The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-22 00:00:00

BANKRUPTS.

Sampson Clay Bcastall and William Mather, linen
drapers, High-street, Kensington, to surrender July 28
and Aug. 28, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whit
more, official assignee, Bwinghall-street; Hardwick,
Davidson,and Bracibury,Weaver's Hall,Basinghall-street.
Samuel Dixon, draper, Leeds, Aug. 1, at half-past
one, and Sept. 4, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-street; Sole and
Turner, Aldi-rmanbury; Blackburn, Leeds.
Adolf Heilbronn and John Harrison, drysalters, Great
St. Helen's, City. Aug. 1 and 29, at one, at the Court of
Bankruptcy. Whitmore, official assignee, Basinghall-
street; Linklater. Charlotte row, Mansion-house; Cox,
Pinners' Hall, Old Broad-street.

Joseph Royce, currier, Nottingham, Aug. 1, and Aug.
29, at halt-p%st ten, at the Birmingham District Court.
Bittleston, official assignee, Nottingham; Bowley, Not-
tingham; Hodgson, Birmingham.
Joseph Mitchell, carpenter, Camden-street, Camden-
town, Aug 1, at half-past twelve, and Aug. 29, at Eleven,
at the Court of Bankruptcy. Canaan, official assignee,
Birchiu-lane, Cornhill; Turner, Charles-street, City-
road.

Zachariah Warren, Ardleigh, Essex, miller, July 30,
at twelve, and Sept. 3, at one, at the Court of Bank-
ruptcy. Stansfeld, official assignee; Wire and Child,
Swithin's-lane; Barnes, Colchea,er. .

George Edwin Deeley, ironfounder, Brunswick-ter-
race, Trinity-street, Dover-road, July 30, and Sept. 3,
at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official
assignee; Long, Gray's Inn-place.
George Kempson, pork butcher, Clifton, Bedfordshire,
July 30, at two, and Sept. 3, at half-past one, at the
Court of Bankruptcy. Graham, official assignee; Trin-
der and Eyre; ,hu-street, Bedford-row; Austin, Shet-
ford, Bedtords;_ire. _ _ _

Thomas Pointer, builder, Okehampton, Devonshire,
Aug. 6 and 26, at eleven, at the Exeter District Court.
Hir ofEci4l assignee. Exeter; Stogdon, Exezer; Fryer,
St. Thome.l's,near Exeter.

Sydeuham Vincent Burge, saddler, Taunton, Somer.
setshire, Aug. 6 and 26, at eleven, at the Exeter District
Court. iiirtzel, c fcial a signee, Exeter; Woodland,
jun., Taunton; Stogdon, Exeter.
William Pashley and Francis Pashley, table knife
manufacturer. 3, Sheffield, Aug. 9 and 30, at ten, at the
Leeds district Court. Freeman, official assignee,
Sheffie=ld; Fernell, Sneffield.
W lifted Mooney end Thomas Wilson, corn merchants,
Liverpool, July 31 and Aug. 28, at eleven, at the Liver-
pool District Court. Turner, official assignee, Liverpool;
Daly, Liverpool.
Gordon John James Grant, tobacco broker, Liverpool,
July 31 and Aug. 28, at eleven, at the Liverpool District
Court. Bird, official as6iguee, Liverpool; Wadesori and
Co., London; Lace, Rigge, and Roscoe,
Thomas Brown, ship owner, Sunderland, Durham,
July 31, at one, and Aug. 26, at eleven, at the New-
castle-upon-Tyne District Court. Baker, official as•
signee, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Moore, Sunderland;
Crosby and Compton, Old Jewry.
IN SOLVEN T DEBTORS.

Edward Scriven, coach lining scourer, Winchester-street,

Camden-town.
Robert Yorston, accountant, Clifford's Inn.

John Tinker Tidd, secretary to the Islington Cattle
Market Company, Market-terrace, Kingland.
Thomas Hughes, Bishopsgate-street Without.
Henry L. Patterson, tailor, Ludgate-street, City.
Henry Woolcott, fringe tassell manufazturer, New
Oxford-street.
Frederick Braithwaite, civil engineer, Gower-street.
F. Teesdele, cattle dealer, Jockeys fields, Middle'ex.
W. Russ, milkman, North-street, Manchester-square.
Joseph Stammers, comedian, Church-street, Paddington.
W. Jones, stationer, Harrison-street, Gray's Inn-road.
George Brunaby, assistant to a car proprietor, Liverpool.
Thomas Barrett, ship smith, Bootle, near Liverpool.
Arthur Belcher, cattle salesman, Liverpool.
John Davgers, dealer in milinery, Preston, Lancashire.
Charles Edwards, farmer, 'for, Devonshire.
Joshua Harris, builder, Salford, Lancashire.
James Nuttall, beerseller, Bury, Lancashire.
James Poole, farmer, Tiverton, Devonshire.
Horace Syder, builder, Liverpool.
Jesse Terrey, tiuman, Rowell, Northamptonshire.
Thomas Wright, joiner, Salford, Lancashire.
Matthew Wilkinson, shawl manufacturer, Laneshaw-
bridge, Lancashire.
J. Spenceley, licensed 'victualler, Kingston-upon-Hull.
W. H. Wild, grocer, Higher Ardwick, Manchester.
Thomas Windlow, cabinet maker, South Shields.
D. W Collyns, attorney-at-law, Swindon, Wiltshire.
Joseph Atkinson, grocer, Rockcliffe, Cumberland.
John Ratclitf, plumber, Stanstead, Essex.
Bartrup Crump, omnibus driver, Dover.
James Surnmerfield, farmer, Ardsweed, Cheshire.
John Chapman, cloth manufacturer, Frome Selwood,
Somersetshire.
M. A. Clarke, out of business, Slough, Buckinghamshire.
John Harding, appraiser, Deptford.
Alexander Macdonell, grocer, Oldham.
Samuel Clarke, grocer, Manchester.
James Isted, beerseller, Northfleet.
E. Parsons Lillicrap, East Stonehouse, Devonshire.
W. Francis Macininn, provision merchant, Lllanwchllyn,
Merien,-thshi re.
Joseph Robinson, journeyman hairdresser, Manchester.
Thomas Smith, carpenter, Woolwich.
John Blackbrough, coal owner, Northowram, Yorkshire.
David Byturd, band toaster, Chatham.

