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

MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONS.

The SPEAKER acquainted the House that he had
received the following letter from Mr. Alderman
Salomons:— _ _

"Great Cumberland-place, Friday, July 25.
"Sir,- I am advised it is my duty respectfully to inform
you and the House that two actions at law under the statute
have been commenced against me for penalties alleged to be
incurred by me for having exercised, on Monday last, my
right of sitting and voting in the House of Commons, as
Member for Greenwich, and that, at the trial of those actions,
any resolution or proceeding which the House may adopt can
be given in evidence in that action. —With the greatest re-
spect, I have the honour to be, Sir,
" Your most obedient servant,
" DAVID SALOMON&

" The Right Hors. the Speaker."
Sir B. HALL rose to move that the electors of the
borough of Greenwich should be heard at the bar of the
House in support of the right of Alderman Salomons to
take his seat as a Member for that borough. This was a
simple resolution, based on strict justice, and founded
on equir.y. and ho hoped the House would not deprive the
electors of what they considered their just rights and pri-
vileges without allowing them to be heard at the bar. In
1832 the House determined the great importance of the
borough by placing it among those in Schedule A which
returned two Members of Parliament, and ever
since then the borough bad exercised that right.
One remarkable feature connected with the borough was
that, though there had been several contested elections,
there was hardly a single instance in which a gentlemen
not holding liberal opinions had been elected
for it. The Hon. Baronet then detailed the cir-
cumstances under which Alderman Salomons had
been returned at the last election, and the
subsequent events in reference to his taking the oaths
in the House, all of which have been repeatedly brought
before the public. Alluding to the differences between
the legal authorities he thought the resolution of last
year was most ill-advisedly passed, and he hoped the
Noble Lord would not put another such resolution upon
the paper, because the time would come when they
would be forced to rescind it.—(Hear, hear.) The
House had a precedent for rescinding the re-
solution of last year in the case of Mr.
Wilkes. Hon. Members were no doubt familiar with
the circumstances of that case. Mr. Wilkes was elected
for Middlesex, but as he had published a libel upon the
King, and an immoral essay upon woman, he was expelled
the House. At the next election, however,
Mr. Wilkes was again returned, but upon petition
his opponent was seated, and then followed a contest
between the House and the constituency of Middlesex,
which strongly resembled the contest that was now
going on in reference to Greenwich. The result
of that contest was that the House was com-
pelled eventually to re.cind its resolution, and
allow Mr. Wilkes once more to take his seat. Now the
petitioners, whom case he was now advocating, urged
upon the House the fact that the Member was under no
legal disabiley wh itever which could prevent his
sitting in the House. The Noble Lord at the head
of the Government was very fond of precedents
before adopting any particular course in reference to
cases of this nature. Well, then, he should have them.
There were the two cases in the city where Alterman
Salomons was twice elected to an aldermanic gown,
but the Court of Aldermen refused to let him
take his seat; and, in the first instance, Alderman
Humphery, and in the second Alderman Moon were
seated instead of him. The Court of Alderman, how-
ever, afterwards rescinded their resolution against Jews,
and allowed Alderman Salomons at a subsequent elec-
tion to take his seat. Now, why could not the Noble
Lord follow the example of that now reformed corpora-
tion? He saw no reason against it, but many reasons in its
favour, and in order, as a preliminary step towards giving
the Noble Lord an opportunity of retracing his steps, ho
would move that the electors of Greenwich be heard by
counsel at the bar in support of the claim of their Mem-
ber to be allowed to take tlis seat.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not think that
any further light could be shed on the subject by taking
the course suggested by the Hon. Member, and he
thought it would be a waste of time it they went fur-
ther. The cases which had been quoted by the Hon.
Member were not analogous; and the Hon. Member bad
studiously refrained from giving the House any tangible
reason for hearing counsel.
Mr. ANSTEY was astonished at the course taken by
the Attorney-General. If the petitioners had attempted
to afford additional information they would instantly
have been charged with a breach of privilege for al-
luding to proceedings in a former debate of that House.
In his opinion, one well-considered speech of a learned
counsel would afford greater information to the House
on the subject than twenty speeches of Hon. Members.
Upon the occasion when the House decided against two
freeholders, and obliged them to give up their holdings
to two Members of that House, even then the House
heard the freeholders at the bar, and offered to hear them
by counsel, but now they would violate both the form
and the substance by refusing to hear the petitioners at
the bar of justice. By-and-bye they would have a ge-
neral eleetion, and then an appeal would. then be wade
not only to the constituencies of Greenwich acid London,
but to every large constituency tin the country, and
they might depend upon it, it would not be the two seats
of Greenwich and London they would have to consider,
but the case would be made one in which every consti-
tuency would feel itself affected.—(Hear.) The result
would be that the House would find itself in that posi-
tion in which it would be brought into collision with
the people of England and the courts of justice, and
they would then be obliged to do that which they had
always done in all such cases—namely, recede from
their position and give way to the power of the law.
It was to save them from this humiliation that the ad-
vocates of the petitioners supported the motion before
the House.

