The Sun.
London, England, 1853-05-11 00:00:00

EXCHEQUER CHAMBERS.-(THIS DAY.

CASE OF ALDERMAN SALOMONS.—DECISION.
(Sittings in Error.—Before Lord Campbell and Justices
Coleridge, Cresswell, Wightman, and Williams.)
It will be recollected that the plaintiff in error, in this
case, Alderman Salomons, was sued for penalties, which
it was alleged he had incurred by sitting and voting in
the House of Commons, without taking the oath of ab-
juration, as prescribed by law.
This morning Sir Fitzroy Kelly resumed his argu-
ments on behalf of Ald. Salomons, and at the conclu-
sion of his speech the learned judges retired, and after a
brief absence returned into court, when Lord Campbell
intimated that they did not think it necessary to call
upon the counsel on the other side to reply.
Lord Campbell then proceeded to give judginent. He
said that after deliberately considering the very able
arguments advanced by Sir F. Kelly, and after reading
the opinions expressed by all the judges of the Court of
Exchequer, as well as the arguments urged on both sides
before that court, they considered that the case was entirely
free of doubt. Two objections were made to the judgment
of the Court of Exchequer. First, that the Act of Ab-
juration was no longer in existence; and, of course, if
that was established there would be an end of the whole
case, because no one would be obliged to take the oath
of abjuration on any occasion whatsoever. It had been
urged that, on the death of George 11., or at all events
on the death of George 111., the oath of abjuration
ceased, and that men who had thought it was still in force
were under an entire delusion. Now they were clearly of
opinion with the judgment of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer that the Abjuration Act did subsist, though
there was not now on the Throne a Sovereign of the
name of George. They thought it was an act passed for
all time to come, whatever the name of the Sovereign,
or at least until the law respecting the oath of abjuration
was altered. It would be monstrous to suppose that, on
the death of Geo. I. the statute ceased to operate, because
there was no renewal of it on the accession of Geo. 11.
or George 111., nor until the sixth year of the latter
monarch's reign. The oath of abjuration was taken
during the whole of those periods, notwithstanding no
renewal took place at the death of the sovereign ; it was
also taken in the reigns of George IV. and William IV.,
and it had since continued to be enforced in the reign of
Queen Victoria. They, therefore, considered that this
objection was wholly fallacious. The next question
arose on the construction of the oath of abjuration, but
it would not be necessary to enter into the various
statutes quoted, and the arguments brought forward,
for they adopted the reasoning of the judges of
the Court of Exchequer upon this point. If the
question was merely one as to the form in which
the oath was to.be administered, they might be induced
to say that it might be taken by a Jew in the form
most binding on his conscience ; but they must look to
the intentions of the Legislature as expressed in the act
of Parliament. Were the words objected to, "on the
true faith of a Christian," a part of the oath, or
merely the form in which it should be taken !
They considered that they must take them in
conjunction with the preceding words in the oath,
and not alone. They were an essential part of the oath,
and no person could be allowed to take it who did not
say all of it on "the true faith of a Christian." What-
ever the object of the act might have been, it
clearly in the construction applied to Jews, and
the court sat there to declare the law, not
to
express their individual feelings. He regretteds
very much that an act was ever passed excluding Jews
from the House of Commons. His wish was to
see the
act of abjuration repealed, in order that Jews might be
admitted, and he lad declared so by his vote in both
Houses of Parliament. But, as he had already said, he
presided there to decide the law, and to put a just con-
struction, according to the best of his abilities, on the
acts of the Legislature. He had, however, no doubt at
all that, according to the existing law, Jews were ex-
cluded from a seat in either House of Parliament.
The other judges concurring in the opinion expressed
by Lord Campbell, the judgment was ordered to be
entered for the defendant in error.