Sayfadaki görseller
PDF
ePub

any penalty for omission so to do, and was intended to give relief to all except Roman Catholics, who being unwilling to sign the declaration against transubstantiation would still be disabled by the Test Act. But it was intended to give them relief by a separate measure, which was in fact brought in and carried the following year, and in their case, it was argued, the disability had been originally imposed, not upon religious opinions, but upon political doctrines. Mr. Secretary Peel, who represented the Tory government in the House of Commons, did not at first support the Bill, which on account of the Annual Indemnity Act he regarded as unnecessary. In his view the Dissenters had no real grievance, for the Annual Indemnity Act enabled them to hold the offices from which they were excluded in principle, but not in fact. Nor did the Dissenters as a body look upon the existence of the excluding Act in the statute-book as an insult to themselves. But after the subject had been debated at length, and it was shown that owing to the technicalities of the Indemnity Act Dissenters might suffer more than a purely sentimental wrong, the Home Secretary gave his support. to the measure, but insisted on the necessity of inserting a clause to give protection to the Established Church; which up to that time had been protected by the right which either House of Parliament possessed of refusing its sanction to the Annual Indemnity Act, if at any time the Church was thought to be in danger. The new protection proposed to be given was to take the form of a Declaration to be made and signed by all persons elected or admitted to the offices and employments now thrown open. The Declaration as framed by Mr. Peel was taken from a bill for Catholic emancipation, formerly brought forward by Mr. Grattan, and read as follows: "I, A. B., do solemnly declare, that I will never exert any power nor any influence which I may possess by virtue of my office, to injure or subvert the Protestant Church by law established in these realms, or to disturb it in the pos

session of those rights and privileges to which it is by law entitled." The Declaration was in reality no real protection to the Church because it did nothing to prevent the passage of an Act of Parliament disestablishing the Church, and if such an Act was passed those who subscribed the Declaration would be immediately free from any obligation it imposed. At the same time the Declaration was in this, its original form, harmless, and was acquiesced in by Lord John Russell, and became a part of the Bill as sent up to the House of Lords.

add the

true faith

the new

In the Upper House the Declaration was not considered The Lords sufficiently stringent. The Duke of Wellington proposed words the insertion of the words, "Sincerely in the presence of On the Almighty God," and the Bishop of Llandaff, that the words of a Chris"on the true faith of a Christian" should be added at tian' to its commencement, and these amendments were carried Declarawithout a division. The effect of this last addition upon Jews was fully recognized in the House, for Lord Holland, who had entered a protest against it, at a later stage, moved as an amendment that Jews should be permitted to omit the words, "on the true faith of a Christian"; but this was negatived "pro forma."

When the Bill was sent back to the Lower House, the Lords' amendments were all accepted, and so became law, but some discussion took place upon the amendments, and after the Bill had been read a third time, Mr. Brougham made a spirited protest against the changes effected by the Peers, explaining that he had not expressed his disapprobation before for fear of endangering a measure which in spite of its imperfections was still a step in the advancement of toleration and religious liberty1.

tion.

Let us now consider what was the real effect of the new Effect of

the new

statute upon the status of the Jews. The Declaration as Declarafinally settled read as follows: "I, A. B., do solemnly and tion on the political status

1 See Hansard, Parl. Deb., 2nd series, vol. 18, pp. 676 seq., 816-33, of the 1180-1208, 1329 seq., 1450-1520, 1571-1610; vol. 19, pp. 39-49, 109-37, Jews. 156-86, and 289-300.

sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare, upon the true faith of a Christian, That I will never exercise any power, authority, or influence which I may possess by virtue of the office of to injure or weaken the Protestant Church as it is by law established in England, or to disturb the said Church or the Bishops and Clergy of the said Church in the possession of any rights or privileges to which such Church or the said Bishops and Clergy are or may be by law entitled."

This Declaration was required to be made by every person elected to any municipal office "within one calendar month next before or upon his admission" to any such office. It had also to be subscribed by every person admitted into any office, employment or place of trust under the Crown, but in such case it might be done "within six calendar months after his admission to such Office, Employment or Place of Trust." Moreover, naval and military officers below the rank of Rear-Admiral and Major-General, and persons engaged in the Customs, Revenue, or Post Office, were expressly exempted from the necessity of making the Declaration. Omission to make the Declaration rendered the election or appointment of all persons required to make it wholly void. It is obvious that a conscientious Jew would not subscribe the Declaration; indeed the status of the Jews was rendered more unfavourable by the new Act. When in future the Annual Indemnity Act was passed', words were added extending the time for making the Declaration in the same way as the time for taking the sacrament had been previously extended. But though the Indemnity Act might assist a Jew to hold an office under the Crown, it in no way enabled him to be elected to any post in a municipal corporation, because in that case the Declaration had to be subscribed at latest upon admission to the office 2.

