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

by which it was ' enacted, and ought not to
be imposed now. Before the death of George
111. the line 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 IL, and during the
remainder of his lifetime, the oath of abjuration 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 far 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. Russell)
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 Hon. Friend the Member for
Greenwich acted in such a manner as to incur 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 Salmons ) 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 authority. 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, received 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 had 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 p-ivi-
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 o their consciences no
more than the Jews; and he should here remark. that the
abjuration oath was never frame against the Jewish per-
suasion. It was intended to bi; d 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 Majoity the Queen was tae highest eccle-
siastical authority in this realm. These oaths were, in his opi-
nion, legal oat hs, 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 —kHear, hear.) He con-
sidered that it was the duty of the House of Commons to
frame an oath to suit the consciences of all recta, 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 should 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 he 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 fur Mid-
dlesex moving his amendment, and that being the case,
that Hon. Member had a full right to reply.--(Loud cries of
1" Order, order.")
The SPEAKER The Hon. Member is wrong in supposing
that no motion was made. The Noble Lord the Member ter
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 Rause divided on the question now before it, some
of those Honourable and Learned Gentlemen who occupied
seats on the Treasury Beach would state their opinions
upon the subject.—(Cheers.) His own opinion was, that the
Honourable Member who had lust 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 seYeral minors
had occupied seats in that House; and th-t was just as
much, and a great deal more so, against the law Van was
the admission of Jews into that House In the time of
Chaves the Second several tninors 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 h al 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 havin.-; 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 had 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 lastt
year, while discussing this same question, decided that
was requisite to conform 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
.thanhe
would be to admit members of the Jewish persuasion into
Parliament. He thought it was by mere accident in the
wording of the Act that they were ex cluded, but as the law
at present stood he would not be doing his duty did he not
insist that the oaths which Honourable Members were to
take, before being admitted to seats in that House, should in
all respects be complied with.—(Hear, hear.)
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 did so upon the true faith of a
Christian."—(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
4. 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
iMembers 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 ireen wich to withdraw. Without the slightest
authority of the
wish to shrink front supporting the
he must, nevertheless, vote against the motion of the Noble
Lord.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he took upon himself
the whole responsibility of advising B iron Rothschild, last
session, not to take his seat. Ile was far fri rn saying that
the law was clear upon the point at issue, and his own opi-
nion of what was he law • emained the same as it was last
year. The House had, however, come to a different conclu-
sion in he 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. ,Allerman Salomon* 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 conouct the Hon.
Gentleman had pursutd, 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 bad no other course
to pursue but to support the Noble Lord's motion.
Mr. CLAY thought the question was virtually settled, for
they had amongst them, sittiiig and voting with them, one
of the most amiable and intelligent of an amiable and in-
telligent race.—(liear, 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-
liament, but they were defeated in their intentions by
the Lords. The mistake, however, they (die Commons)
made, was in consulting any person on the subject but them-
selves.—(Hear, hear.) 'I 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 had 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 Salomon) to Um rights whioh his constituent*