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

ONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, JULY 23, 1851.

tween eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Stansfeld,
Basinghall-street.
S. Solomon, Strand, tailor, 5c1., on Thursday, 24th
inst., and two following Thursdays, between eleven
and two, at the office of Mr. Stansfeld, Basinghall-street.
R. Gadsden, Boughton-mill, Northampton, miller, 2s.
Sid., on Thursday, 24th inst., and two following Thurs-
days, between eleven and two, at the office of Mr. Stans-
feld, Bisinghall-street.
W. R3ay, Walker, Northumberland, shipbuilder, 2-
3ds of a penny, on Saturday, 26th inst., or on any sub-
sequent Saturday, between ten and three, at the office of
Mr. Baker, Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
NOTICES OF CERTIFICATES.
At the Court, Basinghall-street.
T. S. Devey, Woburn, Bedfordshire, auctioneer, up-
holsterer, and cabinet maker, Aug. 13, at eleven—G. F.
Jones, East Ilsley, Berkshire, surgeon, Aug. 13, at
twelve—W. L. B. Granville, Red Lion-square, agricul-
tural implement maker, Aug. 13, at eleven—W. Burrows,
Park-street, Islington, surgeon and apothecary, Aug. 12,
at twelve—S. G. Quartermaine, Eaton-mews West,
Pimlico, horse dealer, Aug. 12, at eleven.
In the Country.
T. Moore, South Hilton, Durham, merchant, Aug. 21,
at twelve, at the Court Newcastle-upon-Tyne.
CERTIFICATES GRANTED. _

J. Marshall, Southampton, coal merchant, certificate
of the second class—W. L. Martin, Gravesend, iron-
monger, certificate of the second class--J. Woodin,
Matilda-street, Islington, upholsterer, certificate of the
third class—J. Glasspool, Regent-street, ladies' boot and
shoemaker, certificate of the third class—T. P. Butler,
Lichfield, ironmonger, certificate of the first class—J.
Radley, Oldham, Lancashire, cotton spinner, certificate
of the second class—J. C. Whittaker, Manchester,
licensed victualler, certificate of the third class.

be discussed in the Legislative Council, but he did not an-
ticipate that any material alteration would be made in it;
and, finally, he had to answer, that it would be sent to this
country for final sanction. With regard to the termination
of the Kafir war he could at present say nothing.
REGISTRY OF ASSURANCES BILL.

Sir J. PAKINGTON wished to know whether it was the
intention of the Noble Lord to press the Registry of Assur-
ance Bill, which contained not less than 100 clauses, through
the House during the present session?
Lord J. RUSSELL said he would to-morrow state the
course the Government intended to pursue with regard to the
Bill ; but he should be greatly disappointed if it did not pass
this session.
JEWISH DISABILITIES.—CASE OF MR. ALDERMAN
SALOMONS.

Mr. ANSTEY wished to put a question to the Speaker, to
inquire whether the letter written by the Hon. Member for
Greenwich, with regard to the omission of the words in the
oath of abjuration, under the Ist and 2d of Victoria, was
sufficient to distinguish his case from that of the Member for
the city of London, who stated as his reason for refusing to
use these words was, that they were not binding on his con-
science ; and if not, whether it was competent for him to
move that the Hon. Member for Greenwich should come to
the table and state that such was his reasons for omitting
them?

The SPEAKER said there could be no better expression
of the Hon. Member's opinion than what was contained
in the letter referred to, which appeared in the votes of the
House.
._ .

Mr. DISRAELI said this was a question of privilege, and
took precedence of other motions, but as he considered that
the question was now decided by a vote of the House he
saw no reason why the Hon. Member for the University of
Dublin should be precluded from bringing forward his
motion with regard to the system of national education in
Ireland.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it was a question of pri-
vilege, and he had no other course than to bring it forward,
but he had no intention to prevent the Hon. Member from
bringi❑g forward his motion.
Mr. DISRAELI—There is no dispute as to its being a
question of privilege, but he considered that it was now de-
cided.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that was not the view he
had taken of it. The question was whether Mr. Salomons
was entitled to vote. It appeared to him that the statutes
quoted in the report of the committee, 10th Geo 1., c. 4,
and 13th Geo. 11., c. 27, made a provision for Jews taking
oaths, and that it was necessary that the oath of abjuration
should be taken upon the faith of a Christian. It appeared
to him that the form could not be altered except by an Act
of Parliament. There was a great distinction between the
case of Baron Rothschild and that of Mr. Pease. In Mr.
Pease's case there was a power to take an oath by a Quaker
by affirmation, but there was no such power with regard to
a Jew. He concluded by moving:—" That David Salo-
mons. Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or sit, in
this House during any debate, until he shall take the oath of
abjuration in the form appointed bylaw."
