1753.] THE JEW BILL. 193 could legislation do in such an age for the better preventing thefts and robberies ? :: The opposition to the measure known as the Jew Bill, and the ultimate fate of this attempt to render some justice to an industrious and thriving portion of the community, is one of the many proofs of the difficulty which attends a government when it is more enlightened than the people it governs. A bill was introduced in the Commons, in the Session of 1753, "which enabled all Jews to prefer bills of naturalization in parliament, without receiving the sacrament, as ordained by statute 7 Jac. I." * It was not a sweeping bill for the naturalization of the whole body of Jews at once. The clamour which arose against this measure was not more illiberal than the arguments by which it was opposed in Parliament. "If the Jews should come," said the city member, sir John Barnard, "to be possessed of a great share of the land of the kingdom, how are we sure that Christianity will continue to be the fashionable religion?" But the worthy merchant delivered a sentiment which would come more home to his fellow-citizens To put Jews, or any other foreigners, upon an equal footing with natives, would be only to take the bread out of the mouths of our own people, without adding anything to the national commerce. To naturalize Jews, said another member, was to rob Christians of their birthright. To allow Jews, said another, to purchase and hold land estates, was to give the lie to all the prophecies of the New Testament: they are to remain without any fixed habitation until they acknowledge Christ to be the Messiah. The Bill was passed in the Commons by a majority of forty-one. In the Lords it was also carried, and received the support of many bishops. The prelates who had thus the courage to advocate this truly Christian measure were libelled by pamphlets and hooted by mobs. The duke of Newcastle was so terrified by this outburst of popular ignorance, that on the opening of the next Session of Parliament he moved for the repeal of the obnoxious Statute. The cowardice of the government resulted from the dread of the effects of an honest perseverance, if the prevailing cry of "No Jews" should be raised against their candidates in the elections for a new Parliament that would. take place in 1754. The Marriage Act of 1753 was almost as unpopular as the Act for Jewish Naturalization. The bill introduced by the chancellor, lord Hardwicke, required that a marriage should be preceded by the publication of banns in a parish church, and that the marriage should be there celebrated; that a licence might be granted for a marriage to take place also in a parish church, but with the consent of parent or guardian if granted to a minor, or minors; that special licences might, as previously, be granted by the archbishop of a diocese. The proposed measure passed the Peers; but in the Commons it was resisted with a violence which is amusing to look back upon. Mr. Fox, who had clandestinely married the daughter of the duke of Richmond, was amongst the most strenuous of its opponents. It was carried, however, by a large majority. Goldsmith, who published his History of England in 1771, sums up, with much gravity, his belief in the injurious consequences to society which this measure had produced: "The poor, by being prevented from Blackstone-Kerr's edit, vol.i. p. 877. VOL. VI. 194 THE MARRIAGE ACT. [1753. making alliances with the rich, have left wealth to flow in its ancient channel, and thus to accumulate, contrary to the interests of the state. It has been found to impede marriage, by clogging it with unnecessary ceremonies. Some have affirmed that lewdness and debauchery have become more frequent since the enactment of this law; and it is believed that the numbers of the people are upon the decline." Goldsmith had no foundation for his assertion that the law had been found to impede marriage. "The number of marriages before the Act of 1753 is not known. Since the Act came into operation the registers of marriage have been preserved in England, and show an increase from 50,972 in the year 1756, to 63,310 in 1764."* One thriving occupation was seriously damaged by the new Marriage Act; and we do not find that any compensation was voted to the sufferers. Mr. Robert Nugent, one of the parliamentary orators against the Act, said, "How fond our people are of private marriages, and of saving a little money, we may be convinced of by the multitude of marriages at Keith's chapel, compared with the number at any parish church." The reverend Alexander Keith originally officiated in May Fair; but being excommunicated, and committed to the Fleet, he continued to carry on the old trade by the agency of curates. According to Mr. Nugent, "at Keith's chapel there have been six thousand married in a year." Keith published a pamphlet during the progress of the Bill, in which he said that the pure design of the measure was to suppress his chapel-a very worthy design, however Mr. Nugent might approve of the celerity and cheapness of Keith's ceremonials. May Fair was the fashionable "marriage shop;" but the Fleet prison had the advantage of being open to the humblest seekers of conjugal happiness. Keith generously records of this rival establishment, "I have often heard a Fleet parson say, that many have come to be married when they have had but half-a-crown in their pockets, and sixpence to buy a pot of beer, and for which they have pawned some of their clothes." The motto which worthy Mr. Keith affixed to his pamphlet was "Happy is the wooing that is not long a-doing; " and he avers that of the many thousands he had married, the generality had been acquainted not more than a week, some only a day, or half a day.