made to enable voters Act for "of the Jewish persuasion" who object on religious Saturday. grounds to mark the ballot paper on the Jewish Sabbath to have, "if the poll be taken on Saturday," their votes recorded by the presiding officer in the same way as votes given by persons incapacitated by blindness or other physical cause1. It should, however, be noted that the clause is badly drawn, for it ought to, but does not, include cases when the poll is taken on the Jewish Day of Atonement, or the first and last days of the great Jewish festivals on which observant Jews object on religious grounds to take part in the present system of voting by ballot 2.

corpora

Crown.

The rights of holding office in a municipal corporation, Offices in and that of holding an office or place of trust under the tions and Crown, can up to a certain point be dealt with together. under the The Corporation Act of 1661 (13 Car. II, st. 2, c. 1) enacted that no person should be elected or chosen in or to any office or place in any corporation unless he had within

1 See 35 & 36 Vict., c. 33, 1st schedule, rule 26.

2 It is sometimes stated that Jews had greater rights than Papists as regards voting in a parish vestry. This statement is made on the authority of a note in the case of Edenborough . the Archbishop of Canterbury, which was before Lord Chancellor Eldon in 1826. The note is: "His Lordship's opinion was understood to be; that Jews were entitled to vote in the election of a vicar, but that Roman Catholics were not so entitled: and at the next election, votes were admitted and rejected upon that principle" (2 Russ., p. 111). It is to be observed, however, that this is not a decision, but merely what the reporter understood to be the opinion of the Chancellor, and, if pronounced, it is difficult to see upon what ground it was based other than the custom which had prevailed in the parish in question, namely, St. Stephen's, Coleman Street, in the city of London. If such a custom existed, it does not appear to rest on any legal principle.

Motives

of the Corporation and Test Acts.

one year next before his election taken the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the rights of the Church of England, and the election of any person not so qualified, was declared void. The holders of such offices were likewise required to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. The rigour of the law was, however, to some extent modified in 1718 by the Act for quieting and establishing corporations (5 Geo. I, c. 6), by the terms of which no person, though not properly qualified under the Corporation Act, should be removed from office or incur any penalty unless proceedings were taken against him within six months after his election to the office, and were then prosecuted without wilful delay. The Test Act of 1673 (25 Car. II, c. 2) proceeded upon similar but not identical lines. By it all persons holding any office or place of trust under the Crown, whether civil or military, were required within three months after their admission to office, to receive the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the usage of the Church of England in some public church after divine service on Sunday. They were further required to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and also to make and subscribe a declaration against transubstantiation. Non-compliance with the Act involved a penalty of £500, as well as forfeiture of the office and a number of civil disabilities. The oaths and declaration were obnoxious to Roman Catholics only, but the obligation to take the sacrament effectually excluded from office all Dissenters and Nonconformists without exception.

Historically no doubt the motive of these two legislative enactments was different. The Corporation Act was aimed at the extreme Protestant Dissenters, the more moderate at that time being willing to take the sacrament; it was passed immediately after the Restoration of Charles II, and was intended to purge the municipalities which had become the strongholds of the Puritan and Republican party of what was then regarded as their most dangerous element. The Test Act on the other hand was aimed at

the Roman Catholics, and was entitled "an Act for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish Recusants." It was passed shortly after the Duke of York, the Heir presumptive to the throne, had publicly declared his adhesion to the Roman Catholic creed and was a consequence of the popular excitement aroused by the prospect of a papist becoming king, and thereby supreme head of the Church. By insisting on the taking of the sacrament, it included in its penalties Protestant Nonconformists, who since the Act of Uniformity had become still further estranged from the Established Church. Thus as a result all Dissenters were placed under political disabilities.

of the

Test Acts.

In both cases some relief was given to Dissenters by the Repeal Indemnity Acts which were passed annually after the ac- Corporacession of George II, the working of which has been already tion and referred to in the preceding chapter', but the law itself was not altered until the year 1828. In the meanwhile many advocates of reform had attempted to procure the repeal or amendment of the Corporation and Test Acts. At length, in the year mentioned, Lord John Russell succeeded in passing through both Houses of Parliament a measure effecting that purpose. The Act (9 Geo. IV, c. 17) in substance substituted for the taking of the sacrament a solemn Declaration "to refrain from using any power conferred by an office to the injury or detriment of the Protestant Church as by law established, or so as to disturb the Church or its Bishops and clergy in the possession of any rights or privileges to which they were by law entitled."

tion not

lished

Lord John Russell's motion had originally been for the Declararepeal of so much of the Corporation Act and the Test Act to injure (the Annual Indemnity Act being afterwards included) the Estabas required as a qualification for certain offices and employ- Church ments the taking of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the rites of the Church of England, or imposed the Sacra

substi

tuted for

mental

For the precise operation of the Indemnity Acts see The King v. Parry Test. (1811), 14 East 549, and in the matter of Steavenson (1823), 2 B. & C. 34.

« ÖncekiDevam »