The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-27 00:00:00

TUESDAY EVENING. JANUARY 27. 1852.

THE EXPRESS.

CASE OF MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS, M.P.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.

COURT OF EXCHEQURIL-YISTIRDAY.

Mune@ is tueco.—Berea rill Leap Ctrs itesem, Ya Baum
Muss, Ma. BALM *LOUDON. ass XL. BAWL MARTIN.
MILLIS v. SALOMON', M.P.
This ease had bees tried Wien Mr. Baron Martin, at
the last sittings in Middlesex, when a special verdict was
found by the jury, setting forth the facts which were not
questioned. In accordance with an arrangement made last
week, the ease now came on to be argued.
Mr. Serjesnt Channel' argued the case on behalf of the
plaintiff, and said that the declaration set forth that after
the 6th of Geo. 111., esp. 63, bad been parted, on a day
named, the defendant was elected by the electors of the
borough of Greenwich, to serve in parliament as •
burgess in parliament, and so became a member of the
Commons Howie of Parliament. That after that return
had been mule, and whilst the members of the Houso of
Commons were sitting in their house, and after their
Bpeaker had been chosen and was in the chair, the de-
fendant presumed to vote, not having taken and subscribed
the oath of abjuration as prescribed by law, and had thereby
incurred a penalty of bOOl., to recover which the present
action was brought. There were two other counts varying
the form of the offence, to which the defendant pleaded
that he did not owe the money. The facts found by the
jury were substantially these : That after the passing of the
act imposiug the necessity of taking the oath of abjure-
tion on the 214 of July, 1851, the defendant, a person
of the Jewish persuasion, appeared at the table of the
' House of Commons and claimed to be sworn upon
the Old Testament, and, being asked why he did so, he said
it was the form most binding upon hie conscience. He
then repeated the oaths of allegiance and supremacy as by
law required. Immediately afterwards the clerk of the
Mouse of Cumuli' tendered to him the oath of abjuration,
from which he purposely omitted its concluding words,
" upon the true faith of a Christian," and substituted the
words "so help me God." The Speaker then told the.de-
fendant that he had not taken the oath according to law,
and must withdraw. The verdict also found that the House
of Common. had not at any time, direct]: or indirectly,
sanctioned the defendant's presence in the house without
taking the oath of abjuration. Having been told by the
Speaker that he had nut taken the oath of abjuration, the
defendant then wished to subscribe his property qualification.
He did subscribe it, and laid on the table of the house • roll
of parchment which he held in his hand, and on which were
words written in the defendant's own hand-writing. The
special verdict concluded by setting forth the usual refer-
ence by the jury to the court, that unless the facts did show
that he lawfully took the oath, he had never taken it at all.
The learned lerjeant proceeded to say that ho should con-
tend that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the penalties
fur which he Ind sued. It could not be disputed that the
defendant had voted in the House of Commons after the
Speaker had been chosen, and before he had taken the oath
of abjuration as required by law. Many questions of public
importance were involved 10 the decision of this case, but it
was now to be looked at as a question of law, and
whether the old statutes were or were not in conformity
with the spirit of the times, was not a question then to be
considered. The infringement of the law was provided for
by the legislature imposing a penalty, which the court had
not only authority but warn obliged to adjudicate upon. It
could not well be said that these penally-imposing statutes
were not still in force, and that being so he (Mr. Serjeant
Chauuell) was prepared to contend that the defendant was
not, because be was a Jew, exempted from the necessity of
taking the oath of abjuration in some form or shape. It
seemed to him that the whole case turned upon two ques-
, thine: First, whether, assuming that the defendant, as •
Jaw, was bound in some shape to take the oath of abjura•
tion, was it an oath on which he could be properly
sworn on the Old Testament ? He should submit that
whatever might be the rights of • Jew, as a Jew, to be
sworn on the Old Testament, this oath f abjuration was a
Christian oath, on which the defendant was not intitled to
be sworn, he being a Jew. The second question was, that
if the defendant had been properly sworn upon the Old
Testament, so as to raise no objection as to the mere form
of the oath, yet, having omitted the words "upon the true
faith of a Christian," could he be said to have taken the
oath at all ? He should contend that he had not taken it at
all, because he had not taken it in its entirety. These sure
the main questions which were to be determined, and they
depended upon the construction of acts of parliament which
were many in number, and he proposed to divide them into
two clan-es—First, those acts which imposed upon
the public generally, as well as members of parliament,
