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

AVP LIFE ASSURANCE OFFICE,
Fleet-street, London, Jan. 14, 1852.
Notice is hereby given, that a GENERAL MEETING of the
Proprietors of the Law Life Assurance Society will be held at the So
ciety's Office, Fleet-street, London, on MONDAY, the 2d day of Fe-
bruary next, at Twelve o'clock at Noon precisely, pursuant to the
provisions of the Society's Deed of Settlement, for the purpose of
receiving the Auditors' Annual Report of the accounts of the Society
up to 31st December last, and for general purposes.
By order of the Directors,
WILLIAM SAMUEL DOWNES.
The DIVIDEND on the Capital Stock for the year 1851 will be
PAID between the hours of Ten and Three daily (Tuesday's ex-
cepted), on and after the 12th day of April next.

Mr. Sergeant CHANNELL .(in continuation from our
paper of yesterday) said—He should, in bringing the
statutes before the Court, divide them into
i,a
totwriltiiae
oiclae s
1. Those which impose on Members e
)sastt h—e
duty of taking the oaths of abjuration and supremaey,
and incidentally those statutes generally which impose
this duty on any members of the public. These he
should call the obligatory statutes. 2. The statutes of
an exempting character. These statutes were enacting
not declaratory. Under this clews would come those
specially affecting Jews, those affecting Quakers and
Moravian:,, some of which alsote 1
applied to
Vic.,teJ e.s„ltolste,
Emancipation Act, and, lastly, the
entitled " An Act to remove doubts as to the validity of
certain oaths;" an Act general in its character, not
applying to particular persons, but enacting that all per-
sons Should be bound by an oatb, administered to them
in the form binding on their conscience, without respect
tinyto•
religion or sect whatever. Ho :should be curious
to hear how it could be argued that that oath, which
had been taken by all Members of Parliament for so
many years, and by all persons called to the bar, need
not have been taken by them. He did not propose
to confine himself to the law as to the oath of
abjuration. The present case undoubtedly turned
upon that oath only, but light might be thrown on the
question by considering the other oaths also.. The first
statute on the subject was the Ist of Eliz. c. 1, entitled,
An Act to restore to the Crown the ancient jurisdic-
tion over the estate ecclesiastical and spiritual, and abo-
lishing all foreign po suers repugnant to the same."
The 19th sec. imposes on archbishops, bishops, and cer-
lain persons therein enumerated, the necessity of taking
he oath of supremacy, and it is directed that they shall
3 and receive a corporal oath upon the Evange-
lists." This being on the Evangelists, ho should con-
tend that it must have been taken on the New Testa-
ment. The concluding words of the form given were—
"So help me God, and by the contents of this book."
The next statute was the sth of Eliz. c. 5. Sec. 5 again
enacts that the oath should be a corporal oath on the
Evangelists, and prescribes a form of oath to be taken
verbatim. Sec. 16 imposes the duty of taking this oath
on Members of Parliament. It was plain that a Mem-
ber could only have taken this oath on the New Testa-
ment, and as a Christian oath. Next came the 3d of
James 1., c. 4. This statute had been said, to contain
the germ of the oath of abjuration;
but the form of the
oath there given has been described in subsequent
statutes as the oath of allegiance and obedience.
By sec. 13 it is enacted that for the better trial
how his Majesty's subject stand affected in point of
their loyalty and obel
for any bishop in his diocese,
it should be lawful
or two justices of the
peace, to require persons of the age of eighteen,
under certain circumstance there mentioned, to take
the oaths thereafter " followings
Evan-
gelista." Sec. 15 gives the form upon the Holy
con-
cludes with the followingAn of the oath, which
the present oath—at vvloirds, similar te those used in
and sincerely ackneloewlsepdegke: these things Ido .Plainly
express words by and swear according. to these
and common sense and undne, and according_ to the plain
rstanding of the same weeds
by me spoken, and accordi
sense and understanding of to the
equivocation or mental ev t plain and common
e same words, without any
whatsoever. And IdO ftsion, or secret reservation
knowiesgmeet heartily, wakewillingly,
this recognition and ac-
true faith of a Christian. Soleg!Y, and truly, upon the
help me. God." Thie oath
could only be taken on th
Testament. e Evangelists, that is the New
Baron MARTIN—What
that time, if required to take
to become of a Jew ,at
Sergeant CHANNELL The an oath?
the Act. cY are not contemplated by
Sir F. KELLY—They had
before, and they were notartestorbeenrestored
till b banished
Sergeant CHANNEL not
MheWdelle'ritimUreie.S
limns could be admitted to o,,,that time none but Chris-
it was the express policy and. lie would show that
tare at that time to exclude • intention of the Legiela-
Act of James I. members of but Christians. By this
pressly aff,?cted, but by
greatinies I , c.