Mr. ANSTEY then rose, and said the Act under which
the oath was supposed to be administered was relaxed in the
case of Mr. Pease. He then asked how the resolution by
which that gentleman took his seat could be necessary if the
Act was sufficient, and why he had not been sworn
in the form prescribed by that Act. In fact there
was no such Act. Mr. Pease took his seat u•,der
the sanction of a resolution of the House, which had the
power to prescribe the solemnity with which the oath should
be administered. In lieu of the old formula of the oath of
abjuration, there was substituted that the individual taking
the oath was to swear that he took the oath with neither
equivocation nor mental reservation, and willingly. The
words of " on the true faith of a Christian" were not then
put to the person swearing, but he was obliged to use the
solemnity of "So help me God." This formed the alteration
in the abjuration oath taken by the Quaker. Now he would
ask, should not some alteration be made in the ceremony
of the oath taken by a Jew, as the Quaker was indulged in the
alteration to which he just alluded? Mr. Salmons has
required to submit his case to the authority of a court of
justice, which he considered the proper authority, as he
would not be heard in his place in the House. He now
wished to dispose of an argument used by the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell), and there was only one to which he thought
it worth while to refer. When the Noble Lord stated that
the common law was superseded by a decision of the HOWE of
Commons, he thought that there was some error in the Noble
Lord's assertion, for the common law and the statute law
always go side by side, unless there were words in the Act of
Parliament that abolished the common law. He next argued
that the Hon. Member for Greenwich had as good a right to
a seat in that House as Mr. Pease, who took his seat and
voted without having taken any oath whatever; and he,
therefore, contended that there was no specific law against
the admission of a Jew to his seat in that House. He ad-
mitted that the present was not an editying decision to the
majority of the House; he felt it his duty to point out the
errors into which the Noble Lord had fallen ; and when he
confessed that he held him in the highest respect as a states •
man, he should at the same time acknowledge that he held
him in no respect whatever as a lawyer.—( Hear, hear.)
And he was happy to say that he was sustained in that
opinion by the able and irrefutable arguments of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell). Now
all he required was, that as the case was decided against
him by a great majority of the House, it should be tried by
a competent court of jurisdiction fairly, dispassionately, and
competently; because he thought that passion and prejudice
prevailed against his Hon. Friend in that House yesterday.
Whatever difference of opinion existed between him and his
friends, there was no difference whatever respecting the Noble
Lord's line of conduct, and for that reason the Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Salomons) was anxious that the Government, or
come other Member, would, if they considered that his con-
duct was improper in having taken his seat and voted, in-
stantly institute proceedings against him. No more was re-
quired, and he (Mr Anstey ) felt assured that the decis on of
the Court would be decidedly in opposition to the decision
of the House. It would not at all do to decide that ques-
tion by such levity of remark, as he may "prosecute him-
self, it he pleases." lie said that the people of this country,
through the wings of the press, would be roused to indig-
nation, through the ignominy offered to their fellow-coun-
tryman—to the representative ( Mr. Salomons) and his
constituents—for they ever recognised such independence
as he evinced yesterday. He felt fully assured
that the Honourable and Learned Member for
Abingdom (Sir Frederick ThesLer) would not, as he
said, move for a new writ; but the object was to put the
matter off till next session. He then alluded to the 13th of
William the Third, which states, that if any Member takes
his seat and votes, without the oaths, he is subject to be
debarred from holding office, whether military or civil,
subject to a forfeit of 5001., Ike &c. Now, as the House
had decided that the Honourable and Learned Member for

Greenwich had taken his seat and voted three times with-
out having taken the oaths, he considered that it was the
duty of Government or of the House to institute proceedings
in a court of justice against him under that statute. He
then moved the following amendment on Lord John Russell's
resolution in lithe case of the Member for Greenwich :
" That David Salomons, Esquire, Member of Parliament for
the borough of Greenwich, having sat and voted in this
House without having taken the abjuration oath in the
words contained and set forth in the form tendered unto
him at the table, the Attorney-General of England be ordered
to institute proceedings against him at law for such default,
pursuant to the Act 6 Geo. 3, c 53."
Sir B. HALL hoped that, in consequence of the Noble
Lord's answer, the Hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey)
would withdraw his amendment.
Mr. ANSTEY would press his amendment, if no other
motion to that effect were moved.
Sir B. HALL pressed his suggestion, which was acceded
to, and the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. BETHELL contended that Baron Rothschild and
Mr. Salomons had taken the oaths required by that House
for a Member, and were, therefore, entitled to their seats. He
should add that he considered that the question of law was
not yet fully discussed. He did not, in making that asser-
tion, mean to revive the opinions he delivered yesterday, but
he should say the answers given by Honourable and Learned
Members opposed to him were not by any means saiistac-
tory ; and he therefore hoped that some better solution
would be given by those Hon. Gentlemen to the construction
be put on the Acts of Parliament to which he thee alluded.
