A writ of error was, however, brought and the judgment of the Court of King's Bench was set aside by the Court of Exchequer Chamber. The Court held that the words upon admission" did not mean "after," but " upon the occasion of" or "at the time of admission," and accordingly that Mr. Salomons who had neither made the Declaration nor expressed his willingness to make it was not entitled to be admitted, and that the election of his successor was regular and legal 1. Jewish Removal Mr. Salomons was not yet beaten; in 1844 he was again The elected Alderman, this time for Portsoken Ward, and in Disthe following year, mainly in consequence of his exertions, abilities Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst introduced, and carried without Act of opposition in the House of Lords, the Jewish Disabilities 1845. Removal Act of 1845. In the House of Commons its conduct was entrusted to Sir Robert Peel, and though not allowed to pass unopposed, it was carried by a substantial majority. The Act permitted every person of the Jewish religion upon admission to any municipal office to substitute for the former the following new Declaration: "I, A. B., being a person professing the Jewish Religion, having conscientious scruples against subscribing the Declaration contained in an Act passed in the ninth year of the reign of King George the Fourth, intituled an Act for repealing so much of several Acts as imposes the necessity of receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper as a qualification for certain offices and employments, do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare, That I will not exercise any power or authority or influence which I may possess by virtue of 1 See the Queen v. Humphery (1838), 3 N. & P. 681 and (1839), 10 A. & E. 335. 28 & 9 Vict., c. 52. See Hansard, Parl. Deb., 3rd series, vol. 78, pp. 515 seq., and vol. 82, pp. 622 seq. A similar measure had been proposed by Mr. Divett (also at the instigation of Mr. Salomons in 1841) and, though it passed the House of Commons, it had been thrown out by the Lords by 98 to 64 on the third reading, having been read a second time by a majority of 1. See Hansard, Parl. Deb., 3rd series, vol. 56, p. 504; ibid., vol. 57, p. 84; and ibid., vol. 58, pp. 1048 and 1449. The Oaths the Jewish of 1858. the office of to injure or weaken the Protestant Church as it is by law established in England, nor 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 may be by law entitled." Mr. Salomons was again elected an Alderman in the year 1847, and had the satisfaction of being admitted upon making the new Declaration. The Oaths Act of 1858 (21 & 22 Vict., c. 48) extended the benefit of the Jewish Disabilities Removal Act of 1845, Relief Act granted to persons professing the Jewish religion, to all other cases in which the Declaration imposed by the Act of George IV was required to be taken, and the Jewish Relief Act of the same year (21 & 22 Vict., c. 49) enabled Jews to omit the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" when taking the newly-framed Oath of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration; so that all offices under the Crown other than those expressly excepted, as well as municipal offices, were thenceforth thrown open to the Jews. The Act also contained a proviso that any right of presentation to an ecclesiastical benefice which might be attached to any office held by a person professing the Jewish religion should be exercised by the Archbishop of Canterbury for the time being. Subsequent legislation. Finally, in the year 1866, the obligation to make these Declarations which had by the various statutes been imposed upon all who had been elected to any office in a corporation or appointed to any place of trust or office under the Crown, was removed by the Qualification for Offices Abolition Act of that year1, and the statutes themselves having thus been rendered nugatory were formally repealed by the Promissory Oaths Act of 18712. In consequence at the present time the only obligation incumbent 1 29 & 30 Vict., c. 22; see also the Office and Oath Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict., c. 75, s. 5). 2 34 & 35 Vict., c. 48. upon persons about to enter upon any of these offices is of the judicial oath is, “I Moreover, persons permitted by law to make a solemn affirmation or declaration instead of taking the oath may do so by substituting the words "solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm" for the word "swear," and omitting the words, "So help me God." signia of Thus since the year 1845 a Jew has been able to be Taking elected a member of a municipal corporation, and since the in1858 to hold an office or place of trust under the Crown. office to But there still existed a minor disability as regards religious a place of municipal officers, which was not removed for another worship. quarter of a century. The Act which repealed the Occasional Conformity