7tii
`James
Parliament were not ex-
6, s. 2. after re-
citing that to show how
re-
jects approve the said oath. thY his Majesty's loyal sub-
his Majesty's feet, bebeedin 'el prostrate themselves at
him that it may be ad-
ministered to all his subjectsg
sons above eighteen alma to! it i 8 enacted that all pee-
the oath, upon the Evan-
gelists; and by see. 8, nemjlea
Ne rs of Parliament are ex-
pressly required to take it. xt cam 3d Charles e. 2,
e. 1. This did not alter the oath of supremacy, IL
as, set-
tled by the Act of Elizabeth, nor the oath of allegiance
and obedience of James, but
egainestaperadded the necessity of
signing a declaration
section 2, it is enacted that no transubstantiation. By
i,,,,, Member of the House of
Commons shall vote or sit
of allegiance and supremacy,"a" he shall take the oaths
make, subscribe, and audibly repeat this declaration nftiollowing—then a form
of declaration is given, that he
... believig that in the sa-
crament of the Lord's Supper
any
ot_nere is not any transub-
stantiation, &c. Could
uteh doubt that the Legis-
lature meant the taking of
Evangelists, and this declaration se oath] " upon the
the subject of a Christian d aespecific belief on
Christianity of the person taeineett' net as a test of the
olaration. g these oaths and de-
Baron ALDERSON—I do not
thunderstand how any one
could declare that he believed
the Lord's Supper there wee not tin the sacrament of
who did not believe in the Lord. any transubstantiation,
Sergeant CHANNELL—If this was intended as a test'of
Christianity, then it is incumbent on
other aide to
show some Act of Parliament repeehthe
the , there could be
the coarse of legislation stopped bereag this test. If
no doubt on the subject. But
William and Mary, c. 1, s. 1. It wentilcata° the Ist
to draw attention particularly to the be be necessary
not appear to have been noticed ie ,e4ct, as it did
th subject, that
which had taken place elsewhere on this
discussions
st and 2d
this statute remained in force down to
Wm. IV. The Ist Wm. and Mary, e. 13,
repeal the
substitutes new
Acts imposing the old oaths of allegate,
macy on Members of Parliament, and and supre-
s and repeat-
oaths, enacting that the taking the new
the 30th
sag the declaration against transubstantion
id oaths
Chas. 11., in such manner as the taking tat
in that
and repealing the said declaration was required
tab
all intents
Act of Chas. IL, shall be good and effectual to
Members en
and purpeses, as if the old oaths had been
tar; and it
under
further enacts, that the new oaths are to be
the same penalties as the old, and that
liament shall take the new oaths within the ea of Par-
an in the sold, and not iame manner an
ndany other forte as the
my
anwererarequired
dake the° time
Par-
to ter.
gives the form of the oath, which concludes s n
iro Sec. 6
help me God," without the words, " On the tauepi
Y, e" S°
Evangelists of a Christian." But since it is to be taken
This Act applie —te
in the faith
manner as the old, that must be on the
that is, on the New Testament.
ette,nLur.ely
Members of Parliament. Then came the est w'a'rn,
Mary, c. 8, which it had been supposed repealed . .. and
the old oaths. Still, down to a late time those
and
been administered. That Act is entitled aAn oaths had
Act to
abrogate the oaths of supretnseYallegiance and
to appoint other oaths;" and, after reciting thels
Elisabeth, c. 1, and 3d James 1., C. 4, enacts that no
person shall be obliged to take the said oaths
By see. 3, new forms are authorised to be taken
ous
oaths. Sec. 5 imposes the same penalties as were
.
imposed upon failure to take the old oaths. This act
did not in any way interfere with the declarations against
transubstantiation. The form of oath given by the sta-
tute did not contain the words "on the ' true faith of a2lristien." Next came the statute of 13th 'maim,
Ill'' c. C. 6, By this statute the oath of abjuration was
first imposed in the form in which it is still taken. was
The
only naodificatious which it had undergone, down to
6th George 111 these which were necessary to
~ were ose

C L lAFF, OMMERCIAL and GENERA
ASSURANCE ASSOCIATION,

No. 112, Cheapside.
Notice is hereby given, that the ANNUAL GENERAL MEET-
ING of the Shareholders in the Association will be held at the Office
as above, on THURSDAY, the 12th day of February next, at Two
o'clock precisely, for the purpose of receiving the Directors' Report,
and electing I)irectors and Auditors for the ensuing year, &c., ac-
cording to the provisions of the Deed of Settlement.
By order of the Board.
JAMES DANIELL, Secretary.

January 27, 1852,

GEOLOGICAL. MINERALOGY.
KING'S COLLEGE, LONDON.
Professor TENNANT, F.G.S., will commence the SECOND PART
of his COURSE of LECTURES on MINERALOGY, with a view
to facilitate the study, of GEOLOGY, and of the application of
Mineral Substances in thepls.
The Lectures will be illifstrated by an extensive Collection of
Specimens, and will commence on WEDNESDAY MORNING, Jan.
28, at Nine o'clock. They will bo continued on each succeeding
Wednesday, at the same hour. Fee One Guinea.