the necessity' of taking the oaths of allegiance, su
premecy, and abjuration. These he should call " obligatory"
statutes, and after he had called attention to those statutes
he should pees tou to those of an exemptive character,
which exempted certain persons from taking the oaths in
the specified substance or in the specified form. These
latter statutes he should call "dispensing " or " exemptive"
oaths. Ile should first mention the statutes which applied
to the Jews, and then those which referred to Quakers
and Moravian. Some of those acts related to Jews also,
and those be should class under the statutes referring to
Jews. Ile should then refer to the 10th of Geo. IV., which
emancipated the catholics, and then to the Ist and 2nd of
Vic., cap. 105, which was an act of a general character,
which applied generally and irrespectively to persons of
any religious persuasion. In this order he should call at-
tention to the statutes, and whilst doing so he should ask
their lordships to bear in mind the two questions upon
which he stated he believed the whole case turned.
Sir F. Kelly, who appeared for the defendant, here said
his learned friend appeared to think that he (Sir F. Kelly)
should admit the contrary of what be meant to contend tor
—vie, that the statute of Geo. 111. was still obligatory as
imposing the oath of abjuration at all.
Mr. Serjeant ChanneU said he should assume for the pre-
sent that the statute was obligatory, and wait to hear any
argument to the contrary. At present every one who took
the oaths in the House of Commons believed that this oath
was binding upon him in some shape or form. The right
of the plaintiff to the verdict depended upon the fact of
whether the defendant had or had not taken the oath of
abjuration,:which was always taken together with the oaths ,1
of allegiance and supremacy. Tho first obligatory statute '
to which he would call attention was the Ist of Elisabeth,
cap. 1, an act restoring to the crown its ancient jurisdiction
over the estate spiritual and ecclesiastical, which in the
reign of Philip and Mary was supposed to have passed
away. The 19th section of that statute proceeded to im-
pose on certain persons, not including members of parlia-
ment, the necessity of taking the oath of supremacy, an
oath ending with the words, ' flo help me God, tad upon
the contents" of this book. This was a corporate oath,
and was called so because the person who took it touthed
sonic portion of the Holy Scriptures. The next sta-
tute was the bth of Elisabeth, e. 1, an act for the assurance of
the queen's majesty's royal power and supremacy. By the sth
secti.m of this statute all persons who should take a degree
of learning, enter upon an ecclesiastical benefice, or into
any public office. should take • corporal oath on the lour
Evangelists, verbatim, and according to the terms of the
former statute. The 16th section imposed upon members'
of parliament the necessity of taking this oath. Tho next
act was the first of James I. e. 4, which contained the germ
of the oath of abjuration. It imposed the oath of " alle-
giance" and " obedience," and its object, as declared in
the title, was to better the discovery of popish recusants.
In the 13th section there was this provision—that from the
end of the then existing session any bishop in his diocese,
and eithin the limits of his jerisdiction_, might require any
person of the age of 18and upwards, who might be inducted,
or who should not have received the sacrament twice in the
year—noblemen and noblewomen excepted--to take an
oath, which was very much like the oath of abjuration.
Sir F. Kelly—But there were no Jews in Ragland at
that time. They had been banished tome emanate, and
were only restored in Cromwell's time.
Mr. &desist Channell replied that he did not desire to
escape from the conclusion that all the instates were
directed chiefly against Papists. His argentine was,
that this was intended to be a Christian oath. The 7th of
James 1., cap. 6, extended the necessity of taking the lath
of allegiance and obedience to makes of geeliemest.
The form of oath was given la the sowed Mika, sod the
Bth imposed it upon members of parliseset. The 80th of
Charles 11., which was the next MI, did not alter
the oaths of supremacy or allwasse, bat added
the necessity of signing a dselemalsa against the
doctrine of transubstantiation. me siteelisn is which a
member of parliament wadi Sol Merit ails, this act
would be this:—He would he,. to Who the emir of supre-
macy and allegiance which eeetolsod the weeds upon the
true faith of • Christian." The bibilaten led clearly im-
posed a Christian oath, Clisledwdep Nig lbw and now a
put of the law of the land, gad made • teshinden of disbe-
lief in the doctrine of tesemawlastkilsa. The seat statute
was the Ist of Willson set s. s.li lied dun was
also the let and BM Mahn e. 14 end he cowl show
that the statute of Willi onall kaidlMS IMMINN4 by the
lend Steward dentis• wily hie 1.1017. This
statute of William awl was gamed hir the purpose of
preventing arid desidisig se to the sittings of
parliament, and imposed upon asemlosee the obligation of
taking other oaths in lieu of the foram ewe. 'The substi-
tuted oaths were to be taken under the NM eireumstances

