3 the chapel had no steeple or bell, he need not after that date take the oath against transubstantiation, and incurred no penalty for coming to court; he need no longer register his deeds and wills, and might practise as a barrister or solicitor without taking the oath of supremacy or the oath against transubstantiation. The places of worship used by Roman Catholics required, by a statute of 1791, to be certified to the quarter sessions or to the bishop; and the names of the priests also must have been recorded at quarter sessions.2 But at last, in 1832, Roman Catholics were made subject to the same laws as the Protestant dissenters, in respect to their schools and places for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes. This registration of places of worship is still the law, and any person suffering an unregistered assembly in his house as well as the officiating preacher or teacher incurred large penalties.* And by the Act of 1791 the molesting of Roman Catholic congregations was punished as in the case of churches and dissenting chapels. By another Act of 1817, Roman Catholics might enter the army or navy as officers without taking the oaths and declarations required under former Acts. These Acts, coupled with the repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts in 1828,7 and the Catholic Emancipation Act of 1829, and the Religious Disabilities Repeal Act in 1846,9 put the Roman Catholics, substantially on the same footing as Protestant dissenters. The chapel must still be registered, as was enacted in 1791. And though the enactment of 1791 which forbade a steeple and bell to be used to their chapels, has never been expressly repealed, it was impliedly repealed in 1832.10 Notwithstanding the emancipation of Catholics in 1829 from the long chain of penal and disabling statutes, they were still expressly required by oath to repudiate certain doctrines supposed to be part of their religion, as to the right of murdering princes, or the Pope's civil jurisdiction in the United Kingdom, and the right to subvert the present Church establishment, and the right to disturb or weaken 1 3 the Protestant religion. But this oath has in turn been repealed, and nothing but an oath of allegiance is left. The statute of 1829 expressly enacted, that Roman Catholics might vote at elections.2 And a mayor or corporate officer was liable to a penalty if he attended in his official robe any other place of worship than an established church. But that also was repealed in 1867. The facilities for marriage of Roman Catholics do not now materially differ from those of other religious bodies. Any Roman Catholic place of worship can be registered for the purpose of solemnizing marriages. And if the registrar attend, the ceremony may be conducted according to the rites of the Catholic Church." The disabilities of Catholics extended far and wide, and struck at all classes. The sovereign must neither profess the Popish religion nor marry a Papist. And the regent is restricted in like manner.8 Nor can a Roman Catholic hold the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland or Lord Chancellor of Great Britain, or High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.9 In 1829 Roman Catholics were admitted to civil and military offices under the Crown, on taking the oath appointed by that Act,10 and now without the oath." As the clergy of the Church of England are expressly disqualified from becoming members of the House of Commons, so are Roman Catholic priests, whether priests before or after their election.12 In this particular they are subject to a restriction which has no place with Protestant dissenters. And in like manner Romish priests are disqualified from being councillors or aldermen in municipal corporations. 13 On the other hand, they share with the clergy of the Church of England and dissenting ministers the exemption from serving as jurymen and as churchwardens and parochial officers. 14 Jesuits. Jesuits and seminary and other priests, 1 10 Geo. IV. c. 7. 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, § 25. 4 30 & 31 Vic. c. 75, § 4. 5 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 85, § 18; 7 Will. IV. c. 22, § 35. 6 7 Will. IV. c. 22. 7 12 & 13 Will. III. c. 2, § 2; 31 Geo. III. c. 32, § 12. 8 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, § 12. 9 10 Geo. IV. c. 7 § 12. A Roman Catholic was allowed to be Lord Chancellor of Ireland after 1867.-30 & 31 Vic. c. 75, § 1. 10 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, § 10. c. 7, § 9; 41 Geo. III. c. 63. 11 34 & 35 Vic. c. 48. 12 10 Geo. IV. See ante, p. 481. 13 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 32, § 8. professed by authority derived from the see of Rome, were forbidden to enter the realm, except licenced by the bishop and two county justices. It was also forbidden to send relief out of the realm to Jesuits or priests who had been born within the realm.2 And what was meant was made more clear by imposing a heavy penalty, also a disability to inherit or hold property, on all who sent their children or wards to be educated in a foreign Popish college or seminary. And with a view to intercept this baneful tendency, neither woman nor child under twenty-one was to be allowed by means of vessels to pass the seas without a licence of the sovereign and of six privy councillors. And all the parties concerned were punished; the child especially forfeiting all his property, the next of kin meanwhile succeeding and possessing it till the child complied with the law.5 And with like views, those sending children abroad to Popish colleges and seminaries, or sending money to maintain them there in learning involved forfeiture of property and other disabilities. On the other hand, if the child of Popish parents who was refused a proper maintenance became disinclined to embrace the Popish