they are; that our government, as representing a Christian country, is Christian, as it is: what then? Will the removal of civil disabilities from the Jews unchristianize our country, our laws, and our government? They will all continue the same, unless you can argue that because there are Jews in England, therefore the English people are not Christian; and that because the laws permit Jews to hold land and houses, to vote at elections, and to enjoy municipal offices, therefore our laws are not Christian. We are dealing with civil rights; and if it be unchristian to allow a Jew to sit in Parliament, not as a Jew, but as a citizen, it is equally unchristian to allow a Jew to enjoy any of the rights of citizenship. Make him once more an alien, or cast him out from among you altogether.1 admit the Jews by a declaration, Aug. 3d, 1857. Baron de Rothschild continued to be returned again and again for the city of London, a testimony to the Attempt to settled purpose of his constituents; 2 but there appeared no prospect of relief. In 1857, however, another loophole of the law was discovered, through which a Jew might possibly find his way into the House of Commons. The annual bill for the removal of Jewish disabilities had recently been lost, as usual, in the House of Lords, when Lord John Russell called attention to the provisions of a statute, by which it was contended that the Commons were empowered to substitute a new form of declaration for the abjuration oath. If this were so, the words "on the true faith of a Christian" might be omitted; and the Jew would take his seat, without waiting longer for the concurrence of the Lords. But a committee, to whom the matter was referred, did not support this ingenious con 1 See especially Lord J. Russell's Speech, April 15th, 1853. — Ibid., 1283. 2 In 1857 he placed his seat at the disposal of the electors, by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, but was immediately reëlected. Commons' Journ., cxii. 343; Ann. Reg. Chron. 141. 85 & 6 Will. IV. c. 62. 4 Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., clvii. 933. 1 struction of the law; and again the case of the Jews was remitted to legislation. Jewish 1858. In the following year, however, this tedious controversy was nearly brought to a close. The Lords, yieldRelief Act, ing to the persuasion of the Conservative premier, Lord Derby, agreed to a concession. The bill, as passed by the Commons, at once removed the only legal obstacle to the admission of the Jews to Parliament. To this general enfranchisement the Lords declined to assent; but they allowed either house, by resolution, to omit the excluding words from the oath of abjuration. The Commons would thus be able to admit a Jewish member, the Lords to exclude a Jewish peer. The immediate object of the law was secured; but what was the principle of this compromise? Other British subjects held their rights under the law: the Jews were to hold them at the pleasure of either House of Parliament. The Commons might admit them to-day, and capriciously exclude them to-morrow. If the crown should be advised to create a Jewish peer, assuredly the Lords would deny him a place amongst them. On these grounds, the Lords' amendments found little favor with the Commons; but they were accepted, under protest, and the bill was passed. The evils of the compromise were soon apparent. The House of Commons was, indeed, opened to the Jew; but he came as a suppliant. Whenever a resolution was invidious discussions were proposed, under the recent Act, renewed, the old sores were probed. In claiming his new franchise, the Jew might still be reviled and insulted. Two years later, this scandal was corrected; and the Jew, though still holding his title by a standing order of the Commons 1 Report of Committee, Sess. 2, 1857, No. 253. 2 21 & 22 Vict. c. 48, 49; Comm. Journ., cxiii. 338; Hans. Deb., 3d Ser., cli. 1905. 8 A resolution was held not to be in force after a prorogation; Report of Committee, Sess. 1, 1859, No. 205. and not under the law, acquired a permanent settlement.1 Few of the ancient race have yet profited by their enfranchisement; but their wealth, station, abilities, and character have amply attested their claims to a place in the legislature. 1 23 & 24 Vict. c. 63. By this Act a standing order, which continues in force until repealed, took the place of a resolution which required to be renewed sessionally. 2 Four Jews were returned to the Parliament of 1859. CHAPTER XIV. Further Measures of Relief to Dissenters: - Church Rates:-Later History of the Church of England: - Progress of Dissent:-The Papal Aggression, 1850:- The Church of Scotland: - The Patronage Question:Conflict of Civil and Ecclesiastical Jurisdictions: -The Secession, 1843: -The Free Church of Scotland: - The Church in Ireland. Other ques the church THE Code of civil disabilities had been at length condemned: but during the protracted controversy which led tions affecting to this result, many other questions affecting relig and religion. ious liberty demanded a solution. Further restraints upon religious worship were renounced; and the relations of the church to those beyond her communion reviewed in many forms. Meanwhile, the later history of the established churches, in each of the three kingdoms, was marked by memorable events, affecting their influence and stability. Dissenters' riages, and burials. When Catholics and dissenters had shaken off their civil disabilities, they were still exposed to grievances births, mar affecting the exercise of their religion and their domestic relations, far more galling, and savoring more of intolerance. Their marriages were announced by the publication of bans in the parish church; and solemnized at its altar, according to a ritual which they repudiated. The births of their children were without legal evidence, unless they were baptized by a clergyman. of the church, with a service obnoxious to their consciences; and even their dead could not obtain a Christian burial, except by the offices of the church. Even apart from re ligious scruples upon these matters, the enforced attendance of dissenters at the services of the church was a badge of inferiority and dependence, in the eye of the law. Nor was it without evils and embarrassments to the church herself. To perform her sacred offices for those who denied their sanctity, was no labor of love to the clergy. The marriage ceremony had sometimes provoked remonstrances; and the sacred character of all these services was impaired when addressed to unwilling ears, and used as a legal form, rather than a religious ceremony. It is strange that such grievances had not been redressed even before dissenters had been invested with civil privileges. The law had not originally designed' to inflict them; but simply assuming all the subjects of the realm to be members of the Church of England, had made no provision for exceptional cases of conscience. Yet when the oppression of the marriage law had been formerly exposed,1 intolerant Parliaments had obstinately refused relief. It was reserved for the reformed Parliament to extend to all religious sects entire freedom of conscience, coupled with great improvements in the general law of registration. As the church alone performed the religious services incident to all baptisms, marriages, and deaths; so was she intrusted with the sole management and custody of the registers. The relief of dissenters, therefore, involved a considerable interference with the privileges of the church, which demanded a judicious treatment. Feb. 25th, The marriage law was first approached. In 1834, Lord John Russell-to whom dissenters already owed Dissenters' so much introduced a bill to permit dissenting Marriage Bill, ministers to celebrate marriages in places of wor- 1834. ship licensed for that purpose. It was proposed, however, to retain the accustomed publication of bans in church, or a license. Such marriages were to be registered in the chapels where they were celebrated. There were two weak points in this measure, of which Lord John himself was fully sensible, the publication of bans, and the registry. These 1 Supra, p. 362. |