into their numbers, it took no definite step to interfere with them.

1

Contracts and property of the Jews.-At the time of the Conquest and before it, the Jews, as already mentioned, were treated as the king's villeins or bond slaves. But this was merely a convenient theory to justify an arbitrary confiscation of their property, when the king felt the need of money. Richard I. ordered a register to be kept of their lands, houses, mortgages, and possessions; and the Crown even went the length of constituting a special branch of the Court of Exchequer to facilitate the execution of these tyrannical edicts. This was called the Exchequer of the Jews, having its own justices, who executed the king's writs, and supervised most of the transactions of that people. The kind of law these justices administered was different from the common law, being varied by customs which were then supposed to be grateful to the people dealt with; and the jurisdiction by degrees absorbed nearly every kind of business. And many idle and frivolous distinctions were laid down in royal charters, and practised by these nondescript judges as to the kind of evidence admissible in certain contracts and in certain phases of litigation between Jews and Christians. But as the fundamental idea was, that Jews were slaves, the superstructure of folly raised thereon can only interest antiquarians. It was only in accordance with these early prejudices, that there should be restrictions on the liberty of Jews acquiring and holding lands in England; though Bracton, indeed, as if removing a misconception current in his day, takes care to say, that there was nothing then to restrain them.2 The ordinance or statute of Henry III. was long thought expressly to restrict Jews from holding freehold estate in lands, or from acquiring more land in the city of London. And another statute of Edward II. prohibited them from alienating their lands without a special licence of the king, though they might buy the houses they lived in, in cities and boroughs. They were prohibited from usurious contracts or from taking more than a moiety of the lands or goods of Christians for their debt. Their right to purchase land long was treated as a moot question, and divided lawyers in 1 Madd. Hist. Exch. 2 Bract. b. ii. c. 5, § 6. 3 55 Hen. III. 4 Stat. de Judaismo, 17 Ed. II.

1753, and long afterwards. And the Test and Corporation Acts and other statutes of intolerance kept them out of all public offices. And when the Toleration Act began to recognise Protestant dissenters in 1688, it was doubted whether it protected Jews; and even when Roman Catholics were so largely and conspicuously relieved in 1829, the disabilities of the Jews were still left out of view.2

3

Civil and religious liberty of Jews.-The time at last arrived when intolerance yielded to the call of reason and justice. In 1839 Jews were admitted to hold offices in corporations. In 1846 they were put on the same footing as Protestant dissenters in respect to their schools, places for religious worship, education, and charitable purposes, and the property held therewith. After the House of Commons had passed a bill nine times to admit the Jews as members, and after that House was about to proceed by way of resolution to modify its oath, the House of Lords withdrew all further opposition, and a statute authorised their admission into either House of Parliament in 1858.5 They shared the entire advantages of admission to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in 1871. And in that year the very highest offices in the kingdom were thrown open to them."

It may thus be said that, except in one or two particulars relating to Roman Catholics, and in the matter of the burial of dissenters in parish churchyards, religion is

1 14 Parl. Hist. 1368. ROMILLY thought they could not hold lands. —25 Parl. Deb. (2) 429.

2 At the passing of the repeal of an Act allowing Jews to be naturalised a peer proposed, that the House should consult the judges, in the time of Holt, C. J., whether a Jew could, under the then existing law, hold land in England; but the judges were not consulted, as they were thought not to be bound to answer questions except upon a pending bill. The opinions of the profession of that day seemed to be against any then existing restriction on Jews acquiring land. The latest Naturalisation Act declares that all aliens now may hold real estate the same as natural born British subjects.-33 & 34 Vic. c. 14. A wealthy Jew having disinherited his daughter for becoming a convert to the Christian religion, a statute was passed to enable the Lord Chancellor in these cases to order a maintenance to be settled on such children in future.-1 Anne c. 30; this was repealed in 1846.

38 & 9 Vic. c. 52. 4 9 & 10 Vic. c. 59, § 2; 18 & 19 Vic. c. 88. 5 151 Parl. Deb. (3) 1371; 154 ibid. 14; 21 & 22 Vic. cc. 48, 49; 23 & 24 Vic. c. 63. 6 34 & 35 Vic. c. 48.

no longer a ground of disability or disadvantage of any kind to any citizen; and all modes of public worship are protected with impartial hand by the law.

Street preaching.-We have now seen, that the progress of toleration begun in 1688, and marching on against frequent impediments ever since, and not yet quite ended, has practically put all religions and modes of worship on one level, and under the impartial protection of the same law. It is true, all these modes of faith, whether embodied in an elaborate ritual or simpler forms-in the cathedral or parish church, the Roman Catholic chapel, the synagogue, the meeting-house, the conventicle, are such as are practised by large congregations in fixed places of worship. There is still a more primitive and simpler form of public worship than any of those, which requires a few last words of notice. This is that mode of worship conducted by street preachers, who have no fixed abode, and no regular flock, but who go out into the hedges and ditches, stand in fields and alleys and at street corners, wherever two or three can be brought together as a beginning of an audience often fit though few-who pursue a self-imposed vocation unconsecrated, unlicensed, unbeneficed, unpaid-without retinue, without oblations, and without hope of rewardcrying in the wilderness, and fed by the ravens. Though these men were once justly feared by Governments, and played great parts in the silent revolutions of opinion, and in the resolute protests against former tyranny and intolerance, they also now share like the regular army of priests and pastors in the comprehensive freedom of speech and thought established, and within the reach of all alike. The Conventicle Act of Charles II. put heavy penalties on those who preached in fields and at corners without a licence and a ritual, but that Act was, as already stated, repealed after 150 years' experience, in 1812; and there has been no practical restriction on street preaching since the latter date. It is true that inasmuch as these preachers are often in the eye of the law trespassers on land, they may occasionally be subject to an action at law, when they without permission exercise their gifts in places which are not highways, and over which the freeholder has, or may resume means of possession. And when they collect crowds on highways in such positions and times as to create a

sensible obstruction to those who are using the highway, they are liable to be summoned under the Highway and Turnpike Acts, for the obstruction so caused, as was noticed on an earlier page, as to the holding of public meetings.1 But though they may, when so summoned, be fined a small sum, yet, as a general rule they cannot be arrested summarily by constables or other persons, as is too often attempted or threatened, unless some local act in force at the place in question expressly authorizes this to be done. And courts and magistrates can judge of the very temporary character of the obstruction, if any, which is usually caused, and can estimate how seldom that is substantial or worthy of reprehension; and they have it in their discretion to discourage frivolous interferences with an employment which can seldom do harm, and often is of striking advantage to such casual audiences as can be collected. And this treatment is that which is most becoming in a country, whose institutions are stable enough to withstand all the random shocks which can be caused by free voices from the crowd on any subject whatever,

1 See ante, p. 22.

INDEX.