Were the House to examine the statute of George 111. they
would find that the oath of abjuration was thrown on all sub-
jects, the Jews included. He considered from the several
statutes that he had already quoted, besides those adverted to
by several Hon. and Learned Gentlemen on his side of the
House, that Baron Rothschild and Mr. Salomons were fully
entitled to take their seats and vote. When the Noble Lord
asserted that it was necessary to have the sanction of use, or
an Act of Parliament, to abrogate the present oath of abjura-
tion, he should say that the Noble Lord borrowed that phrase
from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. The-
siger). Did not the 10th George I. point out a peremptory
declaration with respect to the Jew, that the same oath of
abjuration that was taken by him in courts of justice should
be also adopted in other places ?—(Hear.) By the Ist of
George I. an obligation was laid on parties to take the oath
of abjuration, but that obligation was not universal until the
Act of 9 George I. was passed, and, at the same time, these
Acts allowed Jews in courts of law to take the oath which
they considered binding on their conscience, irrespective of
the oath of abjuration, which was observed in a political
sense. If, again, Honourable Members had looked at
the other Acts. they would have found that the same
principle prevailed. The 6th of George 111. was the
last Parliamentary declaration as to taking the oath
of abjuration, and, from the tenor of it, it was plain
that the Jews were excluded from the strict forms of
the oath. In the case of Mr. Pease, the House had
taken upon itself to model the oath so as to suit the circum-
stances of the case, but there was no other Parliamentary
authority to do that than what was drawn from the statute,
and the obligation to administer the oath in the manner
which was binding on the consciences of those who took it,
And if that was done then, why could it not be done now ?
They were, no doubt, bound to administer the oath, and the
Jew was bound to take it, but not in the strict form in which
it was to be found in the statute-book. If, therefore, the
House considered the matter, they would see that they had
brought themselves into a position which gave them a right
to administer an oath, but which did riot give them the
power to do so in a manner to meet the case. He therefore
submitted that a great deal more was necessary to be done
on this subject; and, if they were not prepared to follow
him to the extent he wished, he hoped they would con-
sider whether it might not be proper again to appoint e
Committee to see what alterations could be made in the
oath, so as to render the Jews admissible to Parliament. If
they did that, they might bring back the question tod le
the
t
with, point where it might be advantageously dealt b
would therefore submit the amendment he hadrte; an
c 1 to the
House. ( Hear, hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, in dealing with this
question, they had simply a strict judicial duty ..to perform.
They were bound to ascertain, so far as they the con-
struction of the Acts of Parliament nnd er which they were
called upon to act, and to apply. them accorchhgly. The
simple question was, did the Legislature, when it enacted
the oath of abjuration, mean that it should be taken by all in
the strict sense in which it was worded? The way to as-
certain that was not to look at the Act only, but also to the
circumstances under which the Act was passed. The Act
was passed soon after the discovery of the gunpowder
plot, and i.s great object was to guard against an oath being
taken which any party taking it might evade by any mental
reservation. The oath was for the protection of the
King and the Government, and the words, on the true
faith of a Christian" were introduced into it in order that it
might be considered more binding on the parties who took
it. The statutes which followed that Act were passed
for the purpose of keeping the Roman Catholics out
of power, and the model taken for the framing
of them was the statute of James 1., in which
these words were inserted. That, therefore, showed
that these words were part and substance of the oath,
and that they could not mould and form it so as to
suit the views of particular parties and particular sects. The
Honourable and Learned Member for Aylesbury had re-
ferred to the Acts of George I. and George 111 , but he had
not stated the circumstances under which they were passed.
The object of them was to defeat attempts . made on the
part of Roman Catholics to disturb the King's Govern-
ment, but if the common law run with statute, what use
was there for passing those statutes? The Honourable and
Learned Gentleman said that the principle of the Ac tof
George 1. Wag carried out in the Act of George 111. Now,

I the object of that Act was to further colonization. The oath
inserted in it was to be taken by parties forming settle-
ments in the colonies, and in respect of the Jews it omitted
the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in order that
he might take the oath of allegiance in the same manner
as he did an oath in a court of justice. That statute did
not relate to England at all; it related to the colonies,
but it showed that the oath, in the form they now insisted
it should be taken, was obligatory and binding, else
what would have been the use of passing that statute? In
regard to the Act of the first and second Victoria, that was
merely an Act to regulate the taking of oaths in courts of
justice, but it did not release them from seeing that the sta-
tute which in this case affected their proceedings should be
strictly observed. The case of Mr. Pease had been often al-
luded to, but the declaration which had been framed to be
taken by Quakers was an act of the Legislature, and a mere
substitution of that declaration for the oath of abjuration.
