The Sun.
London, England, 1852-04-19 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER.-(THIS DAY.)

MILLER V. ALDERMAN SALOMANS.—JUDGMENU
The court was very much crowded by-the bar and the
public this morning in consequence of to-day having
been fixed for giving judgment in this important case.
It will be recollected that the ection of Miller v. Salo-
mans was brought to recover certain penalties which
were alleged to have been forfeited by the defendant
under the Ist of Gco. L, c. 13 and -the 6th Geo.:
53, by reason of having voted in the House of Commons
without having taken the oath of abjuration. It was
tried at the last sittings after Michaelmas term, wl;tet,
the jury returned a special verdict., and the case numb on
for argument before the full court during last Hilary
term, when the Court reserved its judgment. There
being now a difference of opinion among their;, Lord-
ships, Mr. Baron Martin, the junior baron, delivered his
judgment first.

Mr. Baron MARTIN said Sir Fitzroy Kelly, on behalf.
of the defendant, urged three points. First, that it was
not obligatory to take the oath of abjuration at all—
that it was abolished, or expired at the death of George
the Second, or, at all events, at the death of George the
Fourth, and that there was nolawful authority for substier
toting the name Queen Victoria in the place of that of,
the monarch who was on the throne when the oath was.
enacted. He was of opinion that this point was not:
tenable, and that there was ample .= authority for intro-
ducing the names of Sovereigns into the oath as they
succeed to the throne. The second point was thatehe
words" on the true faith of a Christian," were repeated
by the 10 Geo. III.; but this he also thought was hot
tenable. oThe third was, that according to the true con-
struction of the statutes, an obligation was imposed on
all subjects, whether ristian or Jew, to take such an,
oath as was binding on their conscience. He intimated
also (as we understood) that he considered that point
could not be maintained. The fourth and last point, and
really the only one in the present case, was whether, as
the defendant had taken the oath in a way
binding on his conscience, though, omitting
the words "on the true faith of a Christian," he
had not taken the oath in a lawful manner, and
Was consequently relieved from all penalties.
The Learned Baron then went through the various Acts
at -considerable length, and observed that the main obj. ct
of them appeared to be to exclude all persoes who were
suspected of being disaffected to the Crown, and to compel
subjects not to take the oath simply as a matter oeforen,
but in a way really binding upon their consciences. The
words " on the true faith of a Christian" were not in-
serted as a test of Christianity, but in order, to make the
oath more effectually
.binding upon Reman Catholics,
who were then suspected of using mental reservations; for
it was evident that the Legislature never intended to term
Jews Popish recusants. The special verdict 'found that a
Jew was bound by the oath as taken by the defendant,
though he omitted the words in question, and it would
be a manifest absurdity to compel a Jew to Use another
form, and to swear " on the truce faith of a Christian,"
when that was not binding:on his conscience. Highly penal
statutes ought always to receive a just and reasonable
construction, but if the view contended for against the de-
fendant were adopted, he could neither sue nor be sued; he
could neither bequeath property nor have property
given to him ; and on the warrant of four justices of the
peace he could be banished from the kingdom, and if he
returned without the license of the Crown he might
suffer the penalty of death. His opinion was that
a Jew ought to be allowed to take the oath, omit-
ting the words "on the true faith of a Christian'."
and that opinion he believed was consonant with
the principles and practice of the law. In saying, there-
fore, that the defendant was entitled to the judgment of
the Court, he thought he was doing his best to carry
out the intention of the Legislature, and to give the
true legal construction to the statutes on the subject.
Mr. Baron ALDERsoN. said the Court all *greed that
three of the points submitted by the coned for the
defendant were not supported, and it was only, di',,the
other point that the Court entertained: any doubt;
whether on taking the oath of abjuration Alderman Sa-
lmons was b'ound to add the words " on the true faith
of a Christian;" and whether, by purposely omitting
them, he enlist be deemed as not having taken the
oath at all as prescribed by the Act 6 of Geo. 111. ?
On this point he regretted to-say he differed from his
Learned Brother, Mr. .Baron Martin, being' clearly of
opinion that the plaintiff was entitled to the judgment
of the Court. He considered that the words omitted
formed an integral part of the oath, and could not be
dispensed with. It was argued that such a construc-
tion involved an absurdity, and that according to the
golden rule it ought to be modified, in order to get rid
of the absurdity ; but he held that no more modifica-
tion was required than was necessary to dispense with
what appeared to be inconsistent or absurd. He saw
nothing in the Acts recited which .induced him to be-
lieve that the Legislature did cot intend that the words.
" on the true faith of a Christian" should- form a Ilea'
cessary part of the oath. The object of the Legisla-
ture evidently was, that the oath of abjuration was to
apply to, and be taken by, all persons matped in the
Act, of whatever religion, whether Protestant, Roman
Catholic, Jew, or Moravian ; and that .Ibis was so
was proved by the fact that. •Acts had, been at
different times passed dispensing with the words in cer-
tain cases, but unfortunately they did not extend to the
present one. The words were incorporated in and formed
a part 'of every sentence in the oath, so that without
them no part of the oath would have exectly the same
meaning as when they were added, he .therefore was
of opinion that. Alderman Salomons had not legally
taken the oath. He regretted that as an expounder of
the laiv he was compelled to come to that_ Conclusion,
because he believed that at the time: the ,oath was ene,.
acted the case of a Jew was. never contemplated. He
thought, however, it would be better' if Jews were to
be excluded from Parliament,,that they should be ex-
'eluded by u specific enactment, and not -by an oath
which was intended .to apply to, a , different class of
subjects. He regretted, that the consequences of his
decision were so serious, involving, as they Would disa-
bilities of a very grave character, for in addttion to being
liable to the penalties sued fOr the defendant could be
made an outlaw. He hoped, however, thosome legis-
lative remedy wield be • provided to -meet these difficul-
ties het it was his duty to expound tholaritis it was,
and net as he could wish into be.
Mr. Baron PARKE said the real question for the decie
sion of the Courte was, whether the words " oh the true
faith of a Christian" were part of the oath, or merely
the ceremony or mode of administering it. Ho could not
bring himself to believe that these words were ever intended
to be omitted, or that the oath was meant te-,be taken in
any other way' except on the true faith oti a Chris-
tian:, None but Christians, , in.., his opinion, could
take the oath. The truth was, that the oese of a Jew was
-h0 more thought of when the statutes were passed than
that of a Maheixodan or, a Pagan. Themords omitted
Clearly
formed part of the matters sworn to and that
,
bahig ao. he was obliged to , come to the decision that
ant
the
irf defendant,
e or;
The
hta hte
te
hw4:bdvcrt ibaa
ti
ia:
,need . not properly fallen by the
BARON ..believed that the object of the
atlhlepjust6irdts was ilioo
to omit or
odi to its hoboes: f
what was just or een.Y'amge,
t'ec Ipignisla"th wasncri:ubelY
consciences of Je-gat'--89a accordinge4eMmodate it.to the
bfexprful_tictiatlay denomination. When
avowed 'Object ofevthene
Christians unless
statutes distinctly,
Tphtliavnely required
er •
Sheiseritue:'ial
positive as to-
ligious differences of the' People? another to tart the re.
One form, were they to,
was so clear andexclude a g , age used
though it might be termed
jeit and liGrapilaxation,
ds he agreed with his lerothera- 4301.1 these
group
eon Parke that the ad • ua
and Mr. Baron Alderson, j gineutouht to be
given for the plaintiff,
the plaintiff Becoingly.,
Judgment for m