Act—a measure passed during the ascendancy of the High Church party in the latter part of Queen Anne's reign with the avowed purpose of excluding Protestant Dissenters from municipal and other offices-and the Schism Act of 1713-a still more recent and intolerant piece of legislation-in return for the relief thus afforded, created a new disability, which without giving any protection to the Established Church was calculated to foster feelings of irritation and grievance in the hearts of those against whom it was aimed. The Act 131 & 32 Vict., c. 72, and see supra, p. 228 (note). S Device of fining contained a clause providing that if any mayor, bailiff, or other magistrate should knowingly or wilfully resort to or be present at any public meeting for religious worship, other than of the Church of England as by law established, in the gown or other peculiar habit, or attended with the insignia of his office, he should on conviction be disabled from holding any such office, and adjudged incapable of bearing any public office or employment whatsoever. This enactment was directed against all Nonconformists, whether Protestants, Roman Catholics, or Jews; and such store was placed upon its efficacy that when the disabilities of Roman Catholics were finally removed in 1829, instead of being repealed it was actually re-enacted and extended, for whereas the Act of George the First applied only to England and Wales, the prohibition was extended to all parts of the United Kingdom, and a penalty of £100 was now imposed for every breach of the prohibition in addition to the forfeiture of office as provided by the earlier Act. It was not till 1867 that the Office and Oath Act of that year repealed these futile and offensive enactments 3. An ingenious device, which for some years was resorted Dissenters to for the purpose of persecuting Protestant Dissenters in for refus- the City of London, was never employed against the Jews ing to serve the on account of their exclusion from the freedom of the City, to which reference has been made in the preceding chapter. By the Corporation Act of 1661 none could fill a corporate office who had not within one year next before office of sheriff. 1 5 Geo. I, c. 4; the Occasional Conformity Act is ro Anne, c. 6 (Ruff., c. 2), and the Schism Act 13 Anne, c. 7 (12 Anne, st. 2, c. 7, Ruff.). * See s. 25 of the Roman Catholic Relief Act, 1829 (10 Geo. IV, c. 7). 3 30 & 31 Vict., c. 75, s. 4; see also 34 & 35 Vict., c. 116. The reason for their original institution is given by Sir Wm. Blackstone in a note to p. 54 of his Commentaries, vol. IV, as follows: "Sir Humphry Edwin, a lord mayor of London, had the imprudence soon after the Toleration Act to go to a Presbyterian meeting-house in his formalities; which is alluded to by Dean Swift in his Tale of a Tub under the allegory of Jack getting on a great horse and eating custard." his election taken the sacrament of the Lord's Supper according to the rites of the Church of England. In the year 1748 the Corporation of London made a by-law imposing a fine of £400 upon every person who being nominated by the Lord Mayor for the office of Sheriff declined to be a candidate, and of £600 upon every one who being elected by the Common Hall refused to serve the office. The fines were to be used for defraying the cost of the new Mansion House. Many Dissenters were nominated and elected to the office of Sheriff, although disabled from filling it by the Corporation Act, and in all cases the fines were exacted, more than £15,000 being obtained in this way. At length a Nonconformist named Allen Evans determined to test the legality of these proceedings. In the year 1754, as many of his co-religionists had been before, he was elected Sheriff. Not having taken the sacrament within twelve months he was ineligible to serve the office, and he refused to pay the fine; whereupon an action was brought against him by the City Chamberlain in the Sheriff's Court, and he was in April, 1757, adjudged to pay the sum of £600, the amount of the fine, in addition to a sum of £174 108. 7d. for damages and costs. Mr. Evans then appealed to the Court of Hustings, but the appeal was dismissed and the original judgment affirmed, Mr. Evans being condemned to pay a further sum of £95 38. od. as the costs of the appeal. Mr. Evans then brought the case before the court of the commissioners delegates, called the Court of St. Martin's, which on this occasion consisted of five judges of the superior courts; the case was argued before them no less than three times, and at length, in 1762, they unanimously reversed the decision of the lower courts. The City Corporation then brought a writ of error in the House of Lords, which also decided in favour of Mr. Evans, upon the ground that the Toleration Act enabled persons who came within its terms to abstain from taking part in the rites of the Church of England without committing any breach of law, and consequently |