The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-12 00:00:00

NEWMARKET SECOND SPRING MEETING.

Y LATEST SETTING
TUESDAY NIOIIT.
The Subscription Room was very thinly attended, and
not half a dozen beta were laid.
SUFFOLK STAKES.
4 to 1 apt Rackapelt (t)
DERBY. .

100 even between Orinoco aWithelbert (in their places).
OAKS.
7 to 1 agst The Queen (t)
8 to 1 Peggy (t)
WEDNESDAY'S NACU.
BROOM/MIS of 60 son. each, for 4.yr-olds ; colts, Bst
101 b; fillies, Bst 51h; winners extra; maiden horses which
had never revived 1001. for running second allowed bib;
winners of matches only considered maiden hones. Last
three miles of B.C. (4 subs.)
Mr. Oman's Frantic, by Alarm, Bst 1016
(Flatman) 1
Lord Exeter's Ilex, 8.1 1016 (Norman) 2
lIANDICLP SWEEPSTAKEO of 10 JOU. each, for 3 and 4-
yr-olds. Last half mire of the new T.Y.C.
Mr. Combe's Brawn, by Chatham er Robert de Gor-
ham, 4 yrs, On (S. Rogers) 1
Mr. J. Arber's Convict, 3 yrs, 7st "ilb (Charlton) 2
Sir R. Pisot's Jack the Giant Killer, 3 yrs, Bst .... 3
SWEIPSTAXES of 10 son. each, for 3-yr-olds ; colts,
Sit 7lb ; fillies, Set 41b. The winner to be sold for 100 son.
if demanded, ate. New T.T.C.
Mr. Cooper's Desdemona, by lago (Flatman) 1
Mr. SuMing's Polly (Bartholomew) 2
Mr. Pettit's o by St. Francis out of Archness
Betting : Even on Archness, 6 to 4 nit Desdemona.
Won in a canter by a length, five lengths between second
and third. The winner was claimed.

SUFFOLK STAKES of 15 SOTS. each, 5 ft, &c., with 60
added from the Town Race Fund. Extra weight for win-
ners. The owner of the second horse to save his stake.
Suffolk Stakes Course. Last mile and a half pf R.C. (30
subs., 16 of whom pay 5 goys. ft.)
Lord Exeter's Nutshell, 6 yn, Bat 21h (Norman) 0
Lord H. G. Lennox's Chief Baron Nicholson, 4 yrs,
Bst 71b (Raman) 0
Lord Clirden's Hothorpe, 5 yr, let 6lb (G. Mann)) 3
The following also ran :—Hirsute, Subre, Dame Tattle,
Madrid, g by Venders out of Madinelle.
HANDICAP PLAT' of 50 son. for 3.yr-olds and upwards.
New T.Y.C.

Capt D. Lane's Guy Mannering, 5 yes, Bst
(E. Sharp) 1
Sir R. Figot's Jack the Giant Killer, 3 yrs. 64 71b
(Wells) 2
Mr. Hotham's Ida, 3 yrs, 6st 21b (Palmer) 3
The following also ran : kbadidjeh, St. Faith, e by
Cotherstone out of Lucy Banks, Ada by Poynton, Orem,
Tittle Tattle, and Warbler.
Betting : 5 to 2 apt Warbler, 4 to 1 apt Guy Manner-
ing, 6 to I at Khadidjah. Wun by a length and a half.
JOCKEY CLUB PT./V[2 of 50 GOTS., for 4 yr-olds let 21b. ;
five, Bst 31b; sin and aged, Bst 91b; the property of mem-
bers of the Jockey Club. B.C.
Lord Exeter's Ilex, 4 yrs (Walked ever)
BETTLNG AFTER THE RACES—SIR O'CLOCK.

TOLLITT V. GORDON. CLERIC.--EXPENIDIR OF STODINTS
AT SHE UNIVIRIFTIRS.
This was an nation, brought by a livery stable keeper at
Oxford, to recover 317/. Ils. 61., for the hire of a landau
and two hunters, lent to the defendant while he was a gen-
tleman commoner at the universities. The demand was re•
slated upon the ground that the defendant was a minor
when the debt was incurred. In consequence, however, of
the death of his parents this plea could not be proved.
Mr. Justice Erle, in summing up, remarked that the ex-
travagance of youths at the universities had long engaged
the serious attention of many persons; nevertheless the
jury must return a verdict for the amount, unless they
thought it excessive. That question it was alone for them
to determine.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff for 1171.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.—YESTERDAT.
Islmmo AS NUX PIMA BIPOIX Mi. 13;DAPI MAXTIX AXD
CONDON JULIA&

Tai ATIONX/I-GENIRAL O. CAVANDM—SXI.7OOLI24O
TOBACCO.