1 These Acts were still annually passed until the Promissory Oaths Act of 1868 (31 & 32 Vict., c. 72) rendered them unnecessary. The last Indemnity Act is 30 & 31 Vict., c. 88.

2 See Blunt's History of the Jews, p. 113 (note).

Roman

and

In the following year the Roman Catholic Relief Act, Relief 1829 (10 Geo. IV, c. 7), removed most of the political given to disabilities imposed upon Roman Catholics, to abolish Catholics which Lord John Russell's measure had done nothing. Quakers Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists also objected to the in 1829 and 1837 new Declaration, made, as it was expressed to be, in the respecpresence of God and on the true faith of a Christian; for these tively. expressions made the Declaration seem to partake of the nature of an oath. For their benefit the Acts for the relief of Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists elected to municipal offices (1 & 2 Vict., c. 5, and ibid., c. 15) were passed in 1837. These Acts substituted in the case of persons holding these beliefs a new Declaration which omitted the obnoxious phrases; but it was not for some time that a similar measure of relief was granted to the Jews.

taken by

Act of

1835.

In 1835 a Jew, Mr. David Salomons, was elected Sheriff of DeclaraLondon, which is not only a city or municipality but also tion to be a county of itself. As sheriff of a city or corporation it Sheriffs would have been necessary for him to make the Declaration imposed by the new Act (9 Geo. IV, c. 17) before or upon admission to the office, but a sheriff of a county holding no municipal office, and therefore able to avail himself of the provisions of the Indemnity Act, was in practice under no such obligation. The new Sheriff as a Jew was unwilling to make the Declaration, and to solve the difficulty an Act of Parliament (5 & 6 Will. IV, c. 28) entitled “An Act for removing doubts as to the Declaration to be made and oaths to be taken by persons appointed to the office of Sheriff of any City or Town being a County of itself," was passed. The Act declared that no one elected to the office of sheriff

of any city or town being a county of itself should by reason thereof be liable to make or subscribe the Declaration. Parliament was thus willing to remove the hardship of the particular case which had actually arisen, but was not yet prepared to grant a general measure of relief to Jews desirous of filling offices in corporations. Lord Campbell, who, as Attorney General, had been responsible

Mr. Salo

mons

refused

for the Act, declared in the House of Lords ten years afterwards that he had desired to introduce a more comprehensive measure, but that he felt certain that if he had extended the Bill a single line further it would have been rejected1.

This small concession was wholly inadequate to satisfy the legitimate aspirations of the Jews in general, or of admission Mr. Salomons in particular; for it was the latter's fortune office to play the foremost part in fighting the battle of religious

to the

of Alder

man.

equality, both for himself and his co-religionists. In December, 1835, being already Sheriff, Mr. Salomons was elected Alderman for the ward of Aldgate, in the City of London, and presented himself to the Court of Aldermen for admission to the office. It was demanded of him whether he had signed the Declaration required by the Act of 1829 within the space of one month, to which he answered that he had not. Whereupon it was demanded whether he would then make and subscribe the said Declaration; to which he declined to say whether he would or not, but required the Court to admit him as Alderman. This the Court refused to do, and declared his election null and void. A precept for a new election was issued, and another candidate elected to fill the vacancy. Against this newly-elected Alderman proceedings in the nature of "Quo warranto" were taken. These proceedings were successful in the Court of King's Bench, the court of first instance for such matters, which held that the Aldermen were wrong in refusing to admit Mr. Salomons to the office to which he had been elected.

1 Hansard's Parl. Deb., 3rd series, vol. 78, p. 526; and Campbell's Lives of the Chancellors, VIII, p. 155. Lord Campbell's reluctance was justified by the state of feeling in the House. Indeed two years later when the Bill for relief of Quakers, Moravians, and Separatists, elected to municipal offices was sent into committee, Mr. Grote moved that it be an instruction to the committee to extend the relief to persons of all religious denominations, express mention being made of the Jews; the motion was rejected by 172 to 156 votes (Hansard, Parl. Deb., 3rd series, vol. 39, pp. 508-20).

« ÖncekiDevam »