„
MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
commenced thia morning. before Mr. `-ze ”
(GI A•ki - t°r It'4'l3' ''':
Yse.)ssion forre the count
The April adjouriCruclagieSneptaAl
at the Session Rouse, ClerkAawell preen.
Assistant-Judge, Mr. Witham, and ter..7 g • a es,
of
fiThefty one„ calendar,pri s
0
ctably.dressed
STEALING 1401.-James lialling, a' respe .
nischfoirsTtraitahle.i light, contains the names
young man, wasplaced
upon an
.indictuymt ;charging •„hita with 41-(tnY and
et the bar to naive ,indgroen!
robbery. ,
The officer of the Hoban of CorrectiOn statetlll that he
bad been in prison several times, and his Cousin was
lately transported for seven years; . - - :
The AESISTANT JUDGE; in passing sentencN said he
Clad. better join his cousin across the seas,, §incn his
trial inquiries had been made into 'his character, which
hitd not turned out satisfactoty for hini, andit 'must be,
remembered thr.t'ho 'was four]. guilty of larCeny and of
stealing 140/., under moat aggravating circumstances.
Taking all the facts into consideration the se tense of
the Court was ;that he be transported beyond the seas(
for seven year;.
James GoodteinwHenrY liorper, and James 1341 fie, who
:YtO! (G 41124 PiltY 91 04441111 01t04111): big tlliso ili