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

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

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

JEWISH DISABILITIES.-CASE OF MR. ALDERMAN
SALOMONS.

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

The SPEAKER said there could be no better expression
of the Hon. Member's opinion than what was contained
in the letter referred to, which appeared in the votes of the
House.
Mr. DISRAELI said this was a question of privilege, and
took precedence of other motions, but as he considered that
the question was now decided by a vote of the House he
saw no reason why the Hon. Member for the University of
Dublin should be precluded from bringing forward his
motion with•regard to the system of national education in
Ireland.

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

Lord JOHN RUSSELL said that was not the view he
had taken of it. The question was whether Mr. Salomons
was entitled to vote. It appeared to him that the statutes
quoted in the report of the committee, 10th Geo. 1., c. 4,
and 13th Geo. 11., c. 27, made a provision for Jews taking
oaths, and that it was necessary that the oath of abjuration
should be taken upon the faith of a Christian. It appeared
to him that the form could not be altered except by an Act
of Parliament. There was a groat distinction between the
case of Baron Rothschild and that of Mr. Pease. In Mr.
Pease's case there was a power to take an oath by a Quaker
by affirmation, but there was no such power with regard to
a Jew. He concluded by moving;—" That David Salo-
mons. Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or sit in
this House during any debate, until he shall take the oath of
abjuration in the form appointed by law."
Mr. ANSTEY then rose, and said the Act under which
the oath was supposed to be administered was relaxed in the
case of Mr. Pease. He then asked how the resolution by
which that gentleman took his seat could be necessary if the
Act was sufficient, and why he had not been sworn
in the form prescribed by that Act. In fact there
was no such Act. Mr. Pease took his seat under
the sanction of a resolution of the House, which had the
power to prescribe the solemnity with which the oath should
be administered. In lieu of the old formula of the oath of
abjuration, there was substituted that the individual taking
the oath was to swear that he took the oath with neither
equivocation nor mental reservation, and willingly. The
words of " on the true faith of a Christian" were not then
put to the person swearing, but he was obliged to use the
solemnity of "So help me God." This formed the alteration
in the abjuration oath taken by the Quaker. Now he would
ask, should not some alteration be made in the ceremony
of the oath taken by a Jew, as the Quaker was indulged in the
alteration to which he just alluded? Mr. Salomons bas
required to submit his case to the authority of a court of
justice, which he considered the proper authority, as he
weuld not be heard in his place in the House. He now
wished to dispose of an argument used by the Noble Lord
(Lord J. Russell), and there was only one to which he thought
it worth while to refer. When the Noble Lord stated that
the common law was superseded by a decision of the House of
Commons, ho thought that there was some error in the Noble
Lord's assertion, for the common law and the statute law
always go side by side, unless there were words in the Act of
Parliament that abolished the common law. He next argued
that the Hon. Member for Greenwich had as good a right to
a seat in that House as Mr. Pease, who took his seat and
voted without having taken any oath whatever; and he,
therefore, contended that there was no specific law against
the admission of a Jew to his seat in that House. He ad-
mitted that the present was not an edifying decision to the
majority of the House; he felt it his duty to point out the
errors into which the Noble Lord had fallen ; and when he
confessed that he held him in the highest respect as a states •
man, he should at the same time acknowledge that he -held
him in no respect whatever as a lawyer.—( Hear, hear. )
And he was happy to say that he was sustained in that
opinion by the able and irrefutable arguments of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Bethell). Now
all he required was, that as the case was decided against
him by a great majority of the House, it should be tried by
a competent court of jurisdiction fairly, dispassionately, and
competently; because he thought that passion and prejudice
prevailed against his Hon. Friend in that House yesterday.
Whatever difference of opinion existed between him and his
friends, there was no difference whatever respecting the Noble
Lord's lino of conduct, and for that reason the Hon. Gentle-
man ( Mr. Salomons) was anxious that the Government, or
some other Member, would, if they considered that his con-
duct was improper in having taken his seat and voted, in-
stantly institute proceedings against him. No more was re-
quired, and he (Mr. Anstey) felt assured that the decision of
the Court would be decidedly in opposition to the decision
of the House. It would not at all do to decide that ques-
tion by such levity of remark, as he may " prosecute him-
self, it he pleases." He said that the people of this country,
through the wings of the press, would be roused to indig-
nation, through the ignominy offered to their fellow-coun-
tryman—to the representative (Mr. Salomons) and his
constituents—for they ever recognised such independence
as he evinced yesterday. He felt fully assured
that the Honourable and Learned Member for
Abingdom (Sir Frederick Thesiger) would not, as he
said, move for a new writ; but the object was to put the
matter off till next session. He then alluded to the 13th of
William the Third, which states, that if any Member takes
his seat and votes, without the oaths, he is subject to be
debarred from holding office, whether military or civil,
subject to a forfeit of 5001., ice. &c. Now, as the House
had decided that the Honourable and Learned Member for
Greenwich had taken his seat and voted three times with-
out having taken the oaths, he considered that it was the
idn a
thenuty
courtmo fo Gveodovfet rnh justice
following
lnlot
worinogf
againstth ehHi
amendmentm us end
on under
oe institute
Ltho
ardt John
sot
hap
ntruo
Russell'stcedinh as
resolution in lithe case of the,Member for Greenwich
" That David Salomons, Esquire, Member of Parliament for
the borough of Greenwich, having sat and voted in this
House without having taken the abjuration oath in, the
words contained and set forth in the form tendered unto
him at the table, the Attorney-General of England be ordered
to institute proceedings against him at law for such default,
pursuant to the Act 6 Geo. 3, c 53."
Sir B. HALL hoped that, in consequence of the Noble
Lord's answer, the Hon. Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey)
would withdraw his amendment.
Mr. ANSTEY would press his amendment, if no other
motion to that effect were moved.

