The Express. — 1847-07-31 (London, England)

SUICIDE OF THE CONVICT MART ANN MILNER.— Our readers may remember that this woman was found , guilty at the Lincoln assizes, July 20, of the murder of her mother-in.law, by poison, at Barnetty.le-Wold. She was to have been executed yesterday at twelve o'clock, but during the preceding night she an' icipated hersentence,by ausnof, ing herself with a handkerchief from the knob of a cupboard door. So determined se.' she in effecting her purpose that, the knob not being high enough from the ground, she knelt down, and by throwing the whole weight of her body forward, produced strangulation.  JEWISH D 1  THE situation of the Jewr, and the nature and extent of their disabilities, prior to their banishment, having been pointed out, it remains to be considered what is the present state of the law as regards them. If the supposition which has been adrancesl be correct, namely, that the disabilities under which the Jews formerly laboured, (independently of their title to land,) arose entirely out of the circumstance of their standing in the relation of villeins or serfs to the king, there can, it is apprehended, be no ground for asserting that they are, in this respect, under any uesabilities at the present day, owing to the former state of the law; for it can never be contended that they are at present the villeins of the king. Any restraints, therefore, which now attach upon them, must be the effect of some more recent previsions. As far as regards their general rights of property, (as distinguished from their right to hold or take real estates), no law whatever has been pawed, which his reference to them, more particularly than to other persons; and as to those rights, therefore, they are on an equality with the rest of the nation. But though there are no existing impedimenta in this respect, the Jews nevertheless labour under vl ry considerab:e disabilities, as to their capacity to fill a „great variety of offices and duties. These disabilities are occasioned by the necessity which the law imposes upon persons filling those duties and offices, to take the oath of abjuration, as finally settled by the 6th of Geo. 111., and to make the declaration subatituted in the place of the sacramental test, by the statute 9 Gee. IV. Both the oath of abjuration and the declaration contain the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," and of course, therefore, cannot be subscribed to by a Jew. The offices and duties from which Jews are excluded, by the necessity of subscribing either to the oath or the declaration, will be best understood by pointing out the cases in which either the oath, or the declaration, or both, are required. The declaration and the oath of abjuration arc both required from 01 persons holding any office, civil or military, or any place of emolument or trust under the crown. The oath of abjuration, but not the declaration, must be taken by all persons tilling offices in either of the universities of Oxford or Cambridge, and by 01 members of colleges there that are on the foundation, or enjoy any exhibition; also by all persons teaching in those universities or elsewhere, by all schoolmasters and ushers, by serjeants-at-law, barristers, &Hornell, solicitor., proctors, or notaries, or clerks practising in any of the courts of law in England; by all high and chief constables, by all persons voting at elections for members of parliament, and by 01 members of either house of parliament. The declaration, but not the abjuration oath, is required I from all persons who shall fill any office, or be employed In lany corporation. With respect to those cases in which the oath of abjuration alone is required, (as it is, in most cases, not demanded before admission, and six months' time after entering upon the office is, by the acts, allowed for taking the oath,) the annual act of indemnity generally affords a protection ; but with regard to caws where the declaration is required, it is a total bar to entering upon any office, as by the statute 9 Oeo. IV., it la required to be taken before admission. In addition to these disabilities which the necessity of taking the oath, and of subscribing to the declaration, impose upon the Jews, it is imagined by some person., that they are still subjected to the penalties from which it was the object of the Act of Toleration, of the first of William and Mary to afford relief. These penalties were imposed, by certain statutes, passed in the time of Elizabeth, and James the First, upon persons refusing or neglecting to attend divine service in churches, or some other places of common prayer. The Toleration Act, which was entitled "An Act for exempting their majesties' protestant subjects dissenting from the church of England, from the penalties of certain laws," enacted that neither any of the abovementioned acts of Elisabeth or James, or any other law or statute, made against popish reeuaants, except the Test Act and acts requiring oaths from members of parliament, should be construed to extend to any person or persons dissenting from the church of England, who would take the oath of allegiance and supremacy, and make the declaration against transubstantion ; and that all and every the person and persons that should take the said oaths, and make the said declaration, should be free from any pains, and penalties, and forfeitures, mentioned in another act of Queen Elizabeth, and in an act of 22 Charles ll.—By the seventeenth clause, it was enacted that the Act, or anything therein contained, should not extend, or be construed to extend, to give any case, benefit, or advantage, to any papist or popish iceusant, or to any person that should deny in his prea•hing or writing, the doctrine of the Trinity, as declared in the thirtynine articles--By the statute 63 Geo. 111., c. 160, an much of the Toleration Art of William and Mary as provides that it should not extend, or be construed to extend, to give any ease, benefit, or advantage, to persons denying the Trinity, as therein mentioned es repealed. The reason upon which it has been contended that the act of first of William and Mary, as extended by 63 Geo. 111., does not afford relief to the Jews is this, that the Act of first William and Mary, was intended for the relief of protestant di.senters only, and that therefore, Jews cannot come within its operation. This supposition is founded on the words of the title of the act, which are, "An Act for exempting his majesty's protestant sfilljects dissenting from the church of Eogland from the penalties of certain laws." Upon reference, however, to the statute, it will be foiand that the words protestant dissenters" arc not used in the enacting parts of the statute (applicable to the question) ; its operation, therefore, unless controlled by the title, would be sufficient