R. W. JELF, D.D., Principal.

j[ISS JULIA BLEADEN'S CONCERT will
take place at the London Tavern, Bishopsgate-street, on
THU itSDAY EVENING, the sth February next, at Eight o'clock
precisely, on which occasion she will be assisted by those eminent
artistes, Miss Louisa Pyne, Miss Poole, Miss Emily Macnamara, Miss
Pyne, Mr. Swift, Mr. (I. Perren, Mr. W. A. Payne, Mr. Henry Corri.
Pianoforte, Miss Eliza Ward and Mr. F. Osborne Williams; Con-
certina, Mr. J. Ward; Trumpet, Mr. It. Ward; Flute, Mr. Richard-
son. The Concert Choir will likewise perform several of their most
admired morceaux. Conductors, Mr. Howard Glover, and Mr. F. 0.
Williams.

Admission—Tickets, 2s. 6d. each ; Reserved Seats, 4s. ; to be had
of Mr. Prowse, 48, Cheapsicle; at the London Tavern; and of Mies
J. Blcaden, 10, Bloomsbury-square.

. .
meet the changes in the succession to the Crown. Ono
~other alteration was made by the statute of George 111.
in consequence of the death of the Pretender. The
13th William 111., o. 6, after defining the persons who
aro to take the oath of abjuration, thereby given, amongst
whom were not included Members of Parliament, sets
out the form of oath, concluding with the words, " And
I do make this recognition, achnovvledgment,
abjuration,
renunciation, and promise, heartily, willingly' and truly, upon the true faith of a Christian,
so help me God."
ley sec. 10, Members of Parliament are required, before
voting or sitting in the House, to take this oath in man-
ner following:-" that is, between nine in the morning
and four in the afternoon, at the table in the middle of
the House, whilst a full House of Commons is there
duly sitting with their Speaker in his chair." See. 11
imposes a penalty of 500/. on any one voting not having
taken the oath. Then came the Ist Anne, s. 1, c. 22,
which gives a similar form of oath with a like conclu-
sion, eubatituting the name of Anne for William. The
next statute was the 6th Anne, c. 7, which by sect. 20,
provided a form of oath to be taken from and after the
demise of her Majesty, in which form blanks are
left for the name of the Sovereign, whoever that
might be, it being at that time uncertain whether the
Electress of Hanover would succeed. The lst Geo. 1.,
scat. 2, c. 13, carried out the alterations contemplated by
the last statute of Anne, the Electress having died
shanty before Anne-by this Act a form is given, filling
up the blanks left in the form of the Act of Anne with
the name of George. Sect. 17 inflicts the penalty of
5001. on any Member who shall presume to vote, not
having taken the said oath. This is the section under
which the present action was brought. There was in
that form by this Act prescribed no real alteration of
the oath, it was to he taken in such manner and toge-
ther with the other oaths and declaration against tran-
substantiation in the former oaths. Then came the 6th
Geo. e. 53, which was passed in 1766, the Pre-
tender having died in 1765. By that Act a form of oath
is set out and required to be taken :by all persons who
by the previous Act of Ist Geo. 1., st. 2, c. 13, and sth
Geo. 1., e. 29, were required to take the oath of abjura-
tion. This is the form in which the defendant was re-
quired to take the oath, bat the penalties were recover-
able under the Ist Goo. 1., 0. 13. These statutes were
all which came under the first head of obligatory sta-
tutes. He now came to the second division cf ex-
emptory statutes. The first division of these were the Acts
applicable to Jews. These statutes were most of them not
to be found in the ordinary edition of the statutes. The
first of these was 9th Geo. I. o. 24(1722). This Act was im-
portant in two views of the case. It showed that Jews
were expected to take the oath of abjuration in the then
usual form, and that it required an Act of the Legisla-
ture to exempt them from this necessity. By that Act
it is enacted that every person of Jewish religion in
England, eighteen years of age, who had not taken the
oath of Ist Geo. 1., and who should neglect or refuse to
do so before December 25, 1723, should, before March
25, 1724, register his name and estate, as Papists were
required to do. The next statute of this class was 10th
Geo. I, c. 4. This Act was relied on as creating an
exemption for the defendant. After reciting the last-
mentioned Act of 9th Geo. I.; and that the greater part
of the persons thereby affected had taken the oath, but
chat by reason of the shortness of the time allowed all
had not been able, and that it was necessary to extend
the time, then, after making certain exemptions of
wonesn and others, it proceeds to make certain provisions
es to Quakers, and then proceeds:-" And whereas the
iollowing words are contained in the latter part of the
oath of abjuration, viz., upon the true faith of a Chris-
tian; be it further enacted, that, whenever any of her
Nlajesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion shall
present himself to take the said oath of abjuration, in
pursuance of the said recited Act or of this present, the
said words, ' upon the true faith of a,Christian,' shall
ee omitted out of the said oath in administering the
same to such person, and the taking the said oath by
such person professing the Jewish religion without
,Ise words aforesaid, in like manner as Jews are
admitted to be sworn to give evidence in courts of
justice, shall. be deemed to be a sufficient taking of the
abjuration oath within the meaning of the said recited
Act." The only effect of this enactment was to allow
the Jews to omit these words when taking the oath,
inr the purpose of the 9th Geo. 1., c. 24, but
}'or this purpose only. It gives no indemnity for other
purposes, and thus does not all come up to the exemp-
tion which is contended for on behalf of the defendant.
