The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-29 00:00:00

ilia J OLIN TYRRELL—As one of the Hoil. Alerts
hers for Middlesex constituents protested against some
of the views he had advanced, and begged to remind
hitu that although now loud in what he alleged to be 'a
question of religious liberty, he was silent as a mouse
during the repeated and protracted discussion on the
Papal question.—(" No, no," from Mr. Osborne.) The
Hon. Gentleman was voting in direct opposition to the
wishes of most of his constituent=, but it was his (Sir
John Tyrrell's) belief that he had not the most distant
idea of again presenting himself to a Middlesex consti•
tuency.—(" Oh, oh!" and expressions of dissent from Mr.
Osborne.) He took the liberty of saying that he consi-
dered the House had suffered itself to bo drawn into a
discussion totally irrelevant to the question raised by the
petitions presented for consideration.
Mr. HOBHOUSE denied that the Hon. Member for
Middle.ex had ever been as the Hon. Baronet stated, a
platform orator. The Hon. Baronet might cavil with
the sentiments of the Hon. Member; but he had no right
to express himself deceived with them, for they were
precisely those which he entertained when he repre-
sented Wickham. His Hon. and Gallant Friend was
determined again to seek the suffrages of the electors of
Middlesex, and he believed he would be returned as their
representative. He (Mr. Ilobhouse) was quite prepared
to give his adhesion to the motion of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal, as be felt
anxious they should hear all the arguments that could
be adduced on a question involving as it did the rights
and privileges of the people of England. If the Hon.
Member for Greenwich were disqualified from sitting in
Parliament, why did not the Hon. and Learned Member
for Abingdon, as he had so repeatedly threatened, move
that a now writ be issued. It was much better that a
new writ should be issued than that things should re-
main in their present state.

Mr. ANSTEY briefly replied, when the House di-
vided—

For Mr. Anstey's motion ... . 41
Against it ... 77
Majority against ... ... —36
The motion was consequently lost.
CASE OF MR. SALONIONS.
The order of 'the day was read for the resumption of
the adjourned debate on the following resolution pro-
posed by Lord John Russell on Tuesday last:—" That
David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this
House, or to sit in this House, during any debate until
he shall take the oath of abjuration in the form ap-
pointed by law."