Sir F. THESIGER, said the real question before the
House had been departed from by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who last addressed it. That Hon. and
Learned Gentleman did not apply himself to the argu-
ment of the Hon. am' Learned Attorney-General, who
urged that the whole question hod been fully canvassed
last year, and decided upon by the House. What was
the use of hearing counsel at the bar? The whole ques-
tion could and had been fully argued in the House, but
the only thing that could arise by hearing counsel at the
bar would be to hear the case argued on one side. This
was one reason ageing hearing the petitioners at Om
bar, but there was another. The petitioners asked tone
heard at the bar it defense of their right to fleet their

own representatives. No one objected to their doing so.
The electors might elect whom they pleiaed. They
might elect a minor or a clergyman, if they liked, hut
that did not entitle a minor or a clergyman to take his
seat in that House, the law being against their doing so.
—(1-Tear.) lie should therefore oppose the motion before
the House.

Mr. VILLIERS said.the Hon. Gentleman, who had a
motion on the paper for a now writ for Grrenich, said
he bad no desire to deprive the electors of that borough
of their rights, But the'Hon. and Learned Gentleman
might carry his motion, and if so, the choice of the
electors would be set aside. Ho was anxious to hear
the case of the petition at the bar, because the legal
gentlemen might give them information on the question
under consideration. The majority in that House had
decided against the right of the people of Greenwich,
and they now came to the bar to ask that the whole
question would be fairly heard. Could anything
be fairer ? The question was not fully and
fairly discussed last )ear, for the House were
told that a Bill was about to be brought in
to admit the Jows into Parliament. That Bill had been
introduced, and Mr. Alderman Salomons had shown
great respect for the House, by not coming down to it
until the question had been settled. —(Hear, hear.)
The Houle of Lords had rejected the Bill, on the
ground that they would not admit Jews into Parlia-
ment. There was, then, no likelihood of their altering
their decision.

S►r H. H. INGLIS rose to order, and observed that the
Hon. Gentleman had referred to the House of Lords,
which wa, a violat►oa► of order.

Mr. VILLIERS said he would keep in order by con-
fining his allusions to " another place."—(A laugh.) He
had only to add that the arguments used in another
Place were such as left little hope of their ever consent-
ing to admit Jews into ParliamAnt.—(Hear, hear.) So
it was desirable that they should consider whether they
could not admit Jews into that House, they doing all
that the law called upon them to do.—(Hear, hear.)
That was what they were called upon by tee petitioners
to do. He would support the prayer of the petition.

Mr. NE W D EG A "it denied tha-t, the electors of Green-
wich were 60 deeply anxious on this subject as Hon.
Members had suggested, because from 1,500 to 2,000
electors of Greenwich refused to vote, for they had no
confidence in the c.mtest, owing to the previous relations
which existed between Mr. Alderman Wire and the
Jewish body. It was well understood that, at the elec-
tion fur Greenwich, treating was notorious, and even
Alderman Salomons acted in a most extraordinary man-
ner by driuking beer from a pot when addressing the
electcrs from the hustings.—(A laugh.) He saw no
reason that the electors of Greenwich should be placed
in a better position than the electors of London. He
should, therefore, vote against the motion.

Sir J. HANDIER said that when Mr. Salomons was
elected alderman, ho could not take the necessary oaths.
To meet the difficulty Lord Lyndhurst brought a Bill
into Parliament, and this passed. The consequence was
that Alderman Salomons took the necessary oaths. The
same course was now proposed by the Noble Lord at
the h.ad of the Government, and that was the course he
should suoport.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said it was the law, and not
the House of Commons, that interfered to prevent the
Gentleman returned for Greenwich from taking his seat
in that House. He contended that on ineligibility hung
the whole question, and as Alderman Salomons could
not comply with the conditions of the law, he could
not sit.