rho next statute was the 13th Geo. 11., o. 7, an Act for
naturalising foreign Protestants that should settle in
the North American colonies, for which purpose they
were required to take the oath of abjuration. It then
enacts that when any person of Jewish religion shall
present himself to take the oath, hp might omit the
words "on the true faith of a Christian." These were
all the Acts relating to Jews in particular. Then as to
the course of legislation with respect to Quakers. It
would illustrate with what scrupulous care the Legis-
lature had proceeded when it proposed to relieve the
Quakers. As to them no doubt the oath of abjuration
was entirely repealed. The 13th and 14th Charles IL,
c. 1, imposed a penalty of 51. on Quakers who should
refuse to take an oath. The Toleration Act, lst Wil-
liam and Mary, stet. 1, c. 18, requires Quakers to snake
a solemn profession of their Christian belief. The 7th
and Bth William 111., c. 34, gives power to take affir-
mations of Quakers, instead of oaths; Ist George 1.,
stet. 2, c. 6, gives further indemnities to Quakers, and
makes perpetual the 7th and Bth William 111., a. 34,
and appoints a form of affirmation. Bth George L c. 6,
gives a different form of affirmation, omitting the words
"in presence o Almighty God," which had been ob-
jected to as being a form of adjuration. The 22d
George 11., a. 46, which makes provision for a great
teeny things, from the price of bread to the Quaker's
affirmation, recites that doubts had arisen whether it
was admissible except where specially declared by
an Act of Parliament, and enacts that a Quaker's
affirmation shall be admissible in all cases. The 9th
George IV., c. 32, makes their affirmation in criminal
cases. In 1833 the 3d and 4th William ,C. 49, was
passed, whereby Quakers and. Moravian were allowed
to make affirmation in all cases whatever.
Baron ALDERSON-Mr. Pease had taken his seat in
the House of Commons before that Act.
Sergeant CHANNELL-Yes, but he was liable to pe-
nalties if he had improperly taken his seat. He was
advised to get this Act passed,
Sir F. PoLLocie-It is a matter of history that it was
the unanimous opinion of all the lawyers of the House
that Mr. Pease was entitled to take his seat. Sir B.
Peel, Sir W. Follett, Lord Campbell, and myself, were
Members, and we none of us had any doubt.
Baron ALDERSON-It would be dangerous to take the
opinion of a Committee as binding in a court of law.
Baron PARKE-That Act is not retrospective, so that
it would have dune Mr. Pease DO good.
Baron ALDERSON-Probably the time for suing had
expired. These statutes with reference to Quakers ex-
hibit a great contrast of the care taken with regard to
them to what has been with regard to Jews, if the de-
fendant's view be right. Then the Catholic Emancipa-
tion Act, 10 Geo. IV., c. 7, gives a form and repeals the
obligation of taking the oath of abjuration so far only as
Roman Catholics are concerned. The last statute, and
the one on which the defendant must rely, is the Ist and
2.1 Viet., c. 105, which " enacts that in all cases in
which an oath may lawfully be and shall have been ad-
ministored to any person, either as a juryman or a wit-
ness, or a deponent in any proceeding, civil or criminal,
in any court of law or equity, or on appointment to any
office or employment, Or on any occasion whatever, such
person is bound by the oath administered, provided the
same shall have been administered in suck form and
with such ceremonies as such persons may declare to be
binding." It ntuat be contended for the defendant that
this is a repealing statute, because, unless it repeals the
words of the oath of abjuration, it would not be sufficient
for defendant's purpose. No doubt, in a court of law, or
where no form of oath is prescribed, a person may take
an oath in the manner binding on him-that was decided
in the case of Omichund v. Barker (Willes, 538). But
this, being a Christian oath prescribed by the Legisla-
lature, can only be dispensed with by the same authority.
First, the oath was to be on the Holy Evangelists; this
was a part of the manner of tho oath, and is not to this
day repealed: If, then, it was a Christian oath, how was
it affected by these cases? The case of Omichund v.
Barker decided that any person might be sworn as a wit-
ness in a court ofjustice according to the custom and man-
ner of his religion; but that cannot affect the case of
an oath which was prescribed in a particular form.
