the oath of abjuration in the form appointed by law.1 Mr. Alder man In 1851, a more resolute effort was made to overcome the obstacle offered by the oath of abjuration. Mr. Alderman Salomons, a Salomons, July 18th, 1851. Jew, having been returned for the borough of Greenwich, omitted from the oath the words which were the Jews' stumbling block. Treating these words as immaterial, he took the entire substance of the oath, with the proper solemnities. He was directed to withdraw: but on a later day, while his case was under discussion, he came into the House, and took his seat within the bar, whence he declined to withdraw, until he was removed by the Sergeant at Arms. The House agreed to a resolution, in the same form as in the case of Baron de Rothschild. In the meantime, however, he had not only sat in the House, but had voted in three divisions; and if the House had done him an injustice, there was now an opportunity for obtaining a judicial construction of the statutes, by the courts of law. By the judgment of the Court of Exchequer, affirmed by the Court of Exchequer Chamber, it was soon placed beyond further doubt, that no authority, short of a statute, was competent to dispense with those words which Mr. Salomons had omitted from the oath of abjuration. There was now no hope for the Jews, but in overcoming the steady repugnance of the Lords; and this was vainly attempted, year after Further legislative efforts. 1 Commons' Journ., cv. 584, 590, 612; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxiii. 297, 396, 486, 769. 2 Commons' Journ., cvi. 372, 373, 381, 407; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxviii. 979, 1320. year. Recent concessions, however, had greatly strengthened the position of the Jews. When the Christian character of our laws and constitution were again urged as conclusive against their full participation in the rights of British subjects,' Lord John Russell and other friends of religious liberty were able to reply:-Let us admit to the fullest extent that our country is Christian, as it is: that our laws are Christian,-as 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, unchristianise 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.2 Baron de Rothschild continued to be returned again and again for the city of London,- Attempt to a testimony to the settled purpose of his Jews by a admit the 1 See especially the speeches of Mr. Whiteside and Mr. Walpole, April 15th, 1853, on this view of the question.-Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cxxv. 1230, 1263. 2 See especially Lord J. Russell's speech, April 15th, 1853.Ibid., 1283. Aug. 3rd, constituents; but there appeared no prospect of declaration, relief. In 1857, however, another loophole 1857. 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,2 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 construction of the law;" and again the case of the Jews was remitted to legislation. Relief Act, In the following year, however, this tedious conJewish troversy was nearly brought to a close. 1858. The Lords, yielding 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 In 1849, and again in 1857, he placed his seat at the disposal of the electors, by accepting the Chiltern Hundreds, but was immediately re-elected. Commons' Journ., cxii. 343; Ann. Reg., Chron., 141. 2 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 62. 3 Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., clvii. 933. 4 Report of Committee. Sess. 2. 1857. V: 253. 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 favour 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, open to the Jew: but he came as a suppliant. Whenever a resolution was proposed, under the recent Act,2 invidious discussions were 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, and not under the law, acquired a permanent settlement.3 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 21 & 22 Vict. c. 48, 49; Comm. Journ., cxiii. 338; Hans. Deb., 3rd Ser., cli. 1905. 2 A resolution was held not to be in force after a prorogation; Report of Committee, Sess. 1, 1859, No. 205. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 63. By the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19, a new form of oath was established, from which the words 'on the true faith of a Christian' were omitted; and thus, at length, all distinctions between the Jews and other members were obliterated. 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 OF IRELAND. THE code of civil disabilities had been at length Other ques- condemned: but during the protracted tions affect ing the church and religion. controversy which led to this result, many other questions affecting religious 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' births, marriages, and When Catholics and dissenters had shaken off their civil disabilities, they were still exposed to grievances affecting the exercise burials. of their religion and their domestic relations, far more galling, and savouring more of intolerance. Their marriages were announced by the publication of bans in the parish church; and solemnised at its altar, according to a ritual which they repudiated. The births of their children were without legal evidence, unless they were baptised by a |