This was an information for the recovery of certain penal-
tin from the defendant, a tobacco manufacturer at Ports:
mouth and Forties, for having had a quantity of unmanu•
factured tobacco on hi► premises. It appeared that the
seamen of the royal navy, instead of consuming all the
tobacco allowed to them, have been in the habit of malting
it up into what were termed " carrots," and, on arrival in
port, smuggling it on shore. On the 9th of July last the
Customs weed 333 lbs. weight of unmanufactured tobacco,
which had evidently been formed into carrots.
The jury found a verdict for the crown for 1001.

EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.—TUESDAY.
&MRCS IN EIROR.—IIIIONIR LORD C I, AND JUNTICKS COLA.
11005, Catianram, WIURTMAN, WILLIAM% AND CIO IPIOR.
SALOMONS V. Humus.
This was an action to recover three penalties, of 600/.
each, under 1 Geo. 1., 'taut. 2, cap. 13, sec. 17 ; and 6
Oeo. 111., c. 63, sec. 1 ; which enact that any member of
the House of Commons who should vote without taking the
oath of abjuration, and subscribing the same, should forfeit
the sum of 6001.
At the trial it was agreed that the question should be re-
solved into a special case. When the question came before
the court, the learned barons differed in opinion, and gave
their judgments seriatim. Tho Chief Baron, and Barone
Parke and Alderson, were of opinion that the plaintiff be-
low(Miller) was entitled to judgment, whilst Mr. Baron
Martin considered that the defendant below (Salomons)
was entitled to the judgment of the court. The majority
being in favour of the plaintiff below, the judgment of the
court was entered accordingly.
Th. present case was a writ of error, brought upon that
. .

- _
judgment. _
Sir F. Kelly addressed the court on behalf of the
plaintiff in error, and had not concluded his argument
when the court rote.
___

WEDNESDAY.