Taking the oath, therefore, to be a Christian oath,
the question then arose how far the point was affected
by the operation of the Act of Victoria. The stet. Ist
and 2d Via., o. 104, declared and enacted " that in all
cases in which an oath may lawfully be and shall have
been administered to any person, either as ski! juryman
2 o
or
r
a witness, or a deponent in any proceeding, civil
criminal, in any court of law or equity in the United
Kingdom, or an appointment to any office or.s
employ-
ment, or on any occasion whatever, such person is bound
,
by the oath administered, provided the same shall have
been administered in such form and with such ceremo-
nies as such person may declare to be binding.
upon Now,
'
the first observation which arose
to the oath of abjuration, noroanyf this Act of
r
recited if re
Parliament was, that it contained not e referencewhat-
everAotof Parliament, which should have been
in-
tended to be repealed. The Act_ seemed to apply
in
courts of law.
ex-
clusively to oaths administered
the oath of abjuration
There were cases in whiocfh
on appointment to
had been taken in courts
or
Would,
witnesses. In
be confined to the cases of jurymeney word of this A
offices, and therefore the operation of the Act need not
Act of
fact, effect might be given to
assertion that
frecourseoremveer s
ttaot theu tstatutes.
the statute
Parliament, without havin
it amounted to a repeal of of
on the part the defendant,
was said that,
no doubt, be contended
true faith of a Christian" might
that the words "on the
be omitted from the oath. It
and
he ad
was directed against rapists,o the Act was
that to be
the case, but the language There could b as
large enough
to include many others.
the Legislature
e no doubt that
it was the intention of , framing the
to impose a religious test, and it had
Act in question,
taken the greatest that
consciencepossiblains to make oath
_
binding upon the of the person who took it.
aith a te`hristi •
The words oie the truean," coming
after the atriagent languagef ofee the former part of
the oath, showed that the Legislature meant those
words to be a declaration as well as an oath.
Whether the Jews were in the contemplation of the
the Legislature, or not, at the time when the oath

was made compulsory, was a matter with which he
need not encumber the argument. It was enough
to state that at that period all persons were excluded
from public honours and employments, unless they were
Christians. Before the repeal of the Teat and Corpora-
tion Acts, no ono could hold office without having re-
ceived the sacrament within a limited period. There
was ono other argument to which he wished to advert
before he sat down. It was said that the plaintiff was
now suing upon the statute 6 George 111., and no doubt,
taking it in connexion with other Acts, that was the
ease. Upon this it was argued that the Acts passed in
the ninth year of George 111., and in the tenth year of
the'same sovereign, had created an indemnity in favour
of the Jews. But to this it might be answered that
these Acts were not subsisting Acts, but were merely of
a temporary nature, to enable Jews and other persons
to register their property, and were pasted for that pur-
pose only. He would now call the attention of the court
to the Act 1 and 2 William IV., c. 9, which repealed so
much of certain Acts as required certain oaths to be
taken by Members of the House of Commons before the
Lord Steward or his deputies, and having said thus
much, he would submit that,
.upon the grounds which
he had already stated, the plaintiff was entitled to the
judgment of the court.
bit F. KELLY, on the part of the defendant, said that
in much that had fallen from his Le arnei Friend he
sincerely and cordially concurred. H e quice agreed
with him that this case Should be argued, as he had
doubt it would be determined, without any AL_ no
popular considerations on ono side or the other, but
upon the true constructions of the statutes brought- be-
fore the Court. He must, however, remind their Lord-
ships that this was an action for penalties, founded upon
certain penal Acts of Parliament vrenichtftrest, there-
fore, be strictly construed, and which, if in force at all,
imposed very heavy and very fearful penalties on those
who contravened their provisions. That Jews were en-
titled to serve in Parliament was, he apprehended, a
proposition which could not admit of a doubt, and if the
Act might be construed in such a sense as to impose
upon this class of the community, and perhaps on other
classes also, the duty of taking an oath which was re-
pugnant to their consciences, he trusted that the Court
would carefully weigh the words of the Act, and give it,
if possible, a construction, which would favour liberty
of conscience. Ths Court would bear in mind that
the refusal to take the oath in question did not ex-
pose a Jew merely to the loss of 5004 in the shape
of a penalty, but to a disqualification to be an executor,
to be a guardian of any enild, to bold any office, or to
give any vote. With these preliminary observations, ho
passed to the grounds on which he had to submit that
the defendant was entitled to the judgment of the Court,
and it might be convenient to state what were the four
distinct and specific grounds on which h 4 relied. In the
first place he should contend that, on a careful considera-
tion of the various Acts of Parliament bearing upon this
question, the Act of 6th Geo. 111., c. 53, was no longer
in force, and that it ceased to be in force on the death of
George 111., or at all events on the death of the last
Sovereign bearing the name of George. That being so,
he should maintain that there was no power in the House
of Commons or any officer of the House of Commons, nor
in any court of law, or any officer of a court of law, to
take upon himself to alter the terms of an oath, the whole
form and language of which had been expressly given
by the Legislature. If that were so, then the Act could
only apply to " our Sovereign Lord King George."
That was the only form given under the statute. Upon
every occasion on which a change of the name of the So-
vereign hsd been considered necessary, the Legislature
had interposed by express enactment, reciting the neces-
sity, and altering the name of one Sovereign for the other.