religion, and chose to complain to the lord chancellor, the latter could order a maintenance. The relief given. in 1791 did not extend to legalising the foundations or endowments of existing or future religious orders bound by monastic or religious vows; and all trusts of real or personal property were treated as void whether express or by way of secret trust. A Jesuit or male regular, if resident in the United Kingdom, was expressly required by the Act of 1829 to register his place of residence, name, and age, and the name of his immediate religious superior in the order, with the clerk of the peace. And even when they were natural born subjects, if they had been abroad before 1829, and had afterwards returned to the realm, the same restriction was imposed on them. And for a limited time the secretary of state could give a licence to other Jesuits to come into the realm.10 To be a Jesuit, except 1 27 Eliz. c. 2. 2 Ibid. § 6. 3 1 Jas. I. c. 4; 11 & 12 Will. III. 4 Ibid. 53 Jas. I. c. 5, § 16. 6 3 Ch. I. c. 2. 7 11 & 12 Will. III. c. 4, § 7. 8 31 Geo. III. c. 32, § 17. c. 4, § 6. 9 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, § 28; 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 115, § 4. 10 10 Geo. IV. c. 7. under the restrictions mentioned, and to be found in the realm, or even to become a Jesuit after 1829 in the realm was to be guilty of a misdemeanour, and in some of the cases liable to banishment for life.' And if the banished Jesuit would not depart, the Crown in privy council might direct him to be conveyed to any place beyond the realm.2 The above form all the main peculiarities which distinguished, and still in some instances distinguish, Roman Catholics from other dissenters. Jews and their religion.-One other class of nonconformists stands out from all the rest, distinguished by many peculiarities, especially in their ancient treatment. The literature of early Christians shows a singular want of charity towards the Jews, and the canons of Egbright, Archbishop of York, in the eighth century, forbade Christians even to eat with them.3 By some unaccountable reasoning, it came to be a current maxim in the time of Edward the Confessor, that the Jews, with all their possessions, belonged to the king, as his villeins or bond slaves.* William the Conqueror is said to have encouraged that people to come to England, and John treated them treacherously. The wealth which some of them, notwithstanding much loss from extortion, had already accumulated about the time when the Crusaders went forth to fight the Saracens, excited envy, and the needy enthusiasts of that time thought it no robbery or murder to despoil of both lives and goods the descendants of the original wrongdoers in that quarrel.5 The people, seeing the Jews so treated, began to think they had authority to ill-treat and to pillage and murder them also. Even ordinances were passed, that no Christian should nurse the child of a Jew, or eat with them, or live in the same house, or marry with them; and on failure to obey these edicts their goods were to be confiscated. In the reign of Edward I. a statute passed with the view of 1 10 Geo. IV. c. 7, §§ 29, 31, 32. 2 Ibid. § 35. 4 Spelm. Conc. 623. 1 Wilk. Conc. 11. 3 A.D. 750, 5 Chron. Walt. Hem. c. 43. One thousand five hundred Jews were massacred at York in these senseless outbursts of long smouldering antipathy in the time of Richard I.-Walt. Hem. c. 44. 6 Claus. Rot.. 37 Hen. VIII. m. 18; Maddox, Exch. 155, 169. N N checking the practice of usury, and by which the old severities were kept alive.1 The same people were also directed, by force if necessary, to attend lectures delivered with the intention of converting them.2 The advantage of conversion was, that when the Jew became a Christian the king was deemed entitled to seize and confiscate the whole estate; but after a time it was provided that the convert may keep half of the estate. Another peculiarity attending the law of the Jews was as to their marriages. They were excepted from the restrictions of the English Marriage Act of 1753, and continued to be married according to rules of their own, these marriages being deemed valid and treated on the same footing as foreign marriages. In 1836, when the marriage laws were revised, Jewish marriages were allowed to be continued according to their own usages, provided only both parties were of the Jewish religion, and provided notice to the superintendent registrar was given.3 Early expulsion of the Jews from England.-A clamour anciently arose, that all the Jews should be expelled; and Edward I. acquired popularity by issuing a proclamation and afterwards a decree to that effect in 1290.4 And this was acted on, so that it was estimated about 16,000 left the country at that date. It is related that they did not return for 360 years, till Oliver Cromwell was asked to secure liberty of conscience to them. Opinions were then divided both among the civilians and the clergy, and after consulting all the wise men of the day, the Protector came to no definite conclusion. But soon after the Restoration a few Jews came into England without observation, and settled there, and though the House of Commons in 1670 made some inquiry 5 1 18 Ed. I. m. 6, Rot. Cl. 2 Rot. Pat. 8 Ed. I. m. 37. 3 6 & 7 W. H. c. 85, § 2; 3 & 4 Vic. c. 72; 19 & 20 Vic. c. 119, § 22. It was felony for a Christian to marry a Jew, and the offending party was ordered to be burnt, the only reason given by Coke being, that Jews were infidels and infidels were aliens, and aliens could be prohibited by the king from trading or entering into contracts with the subject.-2 Inst. 509; 3 Inst. 89; Fleta, B. I. c. 35. Coke's notion that Jews were indelibly aliens was mostly dispelled by a judgment of Lord Hardwicke & Willes, C. J.Omychund v Barker, Willes, 540; 1 Atk. 21. 4 Ann. Wav. 242. 5 Blunt's Hist. Jews, 70. |