Mr. AGLIONBY did not consider that the Hon.
Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate)
should raise the objections that he did against the right
of Mr. Salomon& with respect to his seat in that Rouse;
and he should say, in addition to that, that the opposi-
tion offered was most unfair and unjust.—(Hear.)
L.,rd JOHN RUSSELL contended that the locus
standi totally depended on the principle of taking the
oath, and he was astonished that any Member who
knew the usage of the House should offer any objection.
Alderman SIDNEY was fully assured that the Hon.
Member for Greenwich had a right to exercise his pri-
vilege as a Member, to take his seat and vote, and he
would go further and say, the Baron Rothschild.
The House than divided, whan there appeared—
For the motion ... ... 75
Against it ... ... 135
Majority... ..
ADMISSION OF BARON ROTHSCHILD.

Mr. RAIKES CURRIE said, on Friday night he
presented a petition, agreed to at a large meeting of the
electors of the city of London, held on Friday last, of
which he was chairman, praying that the oath of abjure-
tion might be swept from the statute-book, and that they
might be permitted to be heard by their counsel at the
b,r of that House, in support of Baron Rothschild's
claim to take his seat as their representative. After,
however, the decision the House had just come to in the
case of the petition of the electors of Greenwich, and as
he must confess that he did not agree with the prayer
of the petition, that the oath of abjuration should be
swept from the statute-book, he did not think it re-
quisite to persevere in asking the Hcuse to come to a
decision upon it, and he would therefore with-
draw his motion, that the House should take the
petition into its consideration. At the same time he
would press upon the Government the necessity of
doing sometbiug in the matter. The Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, at the close of last session,
got the House to pass a declaratory resolution on this
subject, accompanied with a recommendation that
the subject should be considered early in this session.
That was an intimation that the Noble L urd was pre-
pared to legislate on the subject, and stake the existence
of his Government upon it. He would, therefore, press
on the Noble Lord the necessity of bringing forward that
question now, or, at all events, in the very commence-
ment of next session of Parlisment.—(Hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY rose to discharge a duty, which he
considered the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down
had neglected, and to move that the petition be taken
into consideration of the House, in terms of the notice
on the piper, and that the House hear counsel at the bar,
in terms of the prayer of it. The petition was d.flereet
from that of the electors of Greenwich, as it prayed that
the liaise should hear counsel at the bar, provided they
refused to rescind a resolution passed by the House last
year, preventing Baron Rothschild from taking his seat.
Mr. Alderman Salomons was differently placed, he had
already taken his seat in that House, and he could nut
now be heard, except by himself, in his proper place;
but Baron Rothschild appeared in a different form, and
those who returned him urged the case on different
grounds. He had not yet taken his seat.—(Hear.) He
was waiting fer the decision of that House upon his case,
and he craved, and he (Mr. Anate3) could state, was now
desirous, that be should be heard at the Bar by
his counsel. It was his (Mr. Anstey's) intention to
press this motion to a division. He had pledged himself
to the electors of the city of London that he would leave
nothing untried which could by any means forward their
case, and he would not, therefore, be prevented by ihe
solicitations of less timid friends of the cause, from fol-
lowing out that course. The Noble Lord at the head
of the Government, in his speech on the previous motion,
said that this was similar to a person who refused to
take the oath of allegiance, but here such was not the
case, for they had decided last year that the seat for the
city of London was full, and that they could not issue a