That was done from the time of William the Third to the
time of George 111., and as there was no Act of Par-
liament which had since confirmed that authority, there
was now no power in existence which enabled any one
to administer a different oath from that contained in the
statute of 6th George 111., or to substitute the name or
deacription of one Sovereign for another. In the next
place he should submit, if the statute imposing the oath
was still in force, that it was competent to the defendant,
and that it was his duty to take the oath, omitting the
words " on the true faith of a Christian;" and that on
the ground that wherever the L-gisheture imposed on
any man the duty of taking an ()ash, the law not only
permitted, but required him to ttke it in such manner
and form as should be binding on his conscience. If
there was any exception or qualification to the rule on
which he now relied, it was were an oath was imposed
by way of a religious test, but that could only be the
case where the language of the Act clearly justified such
a construction. In the third place, he should submit that,
assuming his first proposition to be doubtful, the defend.
ant was bound and authorised to take the oath which he
did take in the House of Commons by necessary implica-
tion under the Act Ist and 2d Vice, c. 5. Finally, he
should contend that, under the provisions of the Act 10th
1 Geo. I, c. 4; a statute which, as his Learned Friend
had inaccurately supposed, had not expired, but which
was kept alive and in force by a succession of acts con-
tinuing or enlarging the time until Nov. 24, 1766, and
consequently beyond the time when the Act 6th George
111., c. 53, was passed. The provisions of the Act 6th
George 111., e. 53, bore a modified meaning. Now, with
reference to the first branch of his argument, he should
submit that the Acts of Parliament applying to the oath
of abjuration, beginning with the Act of William 111.,
and ending with tho statute 6 George 111., provided,
and were intended only to provide, for the particular
state of things in existence at the time when the Acts
in question were passed. The title as well as the terms
of the Act of George 111. showed that it was intended
for temporary purposes only. In Lord Coke's " Second
Institute," p. 479, it was said:—" Neither can an oath,
whether imposed by the common law or by authority of
Parliament, e altered except by an Act of Parliament."
And that was admitted to be the law by all the judges
in the case of Omichund v. Barker. By what
authority, then, could the House of Commons,
or the Speaker of the House of Commons, as
alleged in this special verdict, substitute the name of
Queen Victoria for that of King George? Sup-
pose the case of a disputed succession. If the House of
Commons could substitute'the name of Victoria or Wil-
liam, for George, where no dispute was likely to arise,
they might equally well take upon themselves, when the
succession was in dispute, to insert the name of Albert
for Edward, or Edward for Albert, and so wound the
consciences of many persons who might entertain a dif-
ferent opinion from the House of Commons as to the title
of the reigning monarch.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—The House of Commons would
naturally use the name of the sovereign under whose writ
they sat.
Sir F. KELLY—But that writ might not be issued by
the right monarch.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON—They would say it was issued
under the right one.
Sir F. KELLY—That would be a matter of opinion.
Mr. Baron ALDERSON--" Under which King, Benzo-
nian? speak, or die."
Sir F. KELLY contended, that the question was whe-
ther the House of Commons or the Speaker had power
to alter and put in a different form an oath which had
been framed by the authority of Parliament. In order
to arrive at a right conclusion on that subject, it would
be necessary to refer to the several Acts which had
passed, and they would be found to fortify the view
which he had submitted to the court, that tb_e..y.,,w.,aerme
William
111., of a temporary nature. The Acts 13th in
111., c. 6, Ist Anne, c. 1, 4th and sth Anne, 0.
character.
6th Anne, c. 7. were clearly of a temporary 8, and
1 In the 20th section of the last-mentioned
pro-
vided II name of the sovereign was left in blank, and
the name
that the blank should be filled up w
or her son
should be
of the Queen or King (the Princees gophhigo,
George, afterwards George the First) w
next in succession under the Act of Settlement. Then
came the Act of George I.; and it was remarkable that
from the time of William 111., down to the Act of
George 111., the Oath of abjuration had been altered
by Act of Parliament in order to include the name
and
description of the reigning sovereign, and in the statute
passed in the, sixth year of the reign OfvAn
eig
ne was ex.
person ed to meet
theuncertain.f case o a future sovereign whose
In whose
was then
Lord Chief Baron Peuxex—We cannot shut
fact. that during the reign of George IV. ourthe
eyes to the
great number of incl.
oath of abjuration was taken by a
victuals in the form prescribed by the Act of George HI. Either that was in force, or the words of the oath ap-
plied to the King as a corporation sole. There might
some ground for the contention that the operationof
be
the Act 6 Geo. 111. ceased at his death; but it seems to
we tthe o bnam pure childishness to argue that the Act applies
n
to e and not to the person of the Sovereign.
