The Express.
London, England, 1851-07-23 00:00:00

an oath when a Quaker would have been required to take an !
oath upon any lawful occasion ; and 1 George 1., which i
made that act perpetual, set forth for Quakers a form of
affirmation to be used instead of the abjuration oath, omit-'
Rag the words " upon the true faith of a Christian."
That was repeated in Bth George 1. An act was
to remove all doubt, but the committee on Mr.
rails case thought that act unnecessary, and so did be
(the Attorney-General). (Hear.) No doubt the law was
In a most unsatisfactory state. (Hear, hear.) The act was
for the sole purpose of providing fur the ere of the
vaned
esthetics; but, the enactment being general, you
could pot creep out of it, and it would be inconsistent with
the duty of the house to evade a positive act. (Hear.) But
it was never intended to apply to the Jew. (Hear, hear.%
The oath was remodelled to suit the consciences of th,AZ,
to whom it was intended to apply, and was maintaies4 in
all its rigour, stringency, and severity, against those to
whom it was not intended to apply. (Hear, hear.) The
house could not take upon itself to alter that which. was the
law of parliament in geueral. Antiouo as he as to see
the Jew admitted to parliament, he thought they mast not
lose sight of the constitutional and legal means to which
they must resort for that purpose.
Mr. J. EVANS thought the house was now beginning to
see the real grounds on which it stood With regard to this
question. Of all the speeches which ..tad been delivered
that of the Attorney-General appeared to be the most
satis-
factory. for it now plainly appeared, from that right hon.
and learned gentleman's showing, that this law was never
inteuded to apply to the Jews, b'at merely to the Roman
esthetics, and particularly to the Jesuits. No better proof
than this could be adduced to p rove that the words " on the
true faith of a Christian" were formal, and, indeed, in them-
selves, they did not contain a •;ingle particle of the oath itself.
Believing the words to be reaere formula, and that the oaths
had bceu most properly taken, he contended that these
two hon. gentlemen usu.e entitled to take their seats.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr NAI'IER coi,eeideal in the views expressed by
the noble lord at the head of the government, and
which had been so ably supported by the Attorney-
General. They w ere asked by a mere resolution to omit
the words "on the true faith of a Christian " from the
oath; but he should like to know whether, if the hon.
members for London and Greenwich were afterwards cited in
a court of law fur having taken their scans, the court would
recognise a ratre resolution of the house ? lie never would
consent to any proposition whereby one branch of the
legislature should take upon itself to alter the oath.
Nts ere they at liberty, by a resolution of the house„
to take upon themselves to do what had never yet been
done except by the legislature. Were they at liberty to
strike out oue portion of the oath presented to the Jews
That was a matter which, if it were to be remialied, must
be remedied by the legislature. Upon these grounds, he
entirely concurred with the view taken by the noble lord
and the Attorney-General.
Mr. AGLION BY said that his firm impression was
that the honourable members for Greenwich and the
City of London had taken the oath legally, and that they
were entitled to sit and vote. Ile thought that the argu-
menta of the hon. member for Aylesbury were en:maw/us
able, and that the arguments' of the hurl. member for 'thing•
don were not worth a rush. if the noble lonic proposition
were carried out he hoped that in the next session he would
take into consideration the form of the abjuration oath,
with a view to relieve those professing the Jewish
lie felt that it was not a question of years; it would only
be a question of months ; the constituencies would express
their opinions, and do away with the oath.
Mr. lIENRY DRUMMOND, though no lawyer, felt as.
cured that it could nut be law that any person taking a
statutory oath might omit as many words as he pleased.
He had always objected to Jews sitting in that house upon
principle ; but he could not take advantage of a law never
Intended to apply to Jews in order to carry out his princi-
ple. If a motion were made to exclude Jews co twosine, he
would rate fur it ; but lie would not tight in ambush against
them behind the dyke raised to keep out a Sardinian prince.
Mr. ANSTEY supported the amendment in another
laborious legal argument, replying, as he proceeded, to the
Attorney-General and Mr. Napier. If the oath was not,
as he held it to be, illegal, the question, he said, was never-
theless settled and concluded by the statute Ist and 2nd
ictioria.

Sir IL INGLIS (amidst cries of " Divide")—contended
that, even admitting that the words in question were intro-
duce,' into the oath by accident, there never was a time in
which the oaths were not administered upon some symbol
that would exclude metulars of the Jewish persuasion.
The house then divided—
Fur Mr. liethell's amendment
Against
On returning to the gallery,
Mr. BRIGHT said, although he had not been autho-
rised to say that the hen member for Orcmwich would
ask to be heard at the bar of the house in support of
his right to take his scut, yet that hon. member might
think it important to request to be heard either by him-
self or by counsel on that subject. Ile (Mr. Bright) would
therefore suggest to the noble lord not to press his resolu-
tion to-night, because, if it should be adopted, he feared the
hon. mender for Greenwich would nut then be at liberty
to take any further steps to enforce his claim.
The hon. and harned member for Aylesbury had made
• suggestion which was well worthy of the considera-
tion of the noble lord and of the house. If the noble lord,
notwithstanding, persevered iu the course which lie recom-
mended to the house, he hoped that every unprejudiced
man in the house, and he believed there were many unpre-
judiced men on both sides, would say that ho was taking a
course which was not sanctioned by tho most distinguished
lawyers in the house—u course which, however it may suit
the noble lord and hon. gentlemen opposite, was, to say the
least, open to extreme doubt—a course which would inflict
the direst injustice on the hon. member for Greenwich sad
do a great constitutional wrong to the constituency whisk
sent him to that house. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned
memher fur Aylesbury had delivered his sentimeaas
with so much solemnity and earnestness that ne.
person who heard him could doubt but that he
Wa, thoroughly convinced of the truth of the
position he laid before them. The hon. and learned
member suggested that another committee should be ap-
pointed for the purpose of reconsidering the question, with
all the additional light which hail been thrown upon it
within the last few days. (Hear) The appointment of ano.
ther committee could not possibly place them in a worse
position than they were in at present; for if the committee
reported that the law was so emphatic that they must reject
the claim of the hon. member for London and the hon.
member for Greenwich, they could reject them with some
show of authority and reason; but if, on the other hard,
they reported, that—taking the precedent of Mr. Pease and
the state of the law into their consideration—for both pre-
cedent and law should be considered—that these gentlemen