new writ. Baron R ithschild did not refuse to take the
oath of allegiance. He took that oath, and he took the
oath of abjuration in the form binding on his conscience,
and he would, therefore, move that the House hear
counsel in b ihalf of the electors of the city of London
in support of the petition presented to this House on
Friday last.
Mr. AGLIONBY said ho was present at the meeting
at which this petition was agreed to, and a more or-
derly and unanimous meeting he never saw. He thought
the electors of the city of London had a right to be
heard, and although he did not agree with the state-
ment of the petition, that the oath of abjuration ought
to be swept from the stature book, he trusted that the
House would not think it disrespectful to it, for the elec-
tors of the city of London to ask it torescind its
decision of last year, and bear counsel in favour of
the petition.
Mr. RAIKES CURRIE agreed that the meeting al-
luded to was most numerously and respecably attended.
The business was carried on in the most regular manner,
although he admitted, that after two resolutions had
been passed, fully expressing the feelings of the
meeting, and agreed to unanimously, that when
a petition was about to be proposed upon them,
his Honourable Friend the Member for Youghall
Anstey) made his appearance with a counter
petition, which no doubt would have given rise
to great discussion. Just,.
however, at that juncture,
Minerva came to their aid, in the shape of his Hon.
Friend the Member for Cockerrnouth (Mr. Aglionby),
who knowing that the Hon. Member for Youghall car-
ried a gun of no inconsiderable range, and of no incon-
siderable bore—(Laughter)—instead of showing fight,
the two made up the matter, and a compromise took
place, the result of which was, that the petition was al-
tered from the terms of the resolution which preceded it
to the form in which it had been submitted to the House.
—(hear.) He must say that he did not think the peti-
tion a proper and fair echo of the resolationseand that it
would be useli es, atter the fate of the petition of the
Greenwich electors, to ask the House to divide upon it.
Mr. NE WDEGA.TE said from what he had heard,
it appeared to him that the one-half of the meeting of
the electors of the city of London held upon the subject
did not know what the other was about.—(Hear,
bear,—(tElheearc,itizes
of London were but a small body of the constituency,
and laughter.) But even though they,
did,tuency,
and should the question come before the. country at a
general election, they would see a far different expres-
sion of feeling upon it.
Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE said while the Honourable
Member for Northampton (Mr. R. Currie) might make
a very good chairman of a meeting, he did not think he
had on this occasion done his duty as a representative
of the people.—(Cheers.) H id it not been for his Hon.
aid Learned Friend the Member for Youghal, he took
leave to say that this question would not have stood in
the position it at present occupied, and he tendered his
thanks to that Honourable and Learned Gentleman for
the bold, manly, and spirited stand he had taken. He
(Mr. Osborne) was present at the City meeting, and
he told the House that the opinion of the city of Lon-
don was invariably carried out by the country. He
did not imagine the question of conceding to the
Jews that to which they were entitled would be
carried during the present session; but this he would
say that unless the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government took up the matter in sincerity, a re-
form of the House of Lords would bo called for. It was
not his (Mr. Osborne's) wish that that question should
be agitated, but if it were, they would raise a devil that
might not be so easily laid. He hoped the Noble Lord
would take that circumstance into consideration, and
bring for ward a measure early next session, f. ir the abo-
lition of all tests and Parliamentary qualification. The
question should not be delayed session after session, and
the farce gone through session after session of bringing
forward resolutions of promises to pay which were never
performed.-,-(Hear.)