Sir F. KELLY did not
mean-e
to go that length himself,
bat there were certainly some persons whose opinions
were entitled to the highest respect who had contended
very earnestly in another place for the proposition that
the form of oath might have been binding until the ter-
mination of the reign of the last of the Georges, though
it had certainly ceased to be so since that time. What
he himself, however contendedf or was, that the' opera-
tion of that Act ceased with the reign during which it
MARKETS.
was enacted. He now came to another Act of RAILWAY SHARE l'arliament, which was much of the same character as
without '
those to which he had referred, but which STOCK EXCHANGE.—The market continues Great ani-
already BRISTOL,
to. day were ' Westerns,
g d t. The only transactions
Was more important, because it bad been passed ma ion.
share jA:Am.ma2.6rk2. 6e.t opened heavily
the at- which were done at 843/aT.b.B
in our times, and when, in
LivERpoOL,
the day there was a ver-v
tention of the Legislature had been called to the subject.
or other,
He was not insensible to the argument of long-con- STOCK EXCHANGE.—
tinned usage in the administration .
• ' of the oath of abju- this morning, and throughout
t of business doing at • --'
reduced prices. The
limited amoun C l d •
ration in Parliament, and in courts of justice; bat that e es follow : a e onutn, 15—Lancashire
usage would not weigh against the express words of an trasi!,rreknsshirwe,er
60
.....
IA L0n1,1911,_ and, Nort New
Act of Parliament, when the attention of those who had andeQuarterns, 2% rs—Dit.troe, 30n tnsfid2i 7-16h-Western,dp......manchester,
to interpret the law was fairly called to the subject. He
Sheffield, and Lincolneehi
Ban , 5496—Shrewsbury
dto consider the Roman Catholic Re- and Chester, Preferenc ' guaranteedle per cent., len/ - 4 South
would now proceed
Dover, 1915- . The form ofoath •
lief Act, 10th Geo. IV., C. 7.
arANCHES„,„_
1 z It, JAN. 26,
by the 2d section of that Act, for Roman Catholics, re-
in the same
ferred to King George IV. . terms as those STOCK Exerterfors.—The business to-day was very mode.
e prices flat. The transactions er fll 7
in which King George lIL was mentioned in the oath of rate, and
Lancashire, and Cheshire vrBas
o o - :
n then was,
,did those words Birkenhead,
Junction, 12% dis.—
abjuration. The question
hof and Dover, 19AI—Midlands, 5414—London
he death of George IV tho House o ,
f Sout -
imply that after t
and orth-Western, 11434—Ditto, New Quarters, 2% p.—
kwould . Commons or the Spea sakes be competent to substi-Lancashire and Yorkshire, 60 East Lancashire, 15%--
what the name of William or Victoria? If they did, then , Kendal and Windermere, 10'4-- Manchester and Birmingham
the meaning of the words contained in the (0, Quarters 1 11-16 P.---West It" • ni dis.—Leeds
what was
Wings, 5
next, the third section, "and be it further enacted, that , and Bradfoid, 102.
in. forth, BIRMINGHAM, JAN. 26.
wherever, the oath, hereby appointed and set
the name of his present Majesty is expressed or referred I Snot Excirenore7--We have no improvement to notice
to, the name of the Soverign of this kingdom for the to-day. The transactions have been very limited, and prices
time being, by virtue of the Act for the further limita- varied little from those which have been quoted for the last
betties of the
tion of the Crown, and better securing the rights and li- few days. The only sai
, shall be substituted -
e reported on 'Change ass-..-from time to North Staffordshire, 9 diesubject

THE PALM OIL TRADE OF LIVER:OhOtLht:
A few weeks ago we called attention to the grati-
fying
rpeaploni rto of
fying change which the abolition of the slave trade
has of late years produced in our relations
coast of Africa, by substituting freights of
for cargoes now furnish a
of negroes. We
the palm oil trade of this port for the past year with
which we have been favoured by an eminent mer-
chant, and which, in the present position of commer-
cial affairB' and especially as affecting the tallow trade
cannot ,
fail to prove highly interesting to the mercan
tile community. The import of lona
m oil into this
port the past year has been
'
for n unprecedentedly
large-24,000 tons—an cxcess of
upwards of 3,000 tons, which • any former year by
taking 8,000 tons, leaves a
heavy stock of 6,000 tons,
and all the principal co
_nsumers well supplied for
some time to come, caused
sellers for arrival. ~ ed by importers being anxious
•t he losses upon such purchases
have not been less
in anticipation 0_
t_ than 25,000/., a speculative feeling
session
of he duty being taken off soap last
speculation in Parliament, followed by the Scotch tallow
many former rash London,ondon, terminating the same way as
upon a
firmspeculations have done not based
foundation of supply and demand,
it Was clearly seen that the results must be most
ruinous
ration to all interested. The loss on this wild inope-
tallow is estimuted at upwards of 300,0001.
The -
price of palm oil on the Ist of January, 1851,
was 281. 10s., commencing with a stock of 4,500 tons,
the price advancing for arrival to 30L, and ruled
tolerably steady on the spot 27/. to 281. 10s., until
the large arrivals of August last reduced prices to
' 26/. 10s. to 261. 158., further heavy arrivals in Oc-
tober following reducing prices ultimately to 251.