and is Imam aissuras the declaration against transubstan-
tiation. TM raw Ilona of oath we. given in tho 6th see.
It did set siellia the words, "on the true faith of a
Christian," bat they seeurrod subsequently. The next act,
the let of Willies sad Mary, esp. 8, was pared for the
purpose of 'brogans( the old oaths and it substituted new
ones. It recited the act of Elisabeth, and that of the 3rd
of James 1., and then proceeded to enact the necessary
alterations. Matters so remained down to the 13th of Wil-
liam 111., esp. 16, when the oath of abjuration was imposed
in the term. in which it was now required to be taken.
It had undergone alterations to meet the description of such
limitations in the succession to the mown as were capable
of taking effect. Both acts of settlement had pealed
limiting the crown to William and Mary and their sur-
vivors. The 6th of Geo. 111., cap. 63, was the first statute
in order which contained an altered form of oath to meet
the circumstances of the death of the Pretender, which

occurred in the previous pear. The oath was *shaped
in such a manner, so as to abjure his descendants. With
this exception, the act of George 111. presented the same
form of oath as that of the 13th of William the Third. It
recited the two acts of settlement, and the necessity of
maintaining the authority of the church of England as by
law established, and then gave a long description of the
persons who should take the oaths, not including members
I of parliament. The lUth section, however, made it appli-