COURSE Ok' EXCtii
Ara., t ero atu • • • • • • • 11 In p
Ditto, three months .. 11 1 is .

LNG-E.-(i11,1S DAY.)
(4zeraltax•••• •• •• •• •• ••
30 40
tieaoa •• .• 25 40
siiian .• •• •••••• •• ••
Venice.. •• ........
Naples .• .• •• •• •• •• •• 41%
124
Me.sina •• •• e• •• •• •• •• 1241{
•• •• 53S
Janeiro • • ••
,;uerms Ayres
Sow York,6odays'sight
hiladelphia ••••••

Rotterdam .• •••• • • • • 11 18
Antwerp •••••••• •• • • • • 25 22y,
Brussels.. ••.•—• • • • • - 25 52yi
flaraburgh .• •• • • M.B. 13 8
...... • • • • • •
Paris, 5 days'gight • 25 2%
Ditto, 3 months .... 25 2
Marseilles •••••• • • .• • • 25 25
Bourde.4ux.. •••• • • • •
rrankfort on 31,111-va•• ••
8er1in................
Vienna, elec. do •••• •• 1 I 50
Trieste, ditto.. •••• • • • 11 52
Petersburgli, Itble•• 3734
Madrid • • .• •••• • • • • • • 49
Cadiz .. •• • • •• •• •• 5038
BareCiOlif. • •• •••• • ••

PLICE6 •)l BULLION, PER OS,
rorelg n Gold in 14ars.. L 3 17 9
Vortugal Gold Coin .. 0 0 0
ioanish Doubloons .. 0 0 0

New Dollars . 0 4 IN
Silver in bars ........ 0 5 0%

Tun LAW Or BURIAL.—Some months ago a
memorial addressed to the archbishops and bishops of the
provinces of Canterbury and York upon the present unsa-
tisfactory state of the law of burial, was extensively circu-
lated amongst the clergy. The result is that about 4,000 of
this body have attached their signatures thereto, and the
committee who were charged with the management of it
have presented it to the archbishops and bishops. No offi-
cial re ly has yet been given, but it is understood that many
of the right rev. prelates have signified their willingness to
attend to the rEquisition, and have expressed their approba-
tion of its object.

SALE OF BEER.—The Bill prepared and brought
into the House of Commons to amend the laws relating to
houses licensed for the sale of beer, by Sir J. Pakington,
Mr. Deedes, Mr. Headlam, and Mr. Brotherton, has been
printed. The principal objects proposed by the Bill are—
to require
proper certificates of the character of persons ap-
plying for licences—to restrict licences to sell beer to be
drunk on the premises to real residents or occupiers, and to
houses rated at not, less than 20/. per annum in cities, towns,
&c., containing 10,000 inhabitants, 151. in places exceeding
2,5C0 inbahitants, and 101. a year elsewhere. Persons
licensed before the passing of the Act may have licences
granted to them whilst they occupy the same house, although
it be below the qu'ilification. No debt for beer, &c., drunk
on the p remises will be recoverable at law.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS,JuIy 21.

Mr. REYNOLDS presented a petition from Knights•
bridge in favour of the continuance of the Crysta'
Palace.

ALDERMAN SALO MONS' RENEWED ATTEMPT

TO TAKE HIS SEAT.

The SPEAKER stated that he had received a letter from
David Salomons, Esq., relative to the entry of the proceed-
ings of the House on Friday last in his case, which he read,
as follows:

" Great Cumberland-place, July 21st, 1851.
" Sir,—l take the liberty to call your attention to a very
important omission in the record of the proceedings of the
House of Commons on Friday last, of all notice of my de-
mand to subscribe the oath of abjuration, and to declare to
my property qualification.
" Immediately after I had taken the oaths I read from a
paper which I held in my hand the following words, ' I have
now taken the oaths, in the form and with the ceremonies
that I declare to be binding on my conscience, in accord-
ance with the stat. 1 and 2 Vict. cap. 105, I now demand to
subscribe the oath of abjuration, and to declare my property
qualification.'
"No notice has been taken, in the proceedings above re-
ferred to, of my having made this demand. You will there-
fore, I am sure, Sir, pardon me for drawing your attention to
the subject, and respectfully requesting that the minutes of
the proceedings of Friday last bs amended. With the ut-
most respect, 1 have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient
and humble servant,

" DAVID SALOMONS.

" To the Right Honourable the Speaker." ---
Whereupon the Speaker explained that the entry in the
votes had been carefully consid,red; that the declara-
tion of Alderman &dolmans way made after he had
been desired to withdraw, and therefore could not bo
noticed as a proceeding of the House. Moat of that
which the Hon. Member for Greenwich said was per-
fectly inaudible in this immtdiAe part of the House;
but it appeared Distinctly to me that after the Hon.
Gentleim had omitted the words " on the true faith of
a Christian," and, the clerk at the table having reported
that omission to me, I bad orthred the Hon. Gentleman
to withdraw, it was the Hon. Gentkmau's duty there-
upon to withdraw—(Hear, hear)—and, not having so
withdrawn, any statement eut36cquently made in the
elouse by the Hon. Gentleman was not before the House,
and had no claim to be placed on the records of the House.
Sir B. HALL then rose, and addressing the Speaker
said—Sir, it may be convenient to put the question
Which my Right Honourable Friend the Chancellor
Of the Exchequer,; on Friday evening, requested