Sir JOHN TYRRELL—As one of the Hon. Mem-
bers fur Middlesex constituents protested against some
of the views he bad advanced, end begged to remind
him t hat although now loud in what he alleged to be 'a
question of n ligious liberty, he was silent us a mouse
during the repeared and protracted discussion en the
Papal question.—(" No, nu," from Mr. Osborne.) The
Hon. Gentleman was voting in direct opposition to the
wishes of most of his constituents, 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 be drawn into a
discussion totally irrelevant to the questio❑ raised by the
petitions pr, vented for consideration.
Mr. HOBHOLTSE denied that the Hon. Member for
Micidleex had ever been us 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. Hobhouse) 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 bhuuld 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 Hoe, and Learned Member
for Abingdon, as he had so repeatedly threatened, move
that u new writ be issued. It wigs 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. SALO MONS.
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 Salomous, 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 he had proposed to add by way of amendment
the words, "And that this House, having regard for the
religious scruples of the lion. Member for Greenwich,
will use its undisputed privilege on his behalf by forth-
with making such alteration in the form of the oath as
will enable the Hon. Member to take the same." The
proposals they had made bad been one by one rejected,
they were not in a position to renew them, and they
were obliged to accept the resolution of the Noble Lord,
the Prime Mini, ter. The effect of the oath was the sub-
stance of the oath, and that lied been accepted by the
Hon. Member for Greenwich, apart from the mere so-
lemnity of the oath. They had Acts of Parliament that
declared how much 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 substituted by others implying faith in the
Christian religion, or that that religion was the true
one. So, also, in the common oath, the words "So
help me God l" did not mean to imply a belief in the
existence of the Deity, but an invocation of his divine
interposition in attestation of the truth of a statement
under oath. If the oath of abjuration was to be taken
at all, it must be taken under the 6th of George
111., c. 23, which did not propose the objectionable
words, "So help me God.'' They were supplied, how
ever, at the table, to meet the common form of swearing
persons in this country. If the argument were to be
held good that the mere substitution of one word for
another was immaterial, provided only that the words
" true faith" were retained, then it might follow that
the lion. Member for Greenwich might have been sworn
"on the true faith of a Jew," which would have
amounted to a solemn declaration of Judaism, or unbe-
lief in Christianity. There was yet another observation
that he would address to the Hon. Gentlemen opposite.
Her Majesty's Ministers had sot 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 the subject? What did
Lord Stanley say when he was consulted on
the matter in his capacity of privy councillor,
and a member of the Cabinet, and when be
was not acting as the mere leader of a faction? Did
he say that those words were part and parcel of the con-
stitution; that 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 hand a paper relating to civil disabilities in
Jamaica, with 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 Attorney-General as to the
effect of a local Act to extend certain privileges to the
Jews, which had been mentioned in it. By a clause in
the Canada Act, any religious 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-
ion's Cabinet, and also by that of Lord Grey, and Lord
Stanley, in transmitting the decision of his Government,
said he 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 is to the city of London, or
even to the borough of Greenwich? He ( r. Anstey)
believed that, in 1833, the Earl of Derby understood the
question in 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 cf 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 at,d Learned Member for Abingdon
bad assented to opinions which last year he disputed.
Ho 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 bad 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, ho 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 as all that could be required from him by law. He
trusted on those grounds that the amendment which be
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 his:emeedsnent.
Mr. HE ADLAM had not taken any particular part
in this question before; but now that the question had
assumed a different aspect from that which it before ap-
peared in, he would state shortly to the House the views
which he entertained ou the subject. In the first place.
he did not think it possible that the House could ex,ll"
mite itself from the absurdities and inconsistencies which
existed on this subject, under the present law. To deal
with the oath of abjuration in the manner proposed by
the Governmenttowacsomutpteelrly
ieimmpboesrssibolne;tahnedmuonsdtersotibeoo3o:
whether Christians or Jews, to take that
clocciaretchatisciiiisntthnsae"manner prescribed by the forms of the
House, was most inconsistent, and calculated to impair
the solemn sense which the oath might have under other
circumstances. He contended it was improper first t°
place in the hands of a Jew, who came to the table of
the House to be sworn on the Old Testament, and then
Ito require him to swear on the true faith of a Christia.tn
It was most unjust, he maintained, to attempt to rotate
those obsolete oaths formally, and making them the
means of interfering with men's rights and privileges'
He must say, in expression of his opinion, tbst
if the evils apprehended and expressed by sore)
were ten times as great as they were, they would not
Justify them in maintaining those laws. He was porgy
fectly willing to admit that it was a most difficult thing
to say what was the construction of the statute on Lb"
question. He had now, however, very strong opinions
himself on the subject—a subject on which very gr3st
misconception prevailed, in consequence of their haVlt
admitted the Hon. Member for Greenwich to swear v 9
the Old Testament at the table of the House. The Of
Geo. 111. prescribes two things. First that the oath °f
abjuration sbould be taken, and, secondly, the matiner
in which it shall be taken. When the statute enacted
that the oath should bo taken it did not enact how it
was to be taken, but left it to common law; and in the
case of Christians, it resulted merely from what Ws'
the practice in this couutry. Such was in accordance
with the decision of Lord Hardwicke. The statute,
,
then enacted that the oath should be taken in ea/
cordance with common law. Thus, in the case 20
Christians, it was enacted that they should take
oath in accordance with common law, and the ot"e
words of the statute, that they should take it
the true faith of a Christian." Nuw those word" m
believed, were introduced by the 10ih Geo. IV., je c(,)•,ir4
sequence of the position in which the Roman Cathaar.
then stood. He could not find any authority whatevt;
that those words could possibly be left out by the cad
thority of the House of Commons. As the law stotha
when Mr. Pouts, the Quaker, presented himself at nt
table of the House, there was no statutory enactfaeo
that enabled him to come to the table; but (-here o'ooo
Act which bore the form of affirmation, and he was ttbe
enabled to comply with the requirements of the law, 'do
House having drawn up a new form to enable bim Woe
so. There was no distinct statutory authority 011. is.
subject, and they should so frame the law as t 9 ed.,°loo.
ter the oath in the manner most binding on a DWI