cable to menthen of The 9th micitkia provided
if a see venni in est WI, takes the oath of
abjuration. Hat be sleubil bums Nab to certain penal-
ties impose! by as let Gawp the First. The 6th of
George 111. thereicre impesed the Necesidty of taking the
Oath, ori mew tendered, and it referred to the
statute of Gauge this First, u imposing the
penalty in case of disobedience. He now came
to the statute of the Ist of Anne, statute 1, cap. 22,
which desoribed the succession to the crown, and was the
, same as the next earlier act of parliament. The act of par
-
1 liament next Ice order was the 6th of Anne, cap. 7, which
was intended to provide an alteration, not to take effect
immediately, but upon the demise of Queen Anne. Then
came the let Oro. 111., see. 2, cap. 13. The Elect:es@ of
Hanover had died shortly before Anne, and upon the death
of Anne the Elector of Hanover became George I. of Eng-
, land. The set of Gee. I. recited the act of William 111.,
111111 provided the oaths of allegiance, supremacy, and ahju-
' ration, being the first act which oontairsed the three oaths
together. Election 16 imposed the penalty, and there
was no substantial 'iteration in the form of the oath,
it being merely provided that the substituted oaths
were to be taken in the same form and manner, and with
the same declaration against tranoubstantiation. This was
the state in which the subject of the oath of abjuration re-
mained down to the time of the 6th Geo. 111, cap. 63.
Oct Phis w" parcel in the year 1766; the Pretender hav-
ing died in 1766, it became necessary to alter the wording
of the oink so as to mike it amount to an abjuration of his
descendants. With that one exception, the oath remained
the same. The first section of the 6th Geo. 111. made it
obligatory, on all persons required by the preview
act to take the oath of allegiance, to take all these
oaths, and, under these circumstances, the defendant
was called upon to take tko oath of abjura-
tion ; and if he had not taken It, he was liable
under two acts of pailiament upon which the action
was founded for the penalties now sued for. These were
all the " obligatory ' statutes with which he (Mr. ffirjesnt
Channel') thought it necessary to trouble the court, and he
now came to the " dispensing " statutes, and it appeared to
him, that so far from these statutes aiding the cue of the
defendant, they went to prove the C.O of the plaintiff, as
all the dispensations which they contained were fur limited
and particular purposes, and did not effect the question now
before the court. The only statute that in any way
relieved Jews front using these words in the oath of ab-
juration, was the Registry Act of 9 Geo. I. That
statute compelled ell peens above eighteen years of ago
to take the oath in the teem prescribed, but in the
cue of Jews for the purposes of the registry, the
same fans of oath should be used u in courts of
law by the minim of the words, "On the true faith
of a Christian," and the only her act which had
reference to Jews was the statute of the 13th Gee. 11., cap.
7, which had reference to the oaths necessary to be taken
by persons residing seven years in America, and in which,
with regard to Jews coming within the terms of the act,
and being called upon to take the oath of abjuration, the
words "on the true faith of a Christian," were tt be
omitted. In none of the statutes that had been cited could
anything be found which in anywise relieved memo, is of
parliament from the imposition and necessity of taking the
oaths as prescribed "on the true faith of a Christian." The
learned serjeant then proceeded to go through the various
statute' which altered the law relating to the taking of
the oath of abjuration by permitting the affirmation by
Quakers, Moravian". and other persons relieved by the
Toleration Act, and the subsequent statutes of the 25th
Geo. 11., and the 9th Geo. IV., cap. 32, and contended that
nothing contained in the acts relieving Quakers of the
necessity of taking the oath of abjuration by substituting
the affirmation in any way altered the effect that the affir•
motion was taken on the faith of a Christian. In conse-
fuence of some doubts that existed with reference to the
orm of the affirmation, the statute of the 3rd and 4th Win.
IV., cap. 49, wu passed to relieve those difficulties.

Mr. Baron Martin—Mr. Pease had emit his seat before
that act.

Mr. Seryeant Channell—Mr. Pease had taken his seat,
but it did not follow that he had properly so done.
Lord Chief Baron—lt was never doubted that Mr. Pease
had properly taken his seat. It WAS thu unanimous opi-
nion of all the law members of the house at the time,
that Mr. Peue had properly taken his seat ; he was a mem-
ber of the house at the time, as was Lord Campbell, and he
believed it was agreed on ell hands that Mr. Pease had pro-
perly taken his seat. Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Rus-
sell were of that opinion, and in fact as a matter of history
no doubt existed.

Mr. Serjeant Channell said it was not necessary to con-
sider whether it was so or not fur the purposes of the argu-
ment, and proceeded to show that the act of the 3rd and
4th Wrn. IV., c. 49, in no way altered what he had mn.
tended—the fact that the afilrinatim did not alter the effect
of the abjuration oath. He then came to the statute 1 and
2 Viet., c. 105, which was passed to relieve doubts as to the
validity of certain acts, and on which act he supposed the
defendant would rely, but that act he also contended did
not alter in any way the necessity that the oath should he a
Christian oath. Ile (the learned serjeant) had therefore
disposed of the acts of parliament so far as they expressly
applied,—first to Jews, and secondly to quakem, and having
passed in review the various acts cited by him, as also the
10th Geo. IV., cap. 7, the Catholic Relief Act, said he had
shown that every one of the acts, with the exception of the
lot of William and Mary, in which the words were omitted,
expressly pointed out that the oath of abjuration roust be •
Christian oath, and he submitted it was impossible to come
to any other conclusion. The case of Ilcmittage v. Baker,"
in 1 Atkin, p. 19, in which the opieion of Lord Hardwieke
hail been cited, did not at all alter the question in the pre-
sent ease; the oath here required was a statutable oath, and
must therefore be, according to the statute, a Christian
oath. The learned serjeant said, if he was right in in ' g
the oath was a statutable and a Christian oath, how far did
the Ist and 2nd Victoria alter its effect ? That statute
pointed to witnesses in courts of law, but might extend to
other persons.