Here, however, was a different case, for they had in this in-
stance a distinct oath, containing words which formed an es-
sential portion of it, and which the Jews could not take, and
that being the case, they could not do otherwise than in-
sist that the parties refusing to take that oath in the form
it appeared upon the statute-books should not be admitted
to a seat in that House. He thought it woul be well to
adopt the proposition of the N oble Lord at the head of the
Government, for he believed that the adoption of the sug-
gestion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury
would lead them into additional difficulties. _ _ _

Mr. JOHN EVitigconsTtreTedthe statement of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General most unsatisfactory.
It was plain, from his interpretation, that the oath was never
intended to apply to Jews, but to professing Christians. All
the substance of the oath was gone through before the words
"on the true faith of a Christian" were come to. It had been
long since settled by high judicial tribunals that oaths should
lie administered in the form most binding on the consciences
of the party who took them. And in this manner the Hon.
Member for Greenwich had taken the oath of abjuration.
Out of the inconsistency in which the House was placed as
regards the Jews they should get in some manner or other,
and for that escape he saw no more fitting opportunity than
the present.
Mr. NAPIER concurred in the view taken by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government, and so unanswerably
supported by the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General. The
argument of the Noble Lord was plain and right, and bot-
tomed on a sound basis. The words, "on the true faith of a
Christain," were, by the statement of the Legislature itself,
part of the juramenta, and could not be omitted from the
oath of abjuration until the entire form of oath underwent
a change. The question before the House was not one of
policy, but of construction; and if they admitted any inter-
ference with the form now arranged, where nas the line of
demarcation to be drawn ?

Mr. AGLIONBY, although a lawyer, would not advance
any legal arguments on the subject, but he wished to state
that he considered the Hon. Member for Greenwich had
taken the oaths according to law, acd that he was fully en-
titled to take his seat in the House. As for the arguments
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon, he did not
think they were worth a rush, while he regarded the
statement of the Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury
quite unanswerable. He quite concurred with the Noble
Lord, that no gentleman was entitled to sit in that House
until he took the oaths prescribed by law. He went that
length with the Noble Lord; but considering that the Hon.
Member for Greenwich had taken the oaths in the manner
pointed out by the law, he claimed for that Hon. Member
the right to act as a Member of the Legislature. He went
so far as to hold that the House had a right to put a con-
struction upon the Act. The words were matter of form
and not of substance. He did not want them to make a
new law, but not to put their privileges in the power of
another place. If the Noble Lord carried his motion he
would carry into effect his resolution of last session, that
the House would take into consideration the mode of giving
relief to the Jews. Did they think another Parliament
would give up their privileges to judge of matters which re-
lated to their own rights, unless a court of law decided
against the point that the Hon. Member for Greenwich had
taken the oath according to law?
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said they had heard a great
deal upon this subject from lawyers ; but he could not be-
lieve it to be law when they were told that it rested with
every person who took a statutory oath to omit as many of
the words of the oath as he pleased.—(Hear.) They had all
heard of the old saying—
' " As, by the rule that makes the horse tail bare.
You pluck it year by year, and hair by hair."
—(Laughter.) But nobody ever dreamed that that was a
receipt for preserving the horse's tail, though it might bid
fair for making it a ragged one.—(A laugh.) Now, what
sort of an oath would they have on their statute-book at the
end of ten years if everybody in every court of, justice might
omit from it as many words as he pleased?—(Hear, and a
laugh.) He had endeavoured to take the question out of the
legal phraseology, in order to make it intelligible to the
House, and he hoped he had succeeded.—(A laugh.) What-
ever difference might exist among them as to the principle
of this question, or as to the proper mode of acting,
he thought there was one result upon which they must
all be unanimous, and that was that it was impossible
to leave it as it was.—( Hear.) He had ever objected to the
Jews sitting in that House. He had objected upon principle,
and he continued to do so still; but he would not take advan-
tage of a state of the law which never was intended to affect
them to carry into effect a principle which he could not do
fairly otherwise.—(Hear.) He should like to have this
question fairly brought to issue; but it could not be. He
very much doubted the force of the argument which said
they could not interfere in this matter themselves If there
was any force in that argument, it could only increase their
embarrassment, and would not at all help them; for how
cane it that they had suffered that oath to be taken on the
Old Testament ?—(Hear, hear.) Whether they liked it or
disliked it—whether they did it unintentionally or from
malice aforethought, he did not know, but they had sold the
pass. (Hear, hear.) When a Christian came up to this
table and swore on the Bible at large, he acted on the well-
known principle—
" Novo testamento veterum patet ;
" Veteri testamento novum latet."