† The Marriage Act of 1751 has been justly regarded as the great step in the improvement of the conjugal relations of the people of England, high and low. Marriage was to become a solemn contract, in every case; not to be rushed upon without deliberation; not to be ratified without witnesses and public record. Like every other improvement in manners, the social tendency had preceded the legislative action to some limited extent; and then the legal reform hastened on the social amelioration. To the great change in the family relations of this country, of which the Marriage Act was an exponent as well as a cause, has been attributed the wondrous growth of the population in the short space of one century. A minister of state, gifted with prophetic power, has been imagined thus to address the people of Great Britain, in 1751: "These islands, and Ireland, are occupied by the men of many separate states that are now happily united. After the settlement on the land of tribes, fleets, and armies of Celts, of Saxons, of Danes, and of "Census Report," 1851, p. lvii. + Burn's "Fleet Registers," p. 99. 1753.] THE MARRIAGE ACT. 195 Normans, and after centuries of patient culture, its fertile soil sustains seven millions of people in its whole length from the Isle of Wight to the Shetland Islands. We cannot-for the mighty power is not given us—say, let there be on the European shores of the Atlantic Ocean three Great Britains. But the means exist for creating on this land, in less than a hundred years, two more nations, each in number equal to the existing population, and of distributing them over its fields, in cottages, farms, and towns, by the banks of its rivers, and around its immemorial hills: and they will thus be neither separated by larger roads, nor wider seas, but be neighbours, fellow-workers, and fellow-countrymen on the old territory; wielding by machines the forces of nature, that shall serve them with the strength of thousands of horses, on roads and seas,-in mines, manufactories, and ships. Subsistence shall be as abundant as it is now, and luxuries, which are confined to the few, shall be enjoyed by multitudes. The wealth of the country-its stock and its produce-shall increase in a faster ratio than the people. All this shall be accomplished without any miraculous agency, by the progress of society,-by the diffusion of knowledge and morals,-by improvements, and improvements chiefly in the institution of marriagethat true source of human offspring,' whence, 6 Founded in reason, loyal, just, and pure, Relations dear, and all the charities Of father, son, and brother, first were known.'"* * "Census Report," 1851, p. lxiii. AFTER Canova's return from England to Rome, in 1816, a monument was erected by him, of which the above is a representation. The three busts represent the three last members of the Stuart family. James Francis Edward, called the elder Pretender, died at Rome in 1765. Charles Edward, who in the latter years of his life took the title of Count of Albany, died on the 31st of January, 1788. His younger brother, Henry Benedict, who became Cardinal York, survived till 1807. He died at Rome, at the age of eighty-two. By his will he directed that the title of Henry IX. should be inscribed on his tomb. Death of Mr. Pelham-Newcastle's Ministry-Negotiations with Fox-Pitt passed over-Parlia ment meets-Fox a Cabinet Minister-Retrospect of Indian Affairs-Clive-Capture and Defence of Arcot-North American Colonies-Contests on the Ohio-Naval VictoriesSubsidies agreed upon by the king-Parliament-Great Debate-Single-Speech Hamilton -Pitt-Fox Secretary of State-Pitt dismissed from his office of Paymaster-Earthquake at Lisbon. THE prime minister, Mr. Pelham, died on the sixth of March, 1754. Horace Walpole, who underrates the public services of this statesman, has this tribute to his moderation and disinterestedness: "Let it be remembered that, though he first taught or experienced universal servility in Englishmen, yet he lived without abusing his power, and died poor."* The king clearly saw what a hubbub of conflicting ambitions would result from the necessity of a new cast of characters for the political drama. "I shall now have no more peace," exclaimed the old man. The duke of Newcastle achieved the great object of his ambition, in succeeding his brother as the head of the Treasury. If experience could give a politician claims to be the ruler of a great nation, and moreover of a nation very difficult to manage, Newcastle had claims above most men. He had been Secretary of State in 1724, under sir Robert Walpole. Carteret had kept him in the same office, though he despised him. His thirst for power was insatiable. He impaired his estate to maintain and "Memoirs of Reign of George II." vol. i. p. 371. |