licience. The% would not be dung their duty to the- ciezena
1,:)! London if they submitted to the decision which tne
n°llse cause to on this subject. If, the gees ion were
throughtttlte
with spirit next session, it would be c irried
e_Parliament. I: they did not carry through this
great cause they would be doing a great injustice to the
f,atti,use Of civil and religious liberty. It was harsh to the
4411 Y of London and to the b trough of Greenwich to
the question to stand in its present position.
r• J. EVANS said that those persons who had re-
""clod the Bill in another place had merely exercised a
Llotaititutional privilege, and he did not agree eith those
who thought the Noble Lerd at the head of the Govern-
-I:letit had acted unfairly in this matter. He believed
that they were indebted to the Noble Lord for the man-
ner in which he advocated the principle involved in the
b
roll for admitting Jews into Parliament. The Hon. and
arced Gentleman they referred to the origin of the
Oath
of abjuration, which was enacted in the 13th year
4William and Mary. In this oath were the words
tie the true faith of a Christian." This oath was car-
tied
t—r, out by the 9 and 10 Gee. 1., which male it obdga-
rY on all persons in the country to take it. But then
it
Tints clear, from the nature of the oath, that it was only
to
be taken in the sense most binding on the conscience
of the persona taking it, so that a Christian could uccept
ther words in question, and the Jew could take the oath
tt, the form most binding on his conscience, as bad been
"41 by the Hon. Member for Greenwich.
The House then divided, when there eppeared—
For the amendment ... .•• ••• 50
Against it ... ••• ••• ••• 88,e
Majority •••
b kr•BETHELL argued that greater injustice could not
seft3red than the proceedings of the present Govern-
,:ent towards Baron Rothschild and Mr. Salomons. He
Lad not know why they, because of their religious feel-
rTgs and principles, should be excluded from the partici-
4.ation of Englishmen; and for that reason ho should
ne leet to the original motion.
Lord J. RUSSELL admitted that there was a general
feeling abroad in favour of the emancipation of the
a
e,,,5; but at the same time he was assured, as was the
uole House, that such a measure could not be carried
into effect without an Act of Parliament. What occur-
eted? The Muster of the Rolls proposed two resolutions.
'cle of those very resolutions was now before the House.
After a great deal of discu.sion, and au amendment by
the Honourable Member fur Montrose (Mr. Flume), who
ho regretted to say was absent through indisposition,
ethe House decided by by a majority of 166 to 92, in
.2Your of the 'resolution which was now before the
'louse. So that the House was now again called upon to
!farm that which they had already affirmed. It was not
necessary again to argue this resolution. Alderman Salo-
'hens having taken a course which, though not the same,
148 Similar to that which Bemis Rothschild took, he
:341ed again to take the same course now as then, and
act in accordance with that resolution which appeared
eon the journals of that House. The lion. and Learned
entlernan said, wily not take the opinion of a court of
4" He had no objection to taking the opinion of a
court of law, and they were informed to-day, upon the
rthority of Alderman Salomons, that he intended to
epilhk;e_, the opinion of a court ot law upon the penalties
he may have incurred under the Act of Parliament.
et he could not see how the opinion of a court of law
voald in any manner influence them as to the fact as to
Whether a Member had or had not taken the oaths re-
ti,r,esd• The Hon. and Leatned Gentleman (Mr. Be-
") quoted some cases as if he meant them to form
teedeuts for the course he now called upon them to
totally Be must say he thought the case of Mr. Wilkss
em'e"Y inapplicable. The House of Commons in that
Proceeded upon its view of its own powers and pri•
eueges• They choose to say that the author of a heel
lap to be expelled from the House, and that after ex-
pulsion no Member could properly take his seat. They
not proceed according to the dictation of any court
01 law• He did not agree with the House of Com-
ke-neus in their view upon that occasion, but certainly that
tFae formed no sort of precedent for the present one.
o the Municipal Corporation Act the oath "on the
kil° to
of a Christian" was made necessary before ad-
trlllesion to certain offices. In 1845 Lord Lyndhurst in-
„icluneed a Bill, in the preamble of which this oath was
es_tidetl to, for it said, " whereas persons of the Jewish
rsuasion could not conscientiously make the declare-
er,uih.,,eontained in the Act," &c.; but according to the
er,ieuleen now laid down, this proceeding. was altogether
th_ue ssary, for the Jew was not required to use all
" words of the oath. It was useless to argue the
etlotll,l ion further. He thought the House of Commons
0;' not do otherwise than assent to the course he pro.
t ed. The question, they were told, was about to be
Rrc)ught before a court of law. If any new light could
thrown upon the subject there, he knew no reason
hY the
House of Commons should not avail itself of it;
h t with all the information they now had before them,
Athought they would overstep the law if they allowed
'Alderman Salomons to take his seat.—(Hear, hear.)
eke
ANSTRY contended that the speech made by the
jecthle Lord the Prime Minister only proved that the
-` On. Member for Greenwich ought to have been heard
,4
the bar. They had a strong case in favour of the
''on. Member for London and the Hon. Member for
Greenwich. He was convinced the feeling of the Noble
4'°,,.,t'd was in favour of civil and religious liberty.—