(Hear, hear.) But when a Jew asked for the Bible it was in
order to reject the New Testament.—(Hear, hear.) And
that rejection this House had allowed.—(Hear.) Now, how
they ,s ere to get out of this difficulty he did not know. He
did not understand how they could now contend that that
House could not alter the essential part of the oath.—(Hear,
hear.) It was admitted on all hands tha the words of this
oath Wars never intended to apply to the It was con-
tained in a series of acts against the Jacobites; and it was no
fault of the Jews that James 11. turned Papist. As things
had turned out, however, the Jews had to pay the piper.—
(A laugh.) Nobody suffered but them; and if he believed
that those doctrines to which the Attorney-General had
alluded were less rife at this moment than they were at the
time of the State trial to which he had referred—if he did not
know that they were ten times more prevalent now than
they were then, he would repeal this oath altogether.—
(Hear, tear) But, since they could not do this, he wished
some one would fairly propose a motion to exclude Jews from
Parliament. For that he would vote; but he did not like to
be compelled to be firing in ambush against the Jews from
behind a dyke that was intended to exclude a Sardinian
Prince.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY referred to several Acts to show that
Quakers could give evidence on affirmation. The 6th of
Anne, cap 23, referred to the Abjuration Act, and enabled
electors to vote for the election of Peers for Scotland. That
was an Act for the relief of Quakers; and a subsequent Act,
which was declaratory of the Act of Anne, provided that the
words " on the faith of a Christian" should be omitted,which
showed this form was a mere solemnity. This was a Parlia-
mentary distinction between the form and the substance.
The case of the Jew is in some particulars as strong as that
of the Quaker. If Parliament were to interfere at all, it
ought to act in the same manner as it did with Quakers, for
Parliament can dispense with a portion of that solemnity
which the oath of abjuration as offered to the Jew implies.
Was it not as just to remove what was obnoxious in that
oath with respect to the religious feelings of the Jew as it
was to adopt an affirmation instead of an oath for the Quaker?
He then argued that the common law was recognised in
most cases, by the first legal authorities, as far superior to
any Act of Parliament. He should say to the Attorney
General that he considered that that learned functionary
had not read the 2d Victoria with more attention than he
had the 9th George 111., with respect to those oaths, for the
Act is not an enacting Act, it is a declaratory Act, and he was
prepared to prove from that Act that the oath was to be
administered, not only to a juror or a witness, but to any
person anywhere. He argued that the 2d and 3d Victoria
settled the question, and on this Act the Honourable Mem-
ber for Greenwich solely depended, and he therefore hoped
that the House would not rush precipitately to a decision on
a resolution which, though similar to the one of last year
against Baron Rothschild, was based on a far different
ground.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was astonished that the Honours his
Honourable
Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) should give it
a
legal opinion that that House could alter the oath
how-
ever great and discriminating his legal acum might
he should undertake to differ from him, because he
.
he believed
that the Upper House and the Sovereign should also agree
of
thiat
to a resolution of this House before any
anch alteration in the oath
the Legs-
could be effected, and he hoped that n
lature would sanction such an alteratienn.br Ile believed
the Hon. Member for Greenwich has, by his recent conduct,
involved himself in difficulties that would for. ever preclude
him, in the event of any alteration,. k
from ta mg h is seat in
`hat House. He hoped that the opinion of the House would
be taken at some future day, to decide whether he did not
for ever forfeit his seat in that House.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. Bethell's amendment ...
Against it •.• •' .
Majority against the *a.m. amendment 118
ent —47
found
Mr. our return to the gallery we
Mr. BRIGHT stating, that although the amendment was
lost, they had not as yet heard that the Honourable Mem-
ber for Greenwich would be heard by counsel at the bar of
that House. The amendment had been lost by not a very
large majority, and they had now to decide upon the mo-
tion of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government; but
although he had no authority to make the request, he
had to ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
not to come to a decision on that motion at present, but to
allow the Honourable Member for Greenwich to take the
course he considered best in that respect. There could be
no question, from the opinions they had heard expressed by
eminent lawyers in that House, that much doubt prevailed
g
on the case, and that bei so, he thought that
the suggestion of the Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber for Aylesbury that another Committee should
be appointed on the subject, might with propriety be
adopted. By adopting that course they could not be in a
worse position than they were in at present,. If the Com-
mittee should report that the Hon. Member for Greenwich
ought to be admitted, as in the case of Mr. Pease, then no
wrong would be done to either party. The Noble Lord had
placed himself in great difficulty on this subject, by allow-
ing both the Hon. Member for Greenwich and the Hon.