Baron Alderson—That act refers principally to persons
who might ►e liable to an indictment fur perjury ; you
could not indict a man for perjury in taking the oath of
abjuration.
Mr. Serjeant Channell—Exactly so, and the act has no
operation in repealing words prescribed by former
statutes. It might be contended that the words
"on the true faith of a Christian " were not the
essence of the oath, but he insisted that it was the
evident intention of the legislature that the oath taken
by a member of parliament should be a Christian oath. The
act of the 1 aft 2of Victoria was an act which merely
rendered certain acts valid, and did not effect the present
question. Taking the whole scope of the various statutes
which he had cited, be contended that the legislaturr
intended to apply a Christian test, and, therefore, the de-
fendant in not taking the oath of abjuration in a proper
form had violated the law, and consequently the plaintiff
was entitled to the judgment of the court.
Mr. Mummers was with Mr. Beijing' Channel, but ho
did not ►ddress the court.

--
Sir Fitzroy Kelly then addremed the court for the de-
fendant, and begged of it to weigh well the question which
would he left for its consideration. He agreed in much
that had fallen from the learned aerjeant, with the excep-
tion of that portion of his argument which went to show
that Jews were not entitled to sit in parliament. He con-
tended that sets of so highly penal a character as the statutes
relied on by the plaintiff mast be constreed with strict
regard to liberty of conscience. This remark war applic-
able if the only peaty were the Sae sought to be re.
covered, but how mesh more applicable did it become
when ea adverse judgmeat would disqualify the defendant
to sot as executor to bring or defend an action at law, to
be guardian of &child, or to vote for the election of a mem-
ber of parliament? He was prepared, in the ilret instance,
to contend that the 6th Geo. 111., oap. 63, was no
longer in fora at all that it ceased to be in
force on the death of the last sovereign bearing
the name of George; that it was not in the power
of any editor of the House of Commons, or any other
°Meer to alter the form of any oath, se prescribed by par-
liament, and that the oath could only be administered as
far as it referred to King George. There had been no
authority since the pruning of the 6th Geo. 111. to authorise
the substitution of one sovereign's name for another. He
also contended that it was competent far the defendant to
omit the words, " at the true faith of • Christian," because
the law authorised sad required him to take the oath in
such manner and terms as was most binding upon his con-
science. If these proposition, were doubtful, or not
allowed, he was prepared to show that the defendant was
bound by the Ist and 2d Vie., esp. 105, to take the oaths
as he had done. Upon these four point. he was about to
rely in his argument that the defendant was entitled to
take his met. He submitted that these acts of parlia-
ment, beginning with the art of William 111., and
ending with the 6th Geo. 111., were intended to pro-
vide be the pardsraks Mite of things then passing,
and net Otaliene is hue after en alteration of
eironmetanem bed edam Unless the apart teak upon
itself to remedal t e ad end neelimeent they amid net
aFree with the eendmine of bielenewed Mead. The mo-
unt of the legidener• at shoo days was dearly that the acts
than nlabsuld eddy be of a tempeeney character, such
as the ll*ll‘4lllll of the time. Fee balsam, it was
said la Met set of 1706, that, "wifensigneasemerennenee of
the death of the Pretender, it bed to
make use alterations in the law of ahlar:tshee.simr ;
demi" showing that a Amp alpinism and circumstances
bad rendered the alteration aeoemary. It was treated ea
law net as be ennerammed, that no new oath could be admi-
nistered open the authority of parliament. This
was Prswidt all doubt, in the cue of " Oinychuad v.
Barker," where all the
the
were unanimous. If this
wore so, what right had the Speaker of the House of Com-
mons, or any other officer of it, to alter the law, and to
propose an oath substituting the name of one monarch for
another ? Let them suppose the case of two children
being born together, and a doubt arising as to which
child had the right of succession to the three, was it to be
said that the kipeaker of the House of Commons was to
decide the question of succession between Albert and
Edward ?
Mr. Baron Alderson—But the member would swear al-
legiance to the sovereign under whose writ he had been
elected.