";I▪
leers.) He hoped the resolution would be withdrawn
present, and introduced next session under the
4tddance of a decision of the courts of law.—(Hear.)
te JOHN ABEL Swill rose principally to protest
estllnat the conclusion to which the Noble Lord had
h.°.lle. that because the House had come to a resolution
last in the case of Baron Rothschild, that same pre-
(l,2•
,13 should govern every succeeding case. He thought
„..a4 resolution was unskilfully drawn. He protested
4,301115 t being called upon to vote in favour of this resolu-
aroe' UPon the same grounds as he voted in favour of that
ee,rsed last year in the case of Baron Rothschtld. He
r
slclsred that the Honourable and Learned Mem-
e„t for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethel)) had made
fere a decided case for suspending all inter-
trieldle,.! of that House until the question should be
tell, a court of law, as it certainly would be in the
thelge, of the recess, and that being his opinion, he
to • gut all further procedure in that House in reference
NoI 4ho
t uld stop for the present. No doubt, should the
ebtsTl Lord press his resolution to a division, he would
ale 5 • .
eared Majority in favour of it; but he might ITst as-
that the question would be brought again and
ti,so"l before the House; and although he and those who
thought with him might that night be defeated upon it,
tbe, would take the defeat as auguring that the hour of
eiwtrlumph of the principle they advocated was not far
I,lllte(Cheers.)
he House then divided, when there appeared—
For Lord J. Russell's resolution ... 123
Against it ... ... 68
Majority in favour of the resolution ... —55
cr,.. resolution was then agreed to.
'4VEYANCE OF MAILS BY RAILWAYS
The House BILL.
then went into Committee on this Bill.
tle.• BECKET DENISON objected to the first
tail which provided for the carrying of mail bags by
dieteaYs, and the putting them down at the interme-
/a,, stations at the expense of the railway cornpa-
tretiotahe expenses of the same to be determined by arbi-
r
fore • C. LEWIS said the measure had been produced
le,r‘he very purpose of obviating the evil the Hon. Mem.
bcomplained of.
tet`r• COWAN said be had been asked to oppose this
‘ll_isere on the part of the railway companies, not from
1.„0‘),', Wish they had to impede the transmission of the
1•Is, bat because they considered that the present mea-
kin', exacted from them the maximum of service at the
ite,lllllnlam rate of remuneration. He was of opinion that
,„ measure should not be hurried through the
ter 'se at the close of a session, and that the whole mat-
hll°111(1 be referred to a Select Committee.
*to EIANIILTON agreed that it was exceedingly
sesallog to attempt to pass such a Bill at the close of the
hn.
ta, '3 CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
let! would be enabled, hy the
pudicroosd, to give
eee!ased accommodation to the übl in the convey..
e.°l of mails to small towns, and instead of such a
l.`"lre being
otherwise injurious to railways, he believed it would
tto4l,SLer fee; words from Mr. BECKETT DENISON and
d air. MANGLE
Mr. LOCKE said the present measure was an °tithe part of attempt,t4
Which awardedGc,oltavernment to get rid of the Bill o 4,
pensation to the railways
tendered to the Post-office He should, therefore, sup
Port the amendment. •
for service!
kr
di • LA.BOUCHERE said the question was, whether
or;er_i,g?t was so secured to the servants of the Post-
e„,.% that that they should be enabled to perform their
i 5": to the public on the railways. The courts of law
tbe°,:°?...ti_aian.d had expressed it t 3 be their opinion that
44_ ES of the Post-office had a right to travel on
ei,eitY2-, while the Irish courts had come to a different
thettuslon, at the same time that they expressed a wish
Of the question should be brought under the revision
settle the of appeal, or that an Act should be passed to
_ law on the subject. In point of fact, in the
Whtit „furs the Committee they were asked nothing but
el‘w.le courts of law in Scotland had declared thePost-
e7,‘o be entitled to.
/let THOMPS. ON hoped that the House would
withla on the principle of reasonable interference,
horsteau!iew to the preservation of the rights of the
kEtir. 4"Y'
hum . GLADSTONE did not think the Bill could be
11 ter _y as adeclaratory
Lled aiMpl d
Are. few words fromSandrs, Mr. Forster, and
noncan,
OrdWay, lIIILMERSTON reminded the House that rail-
ti,„, were established for public utility,
d st't that they and it was only
Une, .c should be called upon to perform those
they
should
the Legislature had it in contemplation
they which th perform when they granted them the Acts
"id not ex eir railway xistence was founded. The Bill
eepsnseexpose the companies to any additional
retrain dut7sin'PlY provided that they should perform a
re-
muneration.
for what ho considered a fair amount of
Gn
"Merl thou ght the present attempt of the Go-
Teem of
oost
wave the maximum of service at the mini-
. The 'ranq unfair to railway corneanies.
am,
excoptiInsCHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER briefly
Mr. AL o•C(AoNeotne of Mr. Gladstone's statements.
not been consulted ELL hoped the Irish law courts bad
par,k LOCKE said, on the tthtes law*
yne_ aao v. er
ny se sous
effecti tag clause were adopted, it would
Was
on railway property. There
t DENISONof stahiedm,
,rbauiltwtabyeay driedcp
ireot
dobjectote top aidd o
°l' the
service.
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the clause .3
Agaiuneat.it ••••• °56
jority • against Government . —3
The e_laoutisge was consequently struck out.
The se resumed.
tt 410.t0 Metropolitan Interment Bill was read a word
be 00011sitted this day (Tuesday).