Mr. ANSTEY reminded the House that to this reso-
lution be had proposed to add by way of amendment
the words, "And that this House, having regard for the
religious scruples of the Hon. Member for Greenwich,
will use its undisputed privilege on his behalf by forth-
with making siren alteration iu the form of the oath as
will enable the Hon. Member to take the same." The
proposals they had made had been one by one rejected,
they were net in a position to renew them, and they
were obliged to aoaept the resolution of the Noble Lord,
the Prime Minister. The effect of the oath was the sub-
stance of the oath, and that had been accepted by the
Hon. Member for Greenwich, apart from the mere so-
lemnity of the es th. They had Acts of Parliament that
declared how snitch was form and how much was sub-
stance. These Acts were the Ist and the Bth of Geo.
111., and though they applied to the oath of abjuration,
it was remarkable that in neither of them were the
words, "on the true faith of a Christian," to be found.
In the case of Pease these words were struck out, and
were not subst,i toted by others implying faith in the
Christian religFeen, or that that religion was the true
one. So, also, in the common oath, the words "So
help me Godr did not mean to imply a belief in the
existence of tb F, Deity, but an invocation of his divine
interposition ha attestation of the truth of a statement
under oath. ne the oath of abjuration was to be taken
at ell, it m tat be taken under the 6th of George
111., c. 23, which did not propose the objectionable
words, "So hi rip me God." 'They were supplied, how-
ever, at the e ble, to meet the common form of swearing
persons in thie country. If the argument were to be
held good that the mere substitution of one word for
another was i ramaterial, provided only that the words
" true faith" were retained, then it might follow that
the Hon. Member for Greenwich might have been sworn
"on the tree faith of a Jew," which would have
amounted to a solemn declaration of Judaism, or unbe-
lief in Chrievianity. There was yet another observation
that he woul cl address to the Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Her Majesty's Ministers had set up the difficulty of their
position as an excuse for the conduct which they im-
pliedly adopted. Yet, what was the line of conduct of
the great leaders of the opposite party, when under cir-
cumstances which left them at liberty to express
their real opinions on tho subject? What did
Lord Stanley say when he was consulted on
the matter in his capacity of privy councillor,
and a meinber of the Cabinet, and when he
was not acting as the mere leader of a faction? Did
he say that those words were part and parcel of the con-
stitution; tb at they amounted to a profession of Chris-
tianity, and that to change them was to change the re-
ligion of the state? No, he did not. He (Mr. Anstey)
held in his h and a paper relating to civil disabilities in
Jamaica, what correspondence on the subject. It ap-
peared that on the sth of May, 1829, when Sir G. Mur-
ray was Colonial Secretary, Sir J. Kemp, the governor,
requested the opinion of his AttorneteGeneral as to the
effect of a lacal Act to extend certain privileges to the
Jews, which, had been mentioned in it. By a clause in
the anada Act, any religions form, or mode of religious
worship, was appointed not to be altered, except after
certain specific conditions had been observed. The
question was well considered by the Duke of Welling-
ton's Cabinet, and also by that of Lord Grey, and Lord
Stanley, In transmitting the decision of his Government,
said ho could see no reason why the difficulty should not
be removed by an enactment of the province. The pre-
sent Earl of Derby thought these religious distinctions
of so small import in that instance, that he said it was
not worth while to trouble the Imperial Legislature about
them, but that the difficulty might be readily disposed
of by the local assembly. If Jamaica received that much
attention, would they deny it to the city of London, or
even to the borough of Greenwich? He (Mr. Anstey)
believed that, in 1833, the Earl of Derby understood the
question iu its true sense, and that he was wrong now in
1851. Why did they swear Jews in courts of law upon
the Old Testament? Because, as Jews, the Old Testa-
ment was binding upon their consciences, and they did so
on the authority of the common law. Following that
precedent, and the example of the courts, they swore the
Hon. Member for Greenwich on the Old Testament.
There had been decisions, even in the illiberal and iron
times of Jewish lawyers, that the binding books of the
Jewish gospels were contained within the Pentateuch.
They swore him three times as a Jew, and in doing so
made an assertion of their opinion that his form of
oath ought:to be accepted. But on the main points
of the question they had not heard a single argument.
The Honourable and Learned Member for Abingdon
bad assented to opinions which last year he disputed.
He should like to see them take an opposite course,
suspend the Standing Orders, and send the Bill up
t the Lords again. If the Noble Lord could not as-
sent to a resolution which went in favour of the Hon.
Member for Greenwich, why did the Noble Lord bring
forward a resolution which destroyed the Hon. Member's
position ?—(Hear, hear.) If they send the case before
a court of justice, they would, probably, abide by the
decision of that court. The difficulties which might ap-
pear to be in the way might be easily overcome. When
it should be shown to a court how inconsistent the
House of Commons had been with itself—when it should
be shown that it had in one instance, by its resolution,
declared the seat for the borough of Greenwich to be
full, and in another resolution that it was not
full, he thought that the decision of court and jury
would be in favour of regarding the oath taken by Mr.
Alderman Salomons as most binding on his conscience,
and us all that could be required from him by law. He
trusted on those grounds that the amendment which he
proposed would meet with the support of the House.
He did not think it necessary to offer any further obser-
vations to the House on the subject. He felt that he
had done his duty—(Hear, hear)—he was not speaking
against time, and should conclude with repeating his in-
tention to press hiss smeodreent.
Mr. HEADLAM had not taken any particular part
in this question before; but now that the question had
assumed a different aspect from thet which it before ap-
peared in, he would state shortly to the House the views
which he entertained on the subject. In the first place:
he did not think it possible that the House could extri
cato itself from the absurdities and inconsistencies whicl
existed on this subject, under the present law. To des
with the oath of abjuration in the manner proposed r •
the Government was utterly impossible; and under thos,
circumstances, to compel Members on the most Belem) I
occasions, whether Christians or Jews, to take that
oath in the manner prescribed by the forms of the,
!Wive, was most inconsistent, and calculated to impair
the solemn sense which the oath might have under other
circumstances. He contended it was improper first to
place in the hands of a Jew, who came to the table of
the House to be sworn on the Old Testament, and then
to require him to swear on the true faith of a Christian. '
It was most unjust, he maintained, to attempt to retain
those obsolete oaths formally, and making them the
means of interfering with urea's rights and privileges.
He must say, in expression of his opinion, that
if the evils apprehended and expressed by some ,
were ten times as great as they were, they would no'
justify them in maintsinieg those laws. He was per ,
fectly willing to admit that it was a most difficult thin(
to say what was the construction of the statute on all
question. He had now, however, very strong opinion !
himself on the subject—a subject on which very grew
misconception prevailed, in consequence of their having
admitted the Hon. Member for Greenwich to swear on
the Old Testament at the table of the House. The Gil'
Geo. 111. prescribes two things. First that the oath c,f
abjuration should be taken, and, secondly, the menu eL
in which it shall be taken. When the statute enaceed
that the oath should be taken it did riot enact hoes' it
was to be taken, but left it to common law; and ir, the
case of Christians, it resulted merely from what was
the practice iu this country. Such was in accordance
with the decision of Lord Hardwicke. The statute
then enacted teat the oath should be taken in ac-
cordance with common law. 'Thus, in the case of
Christians, it was enacted that they should take the
oath in accordance with common law, and the other
words of the statute, that they should take it "on
the true faith of a Christian." Now those words, be
believed, were introduced by the 10th Geo. IV., in cee-
sequence of the position in which the Roman Catholics
then stood. Ile could nut find cry authority whatever
that those words could possibly be loft oat by the au-
thority of the House of Commons. As the law stool
when Mr. Pease, the Quaker, presented himself at th®'
table of the Hauso, there was no statutory enactme"
that enabled him to come to the table; but there eras et'
Act which bore the form of affirmation, and he wee the
enabled to comply with the requirements of the lace, th©
House baying drawn up a new form to enable him to e
so. There was no distinct statutory authority on the
subject, and they should so frame the law as to adminis-
ter the oath in the manner most binding on a naan's con'