Member for London to take the oaths on the Old Testament,
and at the same time refusing to allow them to omit the
words "on the true faith of a Christian." He believed the
lion. Hember for Abingdon was right when he said, that if
these words were persisted in, the parties so desired to
take them should have been sworn on the New Testament,
and considering all the circumstances of the case, and in
order to give time for consideration, he should move that the
debate be now adjourned.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Member had put
to him two questions. The first was, whether he would allow
the Hon. Member who had been returned for Greenwich,
to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House? and the
second was, whether another Committee should not be ap-
pointed? In answer to the first, he had stated last evening
that he had no objection to his pursuing the same course as
was done by Mr. O'Connell, while he thought that the better
plan would have been for the lion. Member to have stated
his case at the bar of the House himself. But as the motion
which he bad that evening submitted to the House had been
given notice of last night, and as the lion. Member for
Greenwich had given no intimation that he wished to be
heard at the bar of the House, either by himself or by coun-
sel, he did not see why the debate should be adjourned in
that respect. They were not without preparation, and he
thought it evident from the fact, that the Learned Gentle-
men who had taken part in the debate, more especially the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury,
did not adduce any precedents or facts which were not previ-
ously known to time who paid attention to the suhj wt. Oh the

12th. of last March, on the motion of his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Solicitor-General, a Committee was appointed
to consider and bring under the notice of the House
the precedents and Acts which bore on the amore tter. Than
that Committee none could be appointed com-
petent to the task assigned. It was true that the Com-
mittee was not empowered to report any opinion on the sub-
ject. —(Hear, hear.) But their attention was directed to
various Acts of Parliament. A draft report was drawn up
by the Honourable and Learned Solicitor-General, and con-
sidered, and though the subject was mast intricate,
that report, with as few errors as possible, brought
before the House the general body of Acts and pre-
cedents on this subject. The general opinion of the Mem-
bers constituting that Committee was, that Baron 'tabs-
child was not entitled to take his seat.—(Hear, hear.) But
the present Master of the Rolls framed a resolution wh
bad ichnot
he
submitted to the House. Ile (Lord John Russell)
relied on his own notion of the law; but after consultation
with the law officers of the Crown, and others competent to
form a correct opinion on the question, he had adopted thatae
resolution. He saw no advantage that could possibly ris
from further postponement or inquiry. His belief Ivo, and
that belief had been considerably confirmed by the speeches
he had heard delivered in the course of the debate,
that
sufficient preparation had already been made, and that every
Member had made up his mind on the question. If, how-
ever, it was the generel wish of the House,
he should no for
pose the appointment of the Committee - (Hear, bear—if
the majority of the House thought such a course
desirable,
he would not offer any objection ; but, as matters at present
stood, he confessed he did not see the necessity for either
Committee or postponement.
Sir B. HALL, said he should confine his observations to_
the two points spoken to by his Noble Friend at the
bead of
the Government. If the Hon. Member for Greenwich bsd
adopted the course of claiming to be heard at the bar of the
House, it was quite evident that he must have taken a rhe-
trograde course.—(Hear, hear.) They could not forget 1 e
position in which the Hon. Gentleman had placed hinisell
(Hear, hear.) Within the last twenty-four hours the Hon.
Member for Greenwich bad voted no less than three times,
and addressed the House as a Member of the Leg
and and therefore if the Hon. Member were to desire to addrt. e
the House at the bar, be would be lowering and injuringwen_
position he now occupied.—(Hear, hear.) But there
sr re
other parties who might wish to be heard at the ba,.
(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Greenwich b a,r,,
important and influential constituency—one of the lasgesos l"
the kingdom— and if the constituency choose to petitio.,__tot
be heard at the bar of the House in support of the wan o.'
they had sent to represent their interests in the lnpeeroipsl.
Parliament, he thought they should be heard, and the, ee
portunity afforded them before the resolution proposal "/
d ted•
the Noble Lord at the head of the Government was a
hroPtbtheer
As regarded the appointment of a Committee, be thouj
,t,,ouregAesy,ii,emsbuoryf thaeveryHownoisueraobolee, and Learned _
_e diffi-
culties and legal doubts which surrounded the qn e
ens
True, as his Neble Friend at the bead of the Governin
s-
had stated, a Committee was appointed to look out for prt,
looking at all wesatien.
cedents. That Committee consist of men of great a
nihe3o.,
and eminently calculated to discharge thecharacter
took, but had not circumstances of an important
__,
(Near. /
arisen since that Committee made their report.
raittee,
Was it ever contemplated, for instance, by that Com
extra.