might be rope ?.trd this evening when t}.e isTob'e
Lord e.t the head of the Government was present.
It would be in the recollection of the House that before
the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich with-
drew he occupied a seat where his Honourable
Fri-.nd the Member for Southwark (Sir W. Moles-
worth) now sat [the front row below the gang-
way on the Ministerial side of the House], and that
you repeated your desire ttiat the Hon. Gentleman should
withdraw below the bar of the Howse. It will also be in
the recollection of the House that after the Hon. Gentle-
man had so withdrawn I stated to the House that it was
the anxious desire of the Hon. Gentleman to take such
steps as might be necessary for carrying out not
only the wishes of his constituents, but also to take such
steps as might enable him to take his seat in this as-
sembly, and that the Hon. Gentleman did not desire to
take any course which might be displeasing
or inconvenient to the house, but that he
was resolved, so far as lay in his power,
to take his seat as a Member of the Legislature. I then
asked my Right Hon. Friend whether, as the Hon.
Gentleman hart certainly taken a seat within the
bar of the House—whether, under such circum-
stances, if the Government may determine or
may think he became amenable to the law, they
intend to instruct the Attorney-General to prosecute, in
order that this question may be fairly brought to an
issue; and I intimated that if he did not think he had
become amenable to the law, or that a prosecution
would fairly lay, that the Honourable Gentleman
would take the still further step of voting as a
Member of the House, and thereby render himself per-
fectly amenable to any penalties which the statute
directed. The question, therefore, which I put to the
Noble Lord at the head of the Government is, whether
he intends, or is prepared to authorise the prosecu
tion, at the instance of the Attorney- General, against
the Hon. Member for Greenwich? _

Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I think the Hon. Baronet
is hardly justifit,cl is asking me what the Government in-
tend, or what they do not intend to do upon the question
of prosecuting a Member of this House for taking his
seat without taking the oaths. Ism ready to say, however,
reserving to the Government the liberty of future action,
that at present wo are not disposed to think that we
ought to prosecute Mr. Alderman Salomons for so doing.
Sir B. HALL—I wish now to state the course which
I think the Hon. Member for Greenwich ought to pur-
sue. We are all agreed I think, that so far as the Hon.
Gentleman has at present acted, he has aced
with perfect fairness towards her Majesty's Go-
vernmont.—(Hear, hear.) He has not condescended
to any subterfuge whatever, and in consequence of the
answer which the Noble Lord has given to my question,
I think the only course which the Hon. Member for
Greenwich can pursue is to come within the bar of the
House to take his seat in this House at once.—(Hear.)

Mr. Alderman SALOMONS then descended from the
seat which be bad occupied in the trout row of the Peers'
gallery, and advancing up the floor of the House,
took his seat on the front bench below the
gangway on the Ministerial side of the House.
This proceeding of his was saluted with
loud cheers from his supporters, accompanied by demon-
strations of a contrary nature from his opponents, and
at the moment he took the seat the uproar was so great
that it was with difficulty that we could hear
The SPEAKER, who said, I wish to call the atten-
tion of the House to the fact that there is present
now a Member who has not taken the oath of abjura-
tion. I must, therefore, repeat my former request, and
desire him at once to withdraw.
This was followed by loud cries of " Withdraw"
from the Opposition side of the House, accom-
panied by cheers from the immediate supporters of
the Honourable Alderman. In the midst of the
uproar Lord John Russell rose and attempted to address
the Speaker, but his voice was ivauciible, and at, the
same time Mr. Bernal Osborne rushed forward
from the lower end of the House, forcing his
way with difficulty through the excited Members who
crowded the upper row of benches, bearing a paper in
his hand, which ho handed to the Speaker, without at-
tempting to read it, amidst the noise and turmoil.
The SPEAKER here said—A motion has been handed
to me, but as the question before the House is a question
of order it takes precedence of all others.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL again rose, but was not able to
address the Speaker, owing to the continued tumult
which reigned, of which cries of " Withdraw," " Chair,"
" Order," were the most prominent features. During
the whole of this scene Alderman Salomons continued
to retain the seat in the body of the House which he had
originally occupied, next to Sir W. Molesworth, undis-
turbed by the cries with which he was assailed.
The SPEAKER then said—lf the Hen. Member per-
sists in refusing to obey my order to withdraw, I must
appeal to the House to support me. That order can only
be enforced by a vote of the House.—(Cheers, and cries
of " Withdraw.")
Lord J. RUSSELL then rose. He said—lt seems to
me perfectly clear, and it is a matter which I shall not
waste any time in discussing, that the House ought
to support the Speaker.—(Loud cheers.) I do
not believe that the Speaker has authority
to enforce his order without a regular vote of the House,
and I therefore now move that Mr. Alderman Salomons
be ordered to withdraw.—(Cheers.)
Mr. B. OSBORNE—I rise to move an amendmept,
the purport of which I have already placed in your
hands. I beg you. Sir, to read that amendment.
Mr. C. ANSTEY seconded the amendment.

The SPEAKER then, amid loud cries, put both the
original motion for the withdre wal of Mr. Alderman
Salomons, and the amendment, which was, that Mr.
Alderman Salomons having been duly returned for the
borough of Greenwich, and having take❑ the usual
oaths—(No, no)—in the manner most binding on his
conscience—(No, no)—is entitled to take his seat in this
House.