Sir Fitzroy Kelly—Yea, but suppose the parliament sat
for some few months or weeks after the death of the sove-
reign, and • new member were to be sworn, was it to be
said that, in the case of a disputed auoceseion, the Speaker
of the House of Cornmeal or the clerk at the- table, was to
determine who the lawful successor was ? The 6th of Oeo.
111., gave • fo.in in which the oath of abjuration should
be sworn. It supplied no form with respect to the oath of
allegiance but the proof of it. temporary character was to
i be found n the circumstance that, subsequent acts were
found neceseary to alter the Term of oath. The first
form of the oath of abjuration was given in the 13th
Will. 111., cap. 6. It was quite obvious that no one
could take that oath in the reign of Queen Anne, as it
would have been nonsense. To meet the difficulty, there-

fore, the Asu's statute let, esp. St, was inteodeeed, which
was entitled an set to declare as alteration in the oath ap-
pointed to be taken in the 13th WUHMI 111., cap. 6. This
act elated that, whereas, by the demise of his late Majesty
King William 111 , her Majesty had mends& to the im-
perial crown and dignity of these realm., it became neees-1
Gary to alter the turn of oath taken under the reign of the
former sovereign. With the exception of the words, our
sovereign lady Queen Anne instead of " our Sovereign
Lord King William " the form of oath was precisely the
same. So in the suinequent act of 4th and 6th of Anne,
the legislature of the time thought it necessary to pass a
law in which blanks were lelt for the insertion of toe
names of Sophia or George es it was then unc..rtain who.
thee the Princess Sophia or King George I. would succeed
to the crown. In the 6th of Anne, parodist * still subsequent
period, the name "George" was inserted, and that name
continued in the oath of abjuration until the oth George
which was the last of the acts on the subject. Hero
again the very paniag of the act established the principle
that the legislature only had the power to make any altera-
tion in the law, for by the 6 George 111. cap. 63, passed in
1766, in consequence of the death of ;he Pretender, the
oath of abmration was set down, with an addition that the
person taking it did not believe that the descendants of
James 11., or of the Pretender, had any claim to the throne
of these realms.

Mr. Baron Alderson—Your argument goes merely to this,
that the form of the oath was dependent upon the accidental
circumstance of the name of the sovereign. I think you
must confine yourself to the reign of George 11l , in which
you say the claim expired.
Sir Vitiroy Kelly—Long before the death of George 111.
the claims of the Pretender hod died away, and that cir-
cumstance might account for no subsequent change being
made.