Mr. HAWES moved the wound reading of the New
Zealand Settlonenta 811.

Mr. BROTLiERTON protested against proceeding
with an opposed Bill at half-pest °Tie o'clock in the
morning. He should move the adjournment of the
House.
Mr. GLADSTONE expressed his objection to the
Bill Ling further proceeded with at so late a period of
the session, especially as the settlers had not been con-
sulted on the important changes it hail proposed to effect.
Mr. V. SMITH joined in the objection. He thought
it indecorous to press so important a Bill, and recom-
mended its withdrawal.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER asked
the House to advance the Bill another stage. The two
first clauses which some Hon. Gentlemen considered ob-
jectionable could be amended or omitted in Committee.
Mr. ADDERLEY would oppose the second reading,
unless it was distinctly understood those clauses were to
be struck nut. _ _

Vv
After a few words from Mr. AGLIONBY and Mr. BRO.
THERTON, the House divided, when there appeared—

For the adjournment ... 3
Against it ... ..• ... 51
Majority against ... —4B
Mr. ADDERLEY then moved the adjournment of
:he debate.

Mr. ILIWSE expresFed a hope that the Bill would be
allowed to pass its second reading, as thero was really
no substl.ntial objection to it.

The CEIANCELLOI of the EXCHEQUER under-
took that, if the Bill were read a second time now, the
Government would tomorrow state its views as to the
several clauses.

The House again divided, and the numbers were—
For the adjournment ... ... 17
Against it 34
Majority against ••• —l7
The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to
be committed.
Mr. NEWDEGATE moved for certain returns re-
specing th.. Exhibition.
Mr. BROTHER FON, interrupting the Hon. Member,
moved that the House be counted, and fourteen Members
only being preient,
The SPEAKER declared the House adjourned at
Half. past Two o'clock.

PARLIAMENTARY DIVISIONS.

From ~.he Trot% csncl Proceedings of the House of Commons.)

MONDAY, JULY 28.
DAVID SALOIIONS, ESQ.

Order for Consideration of Petitions from Greenwich read ;
Motion made, and Question put, " That the electors of the
borough of Greenwich be heard by counsel at the bar of this
House, in pursuance of the prayer of their said petitions."
The House divided:—

MINORITY—AYES, 75.
Adair, Hugh E. Forster, Matthew Salwey, Colonel
Aglionby, 11. A. Fox, W. J. Scobell, Captain
Alcock, Thomas Geach, Charles Scully, Francis
Anderson, Arthur Heathcoat, John Seymour, Lord
Anstey, T. C. Heywood, James Sidney, Alderman
Armstrong, R. B. Hindley, C. Smith, IL V.
Barron, Sir H. Hobhouse, T. B. Smith, J. Benjamin
Bass, M. T. Keating, Robert Spearman, H. J
Bell, Jacob Lacy, H. C. Stuart, Lord J.
liethell, Richard Locke, Joseph Sutton, J. II
Bright, John Lushington, Charles Tennent, R. J.
Brocklehuret, John M'Gregor, John Thompson, Colonel
Brotherton, J. Mahon, O'Gorman Thompson, George
Brown, W. Mangles, R. D. Thornely, Thomas
Clay, James Martin, J. Tollemache, F. J.
Cobden, Richard Mitclaell, T. A. Villiers, Charles
Colebrooke, Sir T. Moffatt, George Wakley, T.
Dawes, Edward Morns, David Walmsley, Sir J.
Dawson, T. V. Murphy, F. S. Wawn, J. T.
D'Eyncourt, T. Norreys, Sir D. Westhead, J. P.
Duncan, George O'Connell, M. J. Willcox, Brodie
Ellis, John Ogle, Savile C. H. Willyams, H.
Evans, Sir De Lacy Pechell, Sir G. Wilson, Matthew
Evans, J. Pinney, William TELLtjto.
E wart, William Power, Dr. I a • Sir B.
Ferguson, Col. Robartes, T. J. A. SuA,,li, John Abel

TtiE SUN,