The reading of the amendment was followed by a re-
petition of uproar, which had ceased only when the
Speaker had commenced. Loud cries of " Divide, di-
vide" now followed; in the midst of which Mr. Anstey
rose, and was saluted with groans and cries of " Oh, oh."
Mr. ANSTEY wished to give the House an opportu-
nity of answering the case which he was about to put
to them.—(oh, oh.) It was said that Alderman Salo-
mon& had not taken the oaths prescribed by law; but he
insisted that he had, for the oath of abjuration, which
it was alleged the Hon. Member had not completed, was
not prescribed by law. The Hun. and Learned Member
was continuing his address, but the uproar was so great
that it was impossible to hear what he said. At length,
however, he abruptly resumed his seat, moving the ad-
journment of the debate.
The galleries were accordingly cleared, and the
House divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment ... 65
Against it ... ... 257
Majority against it ----192
On our return to the gallery we found Alderman
Salomons still in his seat, and
Mr. M. GIBSON on his legs asking a question.
He said he understood the Speaker to say on
Friday last that the Hon. Member for Greenwich
must withdraw because he had not taken the
oath in the sense in which the House understood the
Act. Now, he wished to ask the Speaker whether he
could refer him to any minute of their proceedings, in
which would appear the sense in which the House un-
derstood the Act. He wished to proceed upon as much
information as possible, and he should therefore be glad
to know in what form, during the present session of
Parliament, the sense of the House had been taken as to
its understanding the Act.—(Hear, hear.)
The SPEAKER said he made no references whatever
to any decision of the House during the present session.
He referred to a decision come to by the House
last session under precisely similar circumstances.
The Baron Lionel de Rothschild was returned
for the City of London, and took the oaths in precisely
the same way that th,y have been taken by Mr. David
Salomons. The House, upon being made aware of the
omisson from the oath. came to the resolution that
the Baron Lionel de Rothschild was not entitled to
sit, he not having taken the oath of abjuration required
by law.—(Cheers.)
Mr. M. GIBSON said he was not present then, and
therefore he was not aware of that proceeding.—(oh.)
He wished to ask the Speaker whether the resolution
of last session, relating to another person, was
binding upon them now?—(Heir, hear.) He also
wished to ask whether the words of the resolu-
tion pointed out the form of taking the oaths as re-
quired by law, so as to point to the conclusion that the
form in which Alderman Salomons proposed to take
them was not the forni required by law.—(Hear, hear.)

Lord J. RUSSELL rose to order. It was not corn-
peteut for a Member to draw the Speaker into a debate
upon what the House had already none.—(Hear.) He
found by the minutes of their proceedings, that there
was a resolution come to last year that the
" Baron Lionel de Rothschild is not entitled to vote
in this Rouse or to sit in the House during any debate
until be Las taken the oath of abjuration in the form ap-
pointed by law." Now the Speaker went upon the au-
thority of that resolution, and he (Lord John Russell)
believed the Speaker had a perfect right to do so.
Mr. NI ILN ER GIBSON apologised to the Speaker for
having troubled him a second timo with the question,
but he was not in the House towards the close of last
session, and was, therefore, not fully aware of what then
passed.—(Ohl oh!)
Mr. ANS rEY then
proceeded to address the House,
and was received with cries of "Sp, ke, spoke ;" but he
informed Hon. ilemeera who were interrupting him
that he had not yet sp iken to the original question, and
he was allowed to proceed. The question before them,
as raised by the Hon. Member for Manchester, related
to Alderman Salomons, and not to Baron Rothschild.
No decision had yet been come to in the Alderman's
case. The House would remember that last year the
result of a similar inquiry to this was a resolution,
pledging itself to take the matter into its serious eonsi-
deration in the then next session of Parliament,
but up to this very hour that pledge remained
Tdhe oaths had been taken by
yet they refused to let them
5
unfulfilled. Only look at the inconsistency they were
lulling into. They acknowledged Baron Rothschild and
Alderman Salomons to be the sitting Members for Lon-
don alindollneoGaurrr'eaebhnleweircidh): and yet
for Greenwich in the firm
prescribed by the Ist and 2d Victoria. The words which
he had omitted were not required to be taken by law.—
(Hear, hear.) The Act (:f Parliament to which be re-
ferred was a declaratory Act, and it provided that in all
cases where oaths were required to be taken they should
be administered in the form which the party taking them
deemed to be most binding on his conscience.--..(Hear,
hear.) It was with the authority of that Act that
Alderman &demons omitted the words "cn the trio
faith of a Christian ;" and ho contended that
the law fully entitled him to do so.—(Hear, hear.)
He considered not that the Hon. Member had not sworn
according to the Act of Parliament, but that he had
sworn too mueh.-(Laughter.) Since the death of
George 111. the oath of abjuration had ceased to
be a lawful oath. It died with the dynasty