Mr. Baron Aldersnn—This change was made—that the
name of the Pretender was struck out as he had ceased to
exist, and the allusion to his descendants was retained.
Sir F. Kelly was aware that there could be no use in
making a man swear to abjure another man who had long
ago ceased to exist. This was the ease of a highly penal act
of parliament, which either forced the Jew to take an oath
against his conscience, or deprived him of some of has most
valuable privileges as a citizen.
Mr. Baron Alderson—The Jew is not the only person who
suffers. There are man other persons in this country not
included, as Quakers or Moravian, who have cause to com-
plain, and they are Christians.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly was certain that their lordships would
put that liberal construction upon a penal act of parlia-
ment, like the present, which was most favourable to li-
berty of conscience. Ile contended that the form of '
oath was only intended to operate during the life of the
reigning monarch, and that if a liberal construction were
put upon it, it would confer great privileges upon a person
chosen to represent his fellow-subjects ; but that if, on the
contrary, au illiberal construction were taken, it would pre-
vent him from enjoying all the distinguished rights and pri-
vileges which his constituents had levelly qualified him for.
The principle, as laid down by the highest law authorities
of the day in the cam of Omychunil and Barker, that no
law could be made or changed without the authority of par-
liament, applied most pertinently in the present case. rho
terms of an oath, whether of office, or of any other sort,
could not be altered without the sanction of the legislature.
What ground was there fur supposing that an oath to be
taken for temporary purposes was to be taken in all times to
conic, and at periods 'when the whole object of the legisla-
ture was more than satisfied ? Why should there be a larger
significance give% to the word King George than King
George really meant? or why should King George be con-
strued into meaning Queen Victoria ? Ott the one hand,
there was the act of parliament in favour of King George,
by the name of King George, and then there was the fact
that the legislature had provided in express terms for the
substitution of one sovereign's name for another.
The learned gentleman was about to allude to the next
point in his argument, when, four o'clock having arrived,
the court suggested that the next point should by reserved
fur the neat hearing of the argument.
Sir Fitzroy Kelly—On what day do your lordships intend
to resume the argument ?
The Lord Chief Baron—On Wednesday.
The further hearing of the arguments was then adjourned
until Wednesday next.
Mr. Willits and Mr. A. Goldsmith appeared with Sir F.
Kelly on behalf of the defendant.

THE STRIKE.
MEETING OF THE ENGINEERS.

Yesterday, the "second aggregate meeting of the
workmen engaged in the YarlOW/ branches of the iron
trade " was held at St. Martin's Hall, Long Acre.

The chair was taken at 1 o'clock, by Mr. MUSTO, the
president of the Amalgamated Socie of Engineers. The
boll was, uon the former occasion. densely crowded by an
orderly body of the class of operatives interested. On the
platform, in addition to the members of the council of the
Amalgamated Society, were Lord Goderich, Mr. William
Coningham of Brighton), Mr. Vansittart Neck, Mr. T.
Hughes, Mr. F. Furnival, Mr. T. Hunt, Dr. Travis, Mr.
Morgan, Mr. Weller, Mr. Woodin, M. Le Chevalier, and
several other gentlemen, unconnected with the engineer-
ing trade, who have prominently expressed themselves
favourable to the objects of the workmen.

Mr. MUST() (on taking the c'iair) said he sincerely re-
gretted that this second meeting had become necessary, for
he believed they might all be very much better employed in
producing that which labour alone could produce, viz.,
wealth. But he might declare, without the least affecta-
tion, that it was not their fault that this meeting had
to be held. (Hear, bear.) This meeting was now called,
the masters having refused to let them work, for the
purpose of enabling them to lay before the trade and the
public generally the exact facts of their present position.
Certain resolutions would be submitted to them, and if they
thought it discreet to agree to those resolutions, they would
in that manner renew the usurances of their hearty co-
operation with the executive committee of the Amalgamated
Society throughout this serious struggle that was upon them.
(Cheers.) _ .

Mr. GEORGE USHER (a young working man) came
forward, and was very warmly received. Ho desired it
would be remembered that on the occasion of their formerly
assembling together he had expressed his regret that tit.-
..andantes should have arisen to require a public meeting
of the operative engineers. He had, however, nothing of
that kind to say now. This time a stern necessity had con-
vened them, and he felt it as a most unequivocal satisfaction
to be allowed to present himself u the proposer of the first
resolution. This resolution was as follows :—" The em-
ployers of operative engineers having enunciated their
right to do what they like with their own, and denied the
operative the right to do what he likes in employing his own
wages, and devoting his spare time as he will, and having
demanded an unconditional submission, this meeting de-
•