that theillouse of Commons would put itself in
the
rd and
duty they uctr
ordinary position of desiring a man to come ferwao e- 0 ''
admitting him as a Jew, and then telling him that h
5,n_213,1
take the oaths on the true faith of a Christian 1 (rireo;exii
Had not fects been brought out in the coarse of the (,f fair-
discussion, that rendered it nothing less than an il, be
ernme nt ap-
ness and justice that another Committee shone
pointed ? The Noble Lord at the head of the Gov,. „fold
stated that if it were the general wish of the HolleeLiZese he
not oppose the appointment of the Committee. .t,, and,
(Sir Benjamin Hall) thought it was the. general l',ll74eielser
moreover, he thought that the Hon. and Learneathme good
r Aylesbury had acted most properly in saki" bed good
to appoint such a Committee. The Noble Lord he
co of
taken the same course as he adopted last year in t LestYeer
Baron Rothschild, although he said he would do so ale
the Noble Lord pledged himself, before he asked theadeo
to:adopt the resolution he submitted, that he wet.loL, Pare
steps immediately after the meeting. of whichifilleuldiden
liament, to do away with the disabilities el ha lie
B iron Rothschild from sitting in that 11°11,sseotee Ild
had given no such pledge now. The es i 0 t 0
had not pledged himself to act next session,. se is
case of the Honourable Member for Greetirrifoli je the
had done at the close of the session ofd I°.o,i'' sled 0'
case of Baron Rothschild.—( Hear, hear.) revq.oliciter-
legal bearing of the question, the Attorney and tee on,,e
General interpreted the law differently; fortyicul`' he fone"
was found voting in the old lobby, the other as tee of the
voting in the new. If they went to one law °Tee ifs one
Crown for an interpretation of the law he Woluuegoo sow;
answer, and if they sent to a second his interpresetse'L Lords;
be directly the reverse. The resolution of the iNoewbie tbs'
the bead of the Government was the most bieroicensbio Lord
could be proposed to the House. f%l'4° &ad ,lhi-
intended to take an intelligible, bold, Inall'e'reseeriw•-e:
gorous course, he should move a new writ for `-''' that '-
He did not take that course, be ause be h°evi. and tbe
w. uld have the vote of the douse in his fsv°lll.e'ael egsieffe
result would be that the electors of Greensvich w" If te""
assemble, and re-elect Mr. Alderman Salotatelse.sreed-'
Noble Lord proposed such a resolution, it would be se:nr for
it it were proposed by the Hon. and Learned,froetiWicite
Abingdon, it would be defeated. The elector! °,,' f sae 0°99,-t
would say that they did not care for the writs of 'wit- '-
of Commons. Let the Noble Lord move his nevr the O.
him give the electors an opportunity of re-eleactaiinig) thiseto:llo°
Member, and if they told him (Sir Benjamin
people were indifferent about the question, let„thAetrilhoit o,°,,se,
the division but of last night, and they would an' oof "-
who recorded their votes in favour of the adn'issrice)eiistufl
Hon. Member for Greenwich to a seat in the ~".„70ciss t)'
were the representatives of one-third of the conetli-
the United Kingdom.—(Hear, hear.) tiostioe
Mr. GEORGE THOeiPSON expressed his gr: liehrevr
at being the representative of a majority of °two bel
community in the United Kingdom. The ques,"no of yell'
the House was not a question of law but a queskl-tolers°,,,
gious liberty on the one hand, and of religious the arg%
on the other.—(Hear, hear.) He had listened taro theft,
ments on both aides of the question, and be th°.eed o°/frlst
which proceeded from hie side of the House thereg fowl
swered. A gross insult had been offered to be sboe'ot
persuasion. The Noble Lord was languid we, the grefit;e
have been prompt. He had not madeg this ,e-the es.'hf.
question of the day, or a question which effeete- e fer t-6
once of the Government itself. The time bad eltraerhise;
Liberal Members in that House to demand the There afar
of the Jews as a simple act of justice. beeeeeeie 1°
had 000'
was a question on which public inion fi" obe
unequivocally expressed, and by majorities o stioe t iy
than the present question. It was not 5.,11°,.eme Viernee
trifled with, even by the Govrnment itself. rle yoga
.4;
to state his opinion on the question. Gene.es er'„-of
posite made it a political question. The slow Isensee•-be
in a theological and evangelical view, to InanYeeeiourieer
that House. The Jew did not believe in the "Se" Sail";
did; but the difference was between the beliefs , acreiS s;
that was to come ani a saviour that had con robanceleq,
sertion was received with repeated shouts of disalloPie 105:,,t4
Well, what was the state of the law? The Ma. oia -
rious. He should vote against the main question,
still greater pleasure for the adjournment. tbe ilf°'es
Mr. ANSTEY said he wished to know vfhetber cliers e
fession of the Christian religion was a nacessail'oe, or blit
teristic of a Member of Parliament at common el, Ogee
decisions of courts of justice. The grounds of WV gieeasio
to be more enlarged upon this question than vf,ere the 1)",
the Committee which had been referred to LI ,essici
former
gin to
Lord, and which made a re ort u on it in a
Ho thought there ought topbe anpad'ournment to iooce'
to the Noble Lord to consider this pjoint. Isle 8/I„estsels
as an addition to the original motion, or 0 a 5- tbe re hi
amendment, " That this House, having regard tee else?.
gious scruples of the Hon. Member for Greenwilteres:
exercise its undoubted privilege, and make such li LW
fis
cache
in the form and mode of administering the oath, hecri
enable the Hon. Member for Greenwich to take ands"
such oath."