h- which it w

be imposed stow. site, ro ten u te,
111. the lino of the Stuarts was still in existence, and
therefore at that time the oath had its appropriate mean-
ing. The oath originated in the reign of William 111.,
and it was intended to quench for ever the claims which,
on the death of James 11. abroad, descended on his son.
After the abdication of James 11., and during the
remainder of his lifetime, the oath oabjuration was not
so much as thought of ; it was therefore not directed
against James 11., but against his descendants, and as
often as the claim descended from father to son, there
was a reason for maintaining the oath. Now.
however, all claims of the descendants of
James 11. were extinguished by death—the last sur-
vivor of the Stuart line having died—and consequently
there were no grounds fit administering such an oath as
the oath of abjuration. He contended that the liberties of
the people of the country were older than thirty years, which
time had been alleged by the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russel )
as sufficient for a precedent, and he consequently gave it as
his opinion that his Hon. Friend Alderman Salomons should
be allowed the privilege of taking the oath according to his
conscience. Again, in case his Hun. Friend the Member for
Greenwich acted in such a manner as to iveur a penalty, it
was not for the House of Commons to decide, but it should
be left to the judgment of the courts of common law. He
then argued that it was unjust and unfair for that House to
take upon it rights and privileges which solely belonged to
those courts of justice. He strongly reprobated the prece-
dent that the Noble Lord (Lord John Russell) wished to lay
down by his opposition to his Hon. Friend's taking the
oaths according to his conscience, and also his seat for the
borough of Greenwich. He should at the same time say
that he felt fully convinced that the courts of law would
have no effect in the present case; because freedom of speech
and of debate which were enjoyed by the Members of that
House within it, could not be in any way impeached in
a court of law. However, the case of his Honourable
Friend (Mr. Alderman Salomons) was one which, if not
rectified by a requisition of the House, he would at
least wish that any opinion should be suspended till
the decision of a court of law was known. He could quote
several eminent authorities in sustentation of the case
of all freedom and privtlege being allowed to the Jews as
well as to Roman Catholics, but would confine himself to one
great anthority. Blaekstone decided that Jews and monks
have an equal right to hold land, and he was prepared to
prove that the Jews bought and sold, reeeived and gave
land, from the time of Edward 111., thus showing that under
the feudal system the Jews enjoyed the same rights and pri-
vileges as any other sect of subjects. He would also refer to
the large subsidy that bad been given to Henry 111. by the
community of the Jews, who were then privileged to sit with
the nobles and the clergy, and also to exercise similar privi-
leges. Again, by the 13th William 111., Roman Catholics
were not precluded from sitting in Parliament, because the
oath to be taken was not adverse to their consciences no
more than the Jews; and he should here remark, that the
abjuration oath was never framed against the Jewish per-
suasion. It was intended to bind the subjects of this realm
to an allegiance to the Crown, in opposition• to the exiled
family of the Stuarts; and, so far did his Hon. Friend bind
himself, for he took not only the oath of allegiance, but he
also swore that her Majesty the Queen was the highest eccle-
siastical authority in this realm. These oaths were, in his opi-
nion, legal oaths, and beyond them he could not conscientiously
go ; and he thought a high-minded man such as he merited
the esteem of society in general. He should next refer to
another place where the decision of this House had been re-
cently frustrated ; and he asked, was it net the duty of the
House of Commons to preserve its rights and privileges, and
not to be overpowered by that other place ?—(Laughter, and
cries of " Divide, divide.") He should next refer to the case
of Mr. Pease, who took his seat in the House without hav-
ing taken any of the three oaths, while his Hon. Friend
took two of them, and the third he refused, because it was
not consistent with his conscience —Hear, hear.) He con-
sidered that it was the duty of the House of Commons to
frame an oath to suit the consciences of all sects, such as is
done in the law courts. The Quaker is not asked to swear
—the Jew is not asked to swear on " the true faith of a
Christian." In fact, the oath shoukd be administered in that
House as in the courts of law. He then referred to Lord
Brougham, who, in the case of a Mahommedan or Chinese
witness, adopted the oath most binding on the consciences of
each. He therefore contended that the Hon. Member for
Greenwich having taken the oath in the form which he con-
sidered binding on his conscience, was entitled to retain his
seat as a Member of that House.
There being now loud calls for a division, strangers were
ordered to withdraw; but in a few minutes the gallery was
again opened, no division having taken place. On our re-
turn to the gallery,
Mr. OSBORNE was claiming his right to reply, on the
ground that be had moved the substantive motion, although
by mistake the Speaker had put it as an amendment.
This gave rise to loud cries of" Order, order," and "Chair,
chair," and resulted in
The SPEAKER stating that the motion before the House
was made by the Noble Lord at the head of the Govern-
ment. To that motion the Hon. Member for Middlesex
(Mr. Osborne) had moved an amendment, and upon that
amendment, according to the forms of the House, he had no
right to reply.—(Cheers.)
Mr. HOBHOUSE said he was given to understand that
no motion was made previous to the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex moving his amendment, and that being the case,
that Hon. Member had a full right to reply.—(Loud cries of
" Order, order.")
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Member is wrong in supposing
that no motion was made. The Noble Lord the Member for
the city of London made the motion now before the House,
and it was to that motion that the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex moved his amendment--(Cheers.)
Mr. HOBHOUSE said the judgment of the Chair being
indisputable in that House, he would at once bow to it. He
believed, however, that he was entitled to address the House,