dares that such a submission would be at once both impo-
litic and disgraceful." They were not now in the position
in which they had found themselves on the last occasion.
A fortnight had passed away—a fortnight marked by many
privations, by considerable suffering, and by unwearied ex-
ertion ; and yet, as they now met, a smile of hope and of
satisfaction seemed to pervade the whole of this vast assem-
blage. (Cheers.) The evil prediction of " Amicus " had
not yet been fulfilled. (Hear, hear) They had not yet
heard that any of their body had died from want. They
had not yet heard that any of their body had broken the
peace. They had not yet heard that any of their body had
used threats or intimidation to prevect those who might be
willing to make the unconditional surrender
.seeking work
with such of the employers as would give work to them.
(Cheers.) They bad not yet heard that any of their body
had been seen knocking about begging of the employers to
give them leave to toil. (Cheers.) No, none of these
things had happened. The greatest unanimity still pre-
vailed among them. (Cheers.) When they last met in that
hall the contest had the simple aspect of a contest between
the operative engineers and their employers ; but now it was
• complex contest, in which every man living by his labour,
skilled or unskilled, was intimately and deeply concerned.
Their position, in fact, was, in the first instance, like that of
Hungary, when Hungary took up arms against Austria to
assert her own national independence. Their petition now
was that of Hungary, when Hungary had not only to attack
Austria, but to resist Russia, and when, therefore, she
fou-ht the cause of the civilisation of Europe. (Cheers.)
The masters had leagued together, and had defined the
rights of capital, inviting the imitation of all capitalist em-
ployers; and in the issue of this encounter between the ope-
rative engineers and their employers every man compelled
to labour fur his daily bread would find that he was involved.
And if the engineers won it would be as great • gain to
other labourers as to themselves. (Cheers.) The engravers,
however, required public support. They had had the:sup-
port of the public beyond all their anticipations. (Hear,
hear.) No previous struggle between capital and
labour had elicited so intense • sympathy from
all classes. They had received support from the aris-
tocracy; from the middle classes; and they had had the
op-operation and the sympathy of the very ;lowest-paid
trades in the kingdom. Even the poor Spitaltfeld weavers
had come forward proffering a helping hand. (Cheer')
Yes ; the Spiudfields weevers had convened a meeting
among themselves, sad had appointed a deputation to
wait *pea the operative engineers. These Spitalfields wea-
vers told the engineers that although they, the poor wea-
vers, occupied • social position very much lower than that
of the engineers, they would, nevertheless, gladly give
their aid to the engineers in this contest, because they
knew it was • just one, and because they knew every class
of labour was interested in the result. (Cheers.) Con.
treat the language of the weavers with the language of
their employers. It appeared to him, from the conduct of
these unfortunate weavers, who were reduced to the very
lowest stage of physical degradation, crushed and ruined,
that there must be still loft rn ,society an instinctive spark,
which, when once ignited, would work wonders In the
world. (Cheep) But the capitalist. most be compelled
to have Nome feeling with their fellow-men. What did the
recent conduct of the employers of engineers mean ? It
meant a desire to amass wealth quicker than the laws
of trade would admit. (Cheers.) They spoke lightly
of competition. But it was this competition which they
had created themselves, in the eagerness to surpass each
other in making too rapid fortunes. (Cheers.) Were the
workmen to be the sufferers from this competition ? ;
not any longer. (Cheers.) They now demanded the
rights of labour. They would no longer be the serfs and
tools of these individuals. They demanded an equitable
profit from that which they produced. (Cheers.) The
men had set the employers all the good ex-
amples in this business. They bad proffered arbitrs-
teen. They knew how difficult it would be to
have a just arbitration, seeing that the arbitrators
would be men who had not been labourers, and who, there-
fore, knew little of the real points ;ii dispute. But rather
than keep hundreds out of employ, the men would have
been willing to submit to arbitration. But iubitration had '