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the adjournment ••• s,„
... 69
Against it ••• •• ... ... 19° ill
MajoritY ... ... ........___
to or, i,
Mr. G. THOMPSON moved a similar addition
Anstey to the original motion. floc pro I
Mr. J. A. SMITH hoped the Noble Lord would aid V
his motion until after Thursday, when a cation Wo t toy
fttarhui.nereHedeedollus:jec,ihta:bdPerica: :ht
a_eolit g:
pArightrese presented tbeed 1
tbeya
rtdh
atthe
el ect electors
ofo
, P „pport th S
of their representative.
rY,
,0 Np
abjuration"oOa
oLd D
bS y saidL the re s
ocrodhn
jeeobblijeßctuesdaetlol,thaneLllrltei:,fil.srl°sl '
tsthohlaetti‘trvui.oonnitrldeEpss Mr. Salornons
cupy a seat in this House. The himself Hon. cold 13 pre'
he
ti
ceeded to urge a variety of b' ' n-the oath °' ;be g°,'
Member triflers'
that House w
tion itself, which
it, told him thao't o jections to ,onv 0 la
did not believeh it. He man Catholic f • be described as a living libel se,,, lee ~,e
ean(dmsraid that there veere
tinhes,:or 0/fricii"i;
of the Jfor they
whenthey hweerreemcoomnepterlalteedd wtoittliaktbeert, but
tcifreece
. Reynolds) revered of leo e
'es' '
eir, who, even to attain the highest pitcnot bell ee
honour, declined to swear CO that which be did ,setatifete
Four years had now elapsed since the Noble Lord pas
er for 1•",1
as the colleague of Baron Rothschild as Maned "e 0
City of London, and since that time the 800., 05 tli3im
elected again by a very large majority. And again sot
t
Noble Lord now ;doing? Why, declaring war weed,
electora of the city of London, his own constituents %, orre;
satisfied with that, war also against the electors o,oot, tit)",
with.—(Hear.) 'The best course would be to terse's vd
course proposed by the Hon. Member for the Tower 0 Ole.
Mr. C. ANSTEY rose amidst cries of " Oh, °,": be
much uproar, which drowned the Hon. Gentlernae,lesy
In the fragments of sentences which reached the pee, tle.
appeared to be complaining of the sullen silence wet< eos
Noble Lord at the head of the Government observed, ogres
stating whether he would consent to a Committee, o!orti
to the amendment, or propose a resolution caculated :,oorty
out the objects of the amendment. resolute moved the aw
meat of the debate.
give sete
Mr. BRIGHT also urged the Noble Lord to .wj
intimation of what he eventually proposed doPs°,poOr.,
announced they ]mended, thought that the decision of the question should be I:',.° is see;
until the electors had presented the petition Whi°,`: bet ',
prapnto
favour of the admission of their representative to A
that House. OW
b 0 of
' g be heard at the sea
in
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the early part of
..40 eebt
ing the question which the House had to considertirbroaio
deliberately and very learnedly discussed. Ile „bite ststeeet
forward a resolution which implied, though it dise°, els s'es
direct terms, that the Hon. Member for Greenvac.,., , for I
entitled to sit without taking the oath of abjuration lbi'er sad
different from that which the Honourable Staler/ o_,f °or
himself proposed, and in the form in which Aleill'„'„-cl Nelo.
House had hitherto taken it. The and Lear"; res 0 tor
ber for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell Hosedprop a conn
eten;bero 0,
tion to meet that—namely, that the Ilona.
Irtbeederiveose,
London and Greenwich having complied with
quired, so far as the oath of abjuration was coneer°oo rho
entitled to sit and vote in that fuse. There cowers of ttii
positions, the one contrary to the other. The ulatfieertedher
Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury was ett, ae°fets
him in a very able speech, which was answered
,he debvie
very able speech from the Attorney-General, and "'sou. obi
was conducted in a manner worthy of such an oceleessel,oo
Members learned in the law who spoke confined L'a di tai'
to the immediate question. The House came t°„,,ello,,er
and decided that the resolution of the Hon. and Les'''to dec'ej
her should not be put. It remained for the aotioc, pron,o.
whether the resolution which he (Lord John) heeebete coo'
should be affirmed It would be fair, had the "03 ot;hiee
tinned to a late hour, to have moved its adie°rflusiev, 'fie',l4
g , ,roee ef
instead of continuing the discussion upon the, d etotst g
after all was their business—(Hear, hear)--they Peofigiasek
but denunciations against that House for
liberal body of constituents denunciations forso°"e 'OOllO.
ing at once to affix a sense to the oath and nt woa4l„es
taking it according to what Hon. Gentlemen said
here ILI
mit to a seat an Hon. Member who had been Sept'' ispori *jos
numerous body of constituents— denunciations ,e,iolineee
(Lord John's) conduct for maintaining that lr,bboerll
rs 14 t. hi
against the Jews which he bad been for some Yea sieseinr.
to repeal. Then they lead long denunciations erthsrs l se,
conduct by the Hon. Member for `Loraower 113_0 se(l''
George Thompson), who, when he ( Join 3) Yr

-
c i