and he would shortly state his reasons why the Hon. Member
who had just taken his seat for Greenwich should not with-
draw. On a former occasion he had heard the present
Solicitor-General express himself with the greatest zeal in
favour of the principle which those who thought with him
now sought to establish, in so far as the admission of Jews
into Parliament was concerned; and he now hoped that be-
fore the House divided on the question now beeire it, some
of those Honourable and Learned Gentlemen who occupied
seats on the Treasury Bench would state their opinions
upon the subject.—(Cheers.) His own opinion was, that the
Honourable Member who had just been elected for Green-
wich was entitled to his seat ; and as to the penalties he
might incur by taking it, that ought to be put off for after
consideration. There could be no doubt that several minors
had occupied seats in that House; and that was just as
much, and a great deal more so, against the law than was
the admission of Jews into that House. In the time of
Charles the Second several minors had seats in the House
of Commons ; and later than that, Charles James Fox was
elected a member of that House while he was a minor. But
besides that it had already been decided in the case of the
sheriffs. that the House had no power to inflict penalties;
and that being the case, he did not see why they should not
allow the Hon. Member for Greenwich to take his seat. The
electors of every borough and county in the country had a
right to return any person to Parliament whom they pleased,
and the electors of Greenwich having returned the Hon.
Member whose case was now under consideration, he con-
sidered that that Hon. Gentleman had as much right to his
seat as the Speaker himself had, and he was happy in having
an opportunity of supporting his right to it.—(Hear, hear,
and cries of "Oh, oh!" and "Question, question.") That
was the question. The question before the House was a
Jewish question, it was not whether Hon. Members should
get to dinner or not.— (Laughter, and cries of " Oh, oh.")
The opinion he had come to on that question was, that the
Hon. Member h .d a perfect right to his seat, and he was de-
termined to support him in maintaining that right.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he did not concur in
the opinion that any Honourable Member had a right to
take his seat in that House without taking the prescribed
oaths, and vote, under the threat of being subjected to penal-
ties. The House, in such a case as the present, had a duty
to perform.— (Hear.) The Act of Parliament appointed cer-
tain oaths to be taken by Members before they were entitled
to take a seat in that House, and nothing could be plainer,
that no one without taking these oaths could take their seat
in that House. The Act of Parliament was express, that no
person should be admitted to sit and vote in that House who
had not taken the oath of abjuration, and the question then
was, would the House allow any one to sit and vote in it
who refused to take such oath? In his opinion it was the duty
of the House, not only to obey the law, but also to enforce it
when it had the power to do so, and the House having last
year, while discussing this same question, decided that it
was requisite to contorm to the forms of the House, with re-
spect to oaths, before Members took their seats, he saw no
reason now to disturb that decision—at the same time he
felt bound to say that no one would be more ready than he
into
Parliament. be to admit members of the Jewish persuasion
Parliament. He thought it was by a mere accident in the
d he wording of the Act that they were excluded, but as_th lawhet
at present stood he would not be doing his duty id
insist that the oaths which Honourable Members were to
take, before beirez admitted to seats in theae.
t
r_) House, should in
all respects be complied with.—(Hear, h
Mr. M. GIBSON considered that the House was placed
in considerable difficulty in respect of the difference of opi-
nion which prevailed amongst the most eminent lawyers in
that House upon the subject. One Learned Gentleman, the
Attorney-General under a former Government, had told them
that swearing on the Old Testament was altogether illegal,
and that the New Testament was a sine qua non on taking
any oath. The present Attorney-General told them, on the
other hand. that a party was at liberty to swear upon the
Old Testament provided they aid so upon the true faith of a
Uhristian."—(Hear, hear.) While the present Solicitor-
General had. on a former occasion, laid it down that even if
a party swore on the Old Testament and omitted the words
" on the true faith of a Christian,,! he would be taking a good
and valid oath."—( Hear, hear.) Now such being the diver-
sity of opinion amongst the legal Members of the House, he
thought they ought to consider Well before they came to a
decision on the subject. It appeared to him that if they con-
sidered the words "on the true faith of a Christian" essential,
what was the use of allowing them to be sworn on the Old
Testament? When there was such diversity of opinion, they
should act with great caution before compelling the Hon.
Member for Greenwich to withdraw. Without the slightest
wish to shrink from supporting the authority of the Crown,
he mast, nevertheless, vote against the motion of the Noble
Lord.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he took upon himself
the whole responsibility of advising Baron Rothschild, last
session, not to take his seat. Ile was far from saying that
the law was clear upon the point at issue, and his own opi-
nion of what was the law remained the same a 3 it was last
year. The House bad, however, come to a different conclu-
sion in the case of Baron Rothschild, and that decision was,
in fact, a judgment in which he did not agree, but which he
thought they were bound to recognise and obey. Under
these circumstances he thought no course was left him but
to support the motion, that Mr. Alderman Salomons be di-
rected to withdraw. It was their imperative duty to up-
hold the decision of the House. Not only was there a clause
in the Act which imposed penalties, on the conduct the Hon.
Gentleman had pursued, but another Act, in exp-ess and
mandatory terms, directed that no person should sit or vote
in that House without taking the oaths prescribed according
to law. It followed, therefore, as a matter of course, that
until these decisions were reversed, they had no other course
to pursue but to support the Itoble Lord's motion.
Mr. CLAY thought the question was virtually settled, for
they had amongst them, sitting and voting with them, one
of the most amiable and intelligent of an amiable and in-
telligent race.--(Hear, hear.) The tide of religion never
flowed back in this country, and they might rely upon it
that those of his (Alderman Salomon's) religion would cer-
tainly follow through the door he had opened with the loss
of a little more or less of dignity on the part of the House,
according to the length to which the struggle might be pro-
tracted.— (Hear, hear.) The majority of that House had
over and over again decided on admitting Jews to Par-
-1 ament, but they were defeated in their intentions by
the Lords. The mistake, however, they (the Commons)
made, was in consulting any person on the subject but them-
selves.—(Hear, hear.) 1 hey should have asserted their own
right to alter the mode of admission, in their own House to
suit the consciences of the Jews, just as they him done in
the case of the Quaker and the Moravian. It would have
been a better course to declare that they had the power
and the will to admit the Honourable Gentleman (Mr.
Alderman SAlomons) to those rights which his constituents