15s. to 261. So much oil having been sold for ar-
rival relieved importers, and the speculators having
supported the market when evincing symptoms of
decline, and thus prevented oil reaching its real value,
consequently an artificial price had been made for the
present by bolstering the market. Had it been left
to its own merits, prices must have been considerably
under present quotations, which are quite nominal,
and must of necessity recede from its own weight
with the large quantity shortly looked for. The low
rate of discount has also facilitated the holding of s
large stock, some of which has been here on hand 12
to 18 months, costing 21/. 10
s. to 29/. los. per ton.
The import of palm oil into England the last year
has reached 31,000 tons, leaving now about 12,000
tons in the hands of importers, speculators' and con-
sumers. This stock of palm oil, coupled
with the
large tonnage out, as per statement, is deserving of
special notice.—Liverpool
Chronicle.

- The defendant and many other witnesses were called,
and according to their statement the defendant and As-
pima' called upon the plaintiff at the bank on Saturday,
the 21st of June last, and, in consequence of what took
place, the defendant, the plaintiff, and Aspinall went on
the Saturday to Cheltenham, and on the Sunday they
saw the horse Elcho at Mr. Scott's. The defendant
agreed to sell Elcho to the plaintiff for 4001., and on the
30th of June the plaintiff paid 140/. on account, which,
with 60/., the amount of another transaction, made
200/., leaving 2001. still due. The bill ia question was
given as security for the delivery of the horse, which was
to be delivered in time to run fur the Liverpool Cup on
the 20th of July.
A number of witnesses were called, who proved con-
clusively that the defendant was not in Liverpool on the
26th of June, the date of the bill, nor within several days
of that time.
The plaintiff himself, Mr. Aspinall, and several other
witnesses were called to make cut the plaintiff's case.
The plaintiff deposed that the defendant told him
when he saw the horse on the Sunday at Scott's, that
he (the horse) could not lose the Liverpool Cup. On
the 30th of June the defendant called upon plaintiff
ec-
at the bank, and plaintiff paid him 3401. in money on
account of the horse, making, with the 60/., the
whole of the purchase money. It was his
own money, and had never been any portion of the
bank money. On the Bth of July the defendant sent a
telegraphic message from London to
plaintiff, directing
ehvimer,towmase
nototthseen i
ht
ornseacactorEdgne hill,
with
tThhise horse, how=
da
plaintiff afterwards received the hors© at message,
but
ham
from Scott. The defendant was present when the horse
was delivered up, and he made no claim on plaintiff. bat
plaintiff paid 44L, the amount due to Scott. Plaintiff, on
the 26th of July, a month after the date of the bill in
question, advanced to Aspinall 2001. upon it out of his
own money.
Mr. John T. Aspinall, who is a coal agent at Birken-
head, stated that in the early port of Juno defendant
told him he could put him on to the winner of the Liver-
pool Cup, and asked bins if he could find a purchaser for
Eleho. He introduced him to Wynn, and they all went
to Cheltenham to see him. The defendant applied to
witness to lend him some money before he went, and
when he came back he said he must have some money.
Witness drew the bill in question in Wynn's parkar at
the bank, and it was accepted by the defendant, and wit-.
flees gave him 2001. upon it out of money he had in his
own pocket. Witness kept the bill until the 26th July,
and then ho got the plaintiff to lend him 2001. upon it.
On the 30th of June witness saw the plaintiff pay the
defendant 340/ On the 6th of July defendant, Scott,
and witness dined together, and it was then said that
the mare Truth, which belonged to the defendant, had
beaten Elcho, and Scott said it was of no use to send
Eleho to Liverpool.

Thomas Wilks, a clerk to the last witness, was called,
and said that he had seen the bill in question in Mr.
Aspinall's possession in the month of July; and after
the Liverpool race a horse trainer, named Billington, bad
both Truth and Elcho to train for the defendant. On
the 25th June Truth was taken away, and the defendant
left a Lotter for Billington, in which he said, " If she
does all we ask her, we shall back her for the Liverpool
Cup. You shall be in whatever I get. Mind, do not let
any one know that the mare is gone any where. If any
one asks, you say she is amiss and having physic." The
mare was not amiss at this time. Elcho was tried with
her in March, and the defendant was present. Truth
consequently
ebnrtolyke fireddowinn at
SeptemberYorkin
following. Part of the charge made against the defend-
ant was that he had represented that Elcho was sure to
win the Liverpool Cup when he had entered Truth, which
AbeuagthEst, Ich
m0507r and
nedas was easily.
be knew to be a better horse, for the same race.
His LORDSHIP, in summing up, directed the jury that
the case was one entirely for them, and he then read
between notes of
the
ee
evidence,evidence andh
pointinge changed
aoutag
ed con-
tradictionstbethem
without fear
or favour, to give their verdict on that aide
on which, according to their opinion, the truth lay.
immediately returned a verdict for 2004, the
amount of the bill, and 3/. interest.
throug h
his
The jury