might be admitted to take their seats notwithstanding the
omission of thew words, then this great difficulty would be
solved with perfect honour to the house, and without doing
wrong to the gentlemen who were hitherto rejected-
or to the constituencies by whom they were returned.
(Cheers.) The noble lord, from a theoretic reifard
to the constitution, was practically violating it. They
should construe the words of the act of parliament in
a large and liberal spirit. (Hear, hear.) If the judges of
the land acted on a liberal interpretation of the statutes,
they would not now be in possession of half the liberties
they enjoyed, and they would be still engaged in disputes
about words. (Rear, hear.) In order that the home
might have the opportunity of discussing the question ea
the points he hurl put, he begged to move that the debate
be now adjourned.
The motion having been seconded, there were loud apps
for a division.
Lord J. RUSSELL said, the hon. gentleman bad put to
him a question whether be (Lord J. Russell) would agree
adjourn the debate, in order that Mr. Salomon', the la
member for Greenwich, might be heard; and he lad vies
put another question, namely, whether he (Lord J.
did not think it right that a committee should be apitp:ll2
to examine further into this matter. He (Lord J. Russell)
stated yesterday that he thought, if the hon. member
for Greenwich wished to be baud, not by counsel, but
by himself, in the same manner as Mr. O'Connell was
heard at the bar of the house, that leave should be
given to the hon. member for that purpose ; but he did not
think it necessary to adjourn the debate in order
to learn whether ho still wished to be heard
atthe bar. (Hear, hear.) That was a proceeding to which
he thought the hon. member would object, and one of
which be would not avail himself of. ( eat.) With re-
gard to the appointment of a select committee, for the pur-
pose of obtaining further information, he had to observe
that this question had been so fully discussed last year, that
they slid not come to the present debate without prepara-
tion' and that he collected from the various speeches which
had been made on the subject, but more especially by the
hon. and learned :Reuther fur Aylesbury, whose authority
stood so deservedly high with the house. (Hear, hear)
Ile did not think that any committee would be able to ad-
duce any acts of parliament, or any precedents more, be-
yond those which had been already referred to. (Hear.)
That this was the case was natural, because last year
kr saw it was desirable that the house should be fully
informed of the acts of parliament, and the precedents on
the subject, and accordingly a committee was appointed
on the motion of the Solicitor General, not for the pur-
pose of reporting opinions certainly—(scar, hear)--hut in
order to bring under the notice of the hors the acts of par-
liament and the precedents which bore on the eminent I
That committee was comprised of himself and the sable
lord the member for Arundel, Sir R. Peel, Sir J. Gather.
Mr. Gladstone, Sir R. Inglis, Sir W. Wynn, Mr.
lir. Roebuck. Mr. Napier, Mr. Henley, Mr. Hume,
Turner, Mr. W. Patten, Mr. Wood, sad Sir B. Mail awl
a committee more competent to discharge the task
them it would, be thought, be difficult to name.
hear.) The draft of the report which was drawn hi;
boa. and learned friend the Solicitor-General wan
to considerable discussion In the committee;
from the intricacy of the sehlect that sagest might net
free from errors, yet into beim the bum Ike Ms
of parliament and the on the staidest. Mrs)
It was true the mender of Ste oimmitate did artJity•
their opinions in AM mark bet they bril Ow Mir
opinions in the debars eimi Merrier midis dein leek
place. Such beinUthe 1.211/2 he Anode dm boo boa la
the Melt that might be derived bee the aggstaleisoll of
a cam illim (Chases.) He thooks It vas -es mike of
the isewsliere alba amittee, se Ilse es be mid moistois
them, that Dam illothehild was est Milled le take his
seat in the boom The boa. gym was mieliken in
supposing that he framed the words Odle mehatioa. They
were homed by the Kerr of the Rea, sled it was only
after taking the Maims of the few aims of the crown
that ho too t the come to whisk the boa. gentleman so
such objected. H. believed tint every Pamirs, of the
house had aseadeed frr idersl4 as he wan hood to do, the
acts of parlismeet, led the ts which bore as the'
question, and that the of a select committee '
would be thershro Bet if the bore generally
wished to bar gob a somitlis oneisfal, be weld not