.1- •;!nr-P

h

,;.
Mr. CHARLES VILLIERS wished to know, if there wail
a member of the Stuart family now living, and if the Hon.
Member farms Greenwich were to take his part against the
reigning ly, whether the law officers of the Crown would
or would not think him, after the oath he had now sworn,
amenable to an indictment. for perjuryi
? That was • the
whole question, and he wished to have an answer to t
from the Learned Attorney or Solicitor-General. He thouGgn-
ht
that a mistake es to the decision which the Right Hon.
tleman (the Speaker) had given. The Speaker bad not in-
terpreted the law. He merely stated to the House, its
was his duty, the resolution adopted in Baron Rothschild
case last session by the House. That rest:dation
unde: he
(Mr. Villiers), however, contended left the question
cided. It was not satissactory in its results, and it seemedto him that they might rescind it. The oath of abjuration,
in all its essentials, he contended had been taken by the lion;
Member for Greenwich, and that having been done, that
they had no right to persevere further in endeavouring t
keep Mr. Alderman Salomons, because of his Jewish perstur
sion, out of the House If they persisted in continued exhi:
bition of hate and hostility to those whom they bad Prose
cuted, they would have cast upon them all the scorn and c°
tempt they deserved.—(
LordJOHN RUSSELL said,Cheers.) he did not think his ilten•
Friend the Member for Wolverhampton had attended to the
question before the House. The Honourable Member
Greenwich having appeared at the table, and Bit)
much of the oath of abjuration as bad been taken Ion)
Rothschild, the question was asked him (Lord John it srsaeb
whether it would be right to prosecute the Hole
Member for the penalties he had incurred under the
o.,';‘,
Parliament. His reply was, that he thought not; u
.ost_thiladt,
was about to move a resolution in the same words
which had been adopted in the case of Baron Rooth bill,
which
in order that the whole question would h tbe
the House, and that they might either confirm or raver
_ow,
decision of last year; but before he could move thatdrnirea
tion the Hon. Baronet the Member for Marylebone
into
the
that the Hen. Member for Greenwich should co
thea House,
Speaker,e , t akehaiss seat,be b a
had done
bveo tlea.st
yTehaer,Raingah taolijotni:aGsTeehnbilletl ruoalitoli
to do, asked the Hon. Member to withdraw. 11) was
Member did not comply, and he (Lord John Ensseht Hold
n.
then compelled to ask the House to support the OA
Gentleman, by agreeing to the resolution that he,rwhe..
withdraw. The question before the House was sinTYst vest
his not
or not the House, having adopted a resolutionf t
that Baron Rothschild should withdraw, because 0
taking the oath of abjuration according to law, tf's seat
Member for Gremwich should come there and take_noron
and vote. Considering the decision of the House which
Rothschild's cave, aid looking at the grounds oo
nstro
he was ordered to withdraw, it did seem to Jahn a 1113 Of the
thing, while that resolution remained on the journs
old be per
House that the lion. Member for Greenwich 3h ° uose ifb°
mitted to retain his seat. It did even ap
maintained that that decision was erroneous and c°•ol2 of ths
law, might say "llst respect be shown toPesarretsh:itutituntr'irit°
to the
House," He thought that there was no other cow:mei:4r Of
House now to take than to decide that the ion. m should
Greenwich should withdraw. - (Hear.) what thesl The
proceed to do after that decision was another Inat!teio from
Hon. Member had placed himself in a different Pnrs ratios
that taken by Baron Rothschild, in consequence of iffereirce
seat and voting. It was a grave question volet'„o R° s.
they should make between his case and that of Pa,r",, Jeol
child.—(Hear.) Those who were for the adinie'°-03i0g
itbout . tight
into Parliament were not bound to do so vo Be toe
some declaratory Act for the urpose•—(ll°4l7lle ) Tbthe
that the state of the law was Pmost defective.--v,i.iir:•on -e
found that, in this case of the Quaker, the wor"„,,
true faith of a Christian" were omitted, and he ,er-jetts w;;i
5110 0
to make his affirmaion ;” but in the case of th' than 1
oath was required, to be taken more in shh.rsttuctaeke
form, and as the oath now stood, should the Je",,,, 001.;
would subject hi al to pains and penalties ter tu" were 'I;
sion of perjury.— (Hear.) It was said that there,,ihiliCh
eeptions to the ad ministration of the law, disting"the oPti
from the general rule, and it was urged that i 0
00,
should merely be administered in form, as it Well ioc°l3s;it
of law. He must say that nothing could be more 00
tent in the proceedings of the Hou-e than to hav,l/„P- A la r
books a law, such as that now under cons derat'e-nd-seeei,
which called on the Jew to violate his conscience,,a; be IL
"on the true faith of a Christian ;" but until ths' 'B,oold
tered, he believed that the House of Commons law+ anti
ready to set an example of obedience to L„'e or 910
that no consideration would induce them to violatettie slob
up against Hear, and cheers, amidst which SSP
Lord resumed his seat.) „ to
Mr. BETHELIs could not give a silent voten"! he
ject. He was very sorry that he could not agirea thttiot
Noble Lord in all that he had expressed, and %Is"- fie d
could induce the Noble Lord to- agree with hin3, • 000, "tsif
dissent from the opinions given by several v that the
Learned Members on this question, and roust ,71,' h,sOY
oath of abjuration had beeh well and legally “Thellit
Hon. Member for Greenwich, and that he Was now
o*-1
tially the Member for that bcrough, and entitled °roil
hat House.. -(Hear, and cheers.) The Hon. `Me sea tits ear)
rented himself at the table of the House, and ta,'l.4 sr, to
in the mane er most binding on his conscienee---hk-00egbt
—and that eras the true sense in which the oat.' id not -
administered) to him.—(Hear, hear.) They sh°,l,loo,llite.ol
a form of law contradictory to the spirit OW So
binding on the conscience of the person to ite„s"-- thssts.i
dered au oath. - (Hear.) He could show the o',e,-presdt?l„ 01,
owls of abjuration had been from time to time a". Tied ien'dios
tote, according to the circumst'nces which
•en- the Deb
alteration._ The 10th of George 1., which recites'. itheSl3,o
George 1., cap. 4, had the express provision, tlia:bitafe:lol,
any member of the Jewish religion should pr'ese„ril be ,ire
take the said oath of abjuration, the oath shoo ose;ts
nistered to him in the form most binding on cow ,„8"
and in the manner in which he was sworn ". Georreol
law.—(Hear, hear.) Now that was the 10th 01,0000,
and the preamble of that Act laid down, that ";,1 all Ole
would be :read yto come to the aid of the Jews tbd
ters re atimg to their right of citizenship, and the to 09-6tll
fore laid (lessen that no course should be take°, Thepsasi,
unfairly against the Jews as citizens —alest);;,
George the 'Third did not make a new. oath, 'estio s
that the oath of abjuration should be taken iti„..'",;
mannervi most binding on the conscience of the oe„'•' copti
It
an indemndiimtythtthaototsebsceeuivnre to him the rights °I ssOelellO
thepp Jew,red to
abh egraltbAectsstaptreovbidfetlitelic,,!:„oloo:o:t;
for
impress upon the House that they could not Pr withe:oi
on the trine faith of a Christian," on the Jetr;,.; tel" op'
inconsistency; and that, should they p rsevere,"-la
the Jew so to take the oath, they ilted be 14°'-t stP•
science, and acting in opposition to the spirit of theoskot
There were. many instances of alterations in th° f°r ofOrpol
law; and, in point of fact, there was not a Pettl, sossif
any court of law, or part of the kingdom, r-the P"ht,
at liberty to administer the oath to the Jew. 'II
ner in which. he desired to take it, as most
bin'? 140 1/13ti,s
conscience, handing to him the Old Testantes" otheir hit
to swear. 41.nd here, in the House of Cointtr„lll g og.
dered to hint the Old restament, as most iossi,--irat) to-Stsp
conscience, and as the form which they wished ',lme to
by, and yet it was proposed to him at the
vssioraittti4 ;44
an oath which he could not take without
science. If the House would be consistent,
_iat'fisteths_till°.
nister the oath to the Jew presenting Inins,"":` tared %ell`
in the mannser and form in which it was atirainie.„,;et t°
theorem.- boasneo;oo,
in courts of law, and under the sanction of
judges; and in that spirit he considered the,'
administer the oath to him. - (Hear, h ) Their bi
should be bound by reference, in relation to the :t013111%%401°
tecedents; :and with reference to any former
theirs in rel talon to any other party, there wag--te t. 17
sidered, any thing to b.nd them with respect to the /
who had that evening presented himself at the ts-acjelsfs
House to take the oaths most binding Oil bile 00137,06 001
(Hear.) .H:e would no longer trespass on th "Silioin sof
to say that he believed the Hon. Member (Ar• w fool)
to be as mush a Member of the House,by law, as anfotelist
who at that moment sat within its walls.- Loud
eodj
Sir F. THESIGER—The Hon. and Learned, ioo
seemed to have laid down the principle, that thos Ater
not agree with him in his view of the law were not 'do ,iOL,
informed either in the common or eta ute la editS t)
much as he did not agree with the Hon. and Learn abei
ber, he tell within that description. (Hear, and Isll,lo to
8
He agreed that the House had brought itself into
inconsistency, by allowing two out of three oaLsonh t
mititanht,h:ebaoering
taken by the Honourable Gentleman. He had °two- d
to resist that, feeling that the course was sorong'h- stld,
to qualify a man to be a Member of the House ":306 '0!
take the three oaths, including that " p.O the 104,09
.hLrei Friendsgtiisalan
t.l had endeavoured I nayddeoeafiartt;sheoeluhf rweseaohdrrb.
dtw)os
shown
,otilaut- impress 'tilbuolon°011:::0 oursl Pr
Jt.s,,vedsi a:,
ion
that
otLbfeaatrantbedCe
taken at the table of the °• el°
rationjeo
Hbuebaurr,
,jhbeirer. the trtie 000 s
aallCo'llwrelvsdt:to take it.—
report on which his 11( in courts of law the ,_, tbS it*
was not in itself ' dra
quite satisfactor, and his 00°.°0-istii° 0 10
Learned Friend must have known Act
that the „ vi 001,
report referred was )andßLuteahrentehdourenhciloreeer4
but a '‘ temporary" Act ; it
said that the Jew might take the oath of attinr; Vieir
ting the words" on the true fai hof a Christian, to th,/
The,' iger) must say that his Honourable and bescrriorrec9
appeared to him not to have read the
...et stslitios,
(Hear
„„r , hear.) The question before the lionthe
. Alderman Salomons should withdraw frohl the
Or
Re thought the Noble Lord coul are.,
d not adopt ,7,,r for s'ht
than he had done. On Friday last the .Meal"h Oges"
with had been ordered to withdraw, and he "0" e
presence now within their walls contuttlac'?,,t P"A-bo'
hear.) It was open to move that he be taken sow oto
tody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, but a milder cou,r'-teptied"poO
followed towards him. He had intimated an :/3-bat ;elle
move the seat vacant, and to move for new Wri"tbe 1710
consideration he had made up his • a folloW
mind to sa
tion of the Noble Lord, which was the mildest,
concurrence. oPt

