The Express.
London, England, 1852-01-26 00:00:00

MORT OF JEWS TO SIT IN PARLIAMENT.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—(THIS DAY.)
?Cum' r. ALDLILMAX S4tollol4a,

(Won Barons Port mt. roller, MAIN, and At nswato
Saieant Channel and Mr. Maenamara for the plain-
tiff; Sir F. Kelly and Mr. Goldsmith for the defendant.
This ear• mane on for discussion this day. It will be re.
collected thr.t wit,m Alderman Salonions took his scat in Cie
House of ('ommun• as Member for Greenwich, and took all
the oaths required by law, except the words, " On the true
faith of a Christian," the plaintiff brought the action
to recover certain penalties, which ho alleged the de-
findant had incurred by voting iu the hour after Living
refused to depose to the true faith of a Christian. The
plaintiff contends that he is entitled to recover from the
defendant the penalties sued for, the defendant having
voted without havind taken the oath of abjuration, as pro-
vided by the 13th AVilli.iut 111., cap. 6; Ist Geo. 1., statute
2, cap. 13; and 6th (ho. 111., cap. rsl. Secondly, that
the di f. nilant was not, as a member of the House of
Commons, entitled, by reason of him being a Jew, to
take the oaths upon the Old Testament, and that
the defendant was not duly sworn. Tinnily, that the
Ist and 2nd Victoria, cap. 10.3, did not entitle the nefeudant
tab the oath et atiaratioa on the Old Testament.
Fourthly, that if no objection arises tu the turn in which
the defendant woo swum, yet the defendant having per.
pnsely emitted to repeat or assent to the words " upon the
true faith of a Christian," refused to take, sod has nut taken,
the oath as by law required.

Mr. Serjeant Channel proceeded to opt n the arguments,
by reading the statements contained in the spacial verdict
suit to the court by the jury, and the peculiar facts of the
Cat. and the proceedings hr lore the House of Commits, and
which are familiar to the public, and, on the part of the
plaintiff, said he would first proceed to contend that the
plaintiff was entitled to recoverthe three penalties for 500/.
a, there could be no doubt that the defendant hail voted
after refusing to take the oath of abjuration as required by
law, and would confine himself strictly to the law of the
case, and whether the law was in accordance N ith the spirit
of the times was a tartar with which the court had nothing
to do.

Sir Fitzroy Kelly said be would contend that the act of
George 111. was not obligatory, and be wished, therefore,
to loci.tiou it at the outset.

Mr. Serjeant Channel said, aft‘ r calling attention to the
statutes, he would proceed to call the attention of the
court to other points. Tho first statute to which he
would refer was that of Elizabeth, chap. 1, which enacted
that the oath to be t tken should be taken on the Evan-
gelists, and contained the words, "So help me God." The
neat statute to which he would refer was the •ith Elizabeth,
chap. 1, which increased the number of penalties regarded
by the lst Elizabeth, and the IGth did set out that the oaths
should be taken by members of parliament, and enacted that
in rafters of parliament who dill not take the oath on the
New Testament were liable to all the pains and penalties
as if they had sat, and voted without being elected at all.
(The case w. .s proceeding when we went to press.)