The court resumed this ;;;fing at ten o'clock, whets Sir
F. Kelly continued his argument, urging at (considerable
length that the words "upon the true faith of a Christian"
were never intended as a test, and that Jews and others
might lawfully take the oath, and the defendant had taken
it accordinzly. Ile had sworn to all from the beginning
to the end of the oath, which he could be called upon to
swear as far as his allegiance to the House of Hanover and
his abjuration of King James the Second was concerned.
The words "so help me God" were omitted, were to be
regarded:as a mere attestation on the part of any Christian;
and the simple question for the court was—were the words
"On the true faith of a Christian," not the same in effect
with those found in the statute of Elizabeth, " So help me
God." If they were, then were they not to be modified
according to the conscience of the person taking the oath ?
The intention of the legislature was that all the matter as
to the abjuration and allegiance should be sworn to as &test
of the political principles of the Roman catholic., a great
majority of whom were justly suspected to be defected, and
' there was no reason why they might not be adapted
to the different religious views of other partials
as it was clear that they acre not meant to be used in a
religious sense. Everything depended on the construction
to be put on the act of parliament, and the question was
whether the act was to be so construed as to give effect to
the undoubted intention of the legislature, or to produce a
consequence which, in matter of fact and truth, it was cer-
tain the legislature never contemplated. Were they to con-
strue the statute in favour of liberty—and especially liberty
of conscience—or were they to suppose that the legislature
bad enacted that which, as regarded a numerous and un-
offending class of her Majesty's subjects, would be an act of
cruelty, illiberality, sad injustice.
At the conclusion of the learned gentleman's argument
the court retired for a short time. On their return, with-
out calling on the counsel fur the defendant in error,
Lord Campbell said—l do not think it will be necessary
to trouble you, brother Channell. After deliberately con-
sidering the very able argument which we have heard from
Sir F. Kelly, and having read the opinions of all the judges
in the Court of Exchequer, and the arguments on both
sides that were urged there, we think that the ease is free
from doubt. Before us two objections have been made to
the judgment of the Court of Exchequer: the first that the
act of abjuration no longer exists, and it that is established
no penalty would be incurred, because there would be no
obligation to take the oath of abjuration on any occasion what-
soever. It has been argued that upon the death of Geo. 111.,
or, at all events, on the death of George IV. the Abjuration
Act ceased, and that all mankind had been under a delusion
in this country in thinking, that it was in force. But
we are of opinion, and all the judges in the Court of Ex-
chequer were unanimously of opinion, that the Abjuration
Act does subsist, although there is not on the throne a
sovereign of the name of " George." We think this was an
act fur a permanent purpose, and that the name of the
reigning sovereign was introduced merely to denote in ail
time to come, until the law was altered, that the oath of
abjuration should be taken to the sovereign on the throne;
and it would be monstrous to suppose that on the death of
George I. the statute bad ceased to operate. There was no
renewal of the statute on the accession of George 11., nor
until it was renewed in the 6th year of the reign of
George 111. It continued in the reign of George IV. and
William IV., and it is contemplated to be now in force in
the reign of Queen Victoria. Therefore we think that
objection whoUy fails. The next question arises upon the
construction of the oath of abjuration; and it will not be
necessary. to enter minutely into the various statutes
quoted in the arguments brought forward, for we
adopt the reasoning of the majority. of the judges
of the Court of Exchequer on this point. We
have no doubt as to the rule as it is laid down
in 11. and Baker, and that where an oath is to be taken, it
being the only question how it Is to be taken, it must be
taken in that form which would be meat binding on the
conscience. And if this were merely a question of the form
in which the oath was to be taken, that case would decide
uin coming to a conclusion that it must be taken by a
Jew according to the form binding on his conscience. But
we are to look to see what was the intention of the legis-
lature as expressed in the act of parliament : is this an
essential part of the oath, or is it merely the form to he
taken. As the oath is given in the statute 1 Geo. 1.,
stet. 2, cap. 13—" I renounce and promise willingly, heartily,
and truly, on the true faith of a Christian, so help me
God," the latter words appear to us to be essential. If the
oath had been worded—" I, A. 8., upon the true faith of
a Christian, do truly and sincerely declare," all that fol-
lows—if it had been so put, it would have admitted of no
argument. It seems to me that this is the true construc-
tion to be put upon it, and that it is an essential part of
that which must be sworn to; and that no person can be
allowed to take the oath who cannot and will not say that
he does all this upon the true faith of a Christian.
Whatever may have been the particular object in
psssing the act, if it clearly in its construc-
tion applies to Jews as well as Roman catholice,
we cannot apply it to Roman catholics exclu-
sively. I should be relieved from any doubt which I might
otherwise entertain on the subject by the successive acts of
parliament, to which I attach great importance, which
have passed on this subject, and by which a construction
has been put upon it by the legislature itself. The act of
the 8 Geo. I. clearly contemplated that the oath could not
be taken by a Jew. If the construction contended for by
Sir F. Kelly were true, that act would be wholly unneces-
sary. And that act was followed by a number of other
acts to relieve the Jews from the hardships which the act of
the first of Geo. I, had cast upon them. I had the honour
to introduce ci.ie of those bills into parliament when Mr.
Salomon, was elected sheriff of the City of London, and
I thereby a sheriff might serve in any corporation without
taking the oath of abjuration. That act did not
go further than the office of sheriff; but by an
act subsequently introduced by Lord Lyndhurst
the same immunity was given as to all muni-
cipal offices. That act likewise would be unnecessary
if a Jew could take the abjuration oath " on the true faith
of a Jew." That being the case, I must say I entertain no
doubt upon the subject. We sit here to declare the law,
and we have nothing to do with what the law ought to be. I
must say individually that I regret that the act ever passed
to exclude the Jews. My wish is theta were repealed so as
to admit Jews to parliament; and so I have declared by my
vote in both houses of parliament ; but I sit here to declare
the law, and pat a just construction upon the acts which the
legislature have passed; and in doing so I have no doubt
• that the Jews are excluded from sitting in either house of

parliament.
Judgment of the court below confirmed.
The court then role.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.-YESTERDAY.

Emus Tux Cum Commuszorn
IN THE MATTER OF NICHOLAS SAINT

TION DISMISSED.

This insolvent, who applied under the Protection Act,
was opposed by Mr. Dowse on the part of Stephen Hutchin-
son, the manager of a loan society ; Mr. Sargood supported.
The insolvent had kept the Fountain public-house in King-
street, Long-acre. The loan society had discounted a 50/.
bill of exchange for the insolvent, drawn by him and ac-
cepted ley Allred Callaghan, who had been messenger at
the House of Commons, and who was now a petitioner to
this court. The losn society gave the full amount less
Tne money received from the loan society was not entered
in the special balance.ebect.
Mr. Dowse seised the court to dismiss the petition. The
insolvent had sworn to the schedule as being true, which it
was not, on account of the omission of the money from the
loan society.
Mr. Sargood resisted the prayer. The omission was a
mistake, and not wilful. Hence it could be amended.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
OLD COUItT.-YESTERDAY.
Suomi In Baaos Aunasom.
FORGIRT.
A person of gentlemanly appearance, who was described
in the cslendcr as a wale, name unknown, aged 35, but
who was indicted by the name of "Ewett," was charged
with forgery and uttering two bills of exchange, for the
respective sums of 4741. lbs. and 3881. 10s. 94., with intent
to defraud Samuel Ourney and others.
The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.
The prisoner was sentenced to be transported for fifteen
years.