Mr. BETHELL explained. the sti?
never Mr. AGLIONBY said he would disobey the
of the Speaker, but in voting for the motion att tion thzio
ber for Greenxich should not withdraw, hem
fieta 14/3:010,.1
spect to the Speaker. He would ask the nict-
this could be considered a judicial decision ? Vas -.Doe
thing... He thought the Member for Greenwic'd he,',lo
a
Member as any other man in that House, ell;irse +-
support him in the manly and straightforward et:' 00110‘d
take Sin. r the tr
rR. INGLIS rose to support the authority 0. al3° sid
in a course which had been adopted last session illtbe tti
case, in no way different from this, except itutiOlitt t„°
of the individual. The Speaker had declar'7 oagaVA
Honourable Member should withdraw, and t33l;eor,r,
be enforced by the Sergeant-at-Arms. Last ibeWtP.J..
Rothschild took an oath, but not the oath Prur"aise
he would put it to the common sence of the -"„- 11:3`.,h f'a
could be considered a raking of the oath. It W,7ht
imponentis was the thing to be considered, and ",:fethe
to be taken in the plain and grammatical sense of
the oath. 6 0°
Mr. Bltl'3HT said the Noble Lord spoke se, t. for itto4
no question before the House, but that the MetputoerP„T
with should withdraw, whereas there was eri,-tioll '403,1
which was tantamount to a repeal of the rem is sav"
erAl (111 year, and thereby brought the entire question
tive form before the House. The Sulicitor-t"enroe-rdi
have acted with more consistency, if he had
same course in this case as he had taken with e°.,;;.; in Di" tit• )",
to himselfh:st year. There era two points of vie
ago
this question might be regarded. The one was Aftp-rn,.• ;
of law, and the other the question of precedent. 100'0,1'
contradictory vicsys taken of the case by 03,°„0t soft Pte'
would appear they were in the dark. He lonic' ","ioe °:to„vi
thing upon that point. With regard to the tle—r OP orf
cedent, it was said that the resolution of last Yeet wee t.ll
a precedent for the present occasion. WhY n:estedA,Dl
ggd
one a few years further back. which was 5'45- Iterljon
case of Mr. Pease, when the oath was materially at e
the words omitted upon the authority eto*iitid tdbetlieis
't
alone; and if they did that in 1832, why should
P:„eePeti4cl
have power to do as much now ? (Hear, near)
- V
AS A Vi
referred to the declaration which he noiv,
of the sect to which he belonged took 9 P' s.
showed that it was the same as that Which Ve
Mr. Pease before the law was altered to elle ohie este'
member of the Society of Friends, to take at the
House on taking his seat as the Member for 73 tbe `OOl
He would ask what was the difference betwee gdetif°
of Baron de Rothschild and Alderman Salellollo
of Mr. Pease. He confessed they were ill