Sir B. HALL pressed his suggestion, which was acceded
to, and the amendment was withdrawn.
Mr. BETHELL contended that Baron Rothschild and
Mr. Salomons had taken the oaths required by that House
for a Member, and were, therefore, entitled to their seats. He
should add that he considered that the question of law was
not yet fully discussed. He did not, in making that asser-
tion, mean to revive the opinions he delivered yesterday, but
he should say the answers given by Honourable and Learned
Members opposed to him were not by any means satisfac-
tory; and he therefore hoped that some better solution
would be given by those Hon. Gentlemen to the construction
he put on the Acts of Parliament to which he then alluded.
Were the House to examine the statute of George 111. they
would find that the oath of abjuration was thrown on all sub-
jects, the Jews included. He considered from the several
statutes that he had already quoted, besides those adverted to
by several Hon. and Learned Gentlemen on his side of the
House, that Baron Rothschild and Mr. Salomons were fully
entitled to take their seats and vote. When the Noble Lord
asserted that it was necessary to have the sanction of uie, or
an Act of Parliament, to abrogate the present oath of abjura-
tion, he should say that the Noble Lord borrowed that phrase
from the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite (Sir F. The-
siger). Did not the 10th George I. point out a peremptory
declaration with respect to the Jew, that the same oath of
abjuration that was taken by him in courts of justice should
be also adopted in other places?—(Hear.) By the Ist of
George I. an obligation was laid on parties to take the oath
of abjuration, but that obligation was not universal until the
Act of 9 George I. was passed, and, at the same time, these
Acts allowed Jews in courts of law to take the oath which
they considered binding on their conscience, irrespective of
the oath of abjuration, which was observed in a political
sense. If, again, Honourable Members had looked at
the other Acts, they would have found that the same
principle prevailed. The 6th of George 111. was the
last Parliamentary declaration as to taking the oath
of abjuration, and, from the tenor of it, it was plain
that the Jews were excluded from the strict forms of
the oath. In the case of Mr. Pease, the House had
taken upon itself to model the oath 80 as to suit the circum-
stances of the case, but there was no other Parliamentary
authority to do that than what was drawn from the statute,
and the obligation to administer the oath in the manner
which was binding on the consciences of those who took it,
And if that was done then, why could it not be done now ?
They were, no doubt, bound to administer the oath, and the
Jew was bound to take it, but not in the strict form in which
it was to be found in the atatato-book. If, therefore, the
House considered the matter, they would see that they had
brought themselves into a position which gave them a right
to administer an oath, but which did not give them the
power to do so in a manner to meet the cue-
He therefore
submitted that a great deal more was necessary to be done
on this subject; and, if they were not prepared to'ollo w
him to the extent he wished, he hoped they would. con-
sider in the
Committee to see what alterations couldtobe m
Parliament. It'
oath, so as to render the Jews admissibleth
all in
question to the
sider whether it might not be proper again to appoint a
they did that, they might bring back
he had read to the
dealt with, with, and he
House.—(Hear, hear.)
wpoolonitdwthheerreefoi tromaiguLt bite
tandevasointelemousenlyt
s.aid, in dealing wit this
The ATTORNEY-
far as theycould,
the con-
They were bound to ascertain, so
called upon to act, and to app the din
jm"ey. The
simple question was, did the Legislature, when it enacted
question, they had simGpElyNaEßstALrict judicial duty he perform
abjuration, of
meanP a r I
that
ni
tt
should und e r bwe h i
takench theyby
the strict sense in which it was worded? The way to as-
certain that was not to look at the Act only, but also to the
circumstances under which the Act was passed. The Act
was passed soon after the discovery of the gunpowder
plot, and its great object was to guard against an oath being
ethtrtle COtait: ofof th e
Acts
taken which any party taking it might evade by any mental
reservation. The oath was for the protection of the
King and the Government, and the words, "on the true
faith of a Christian" were introduced into it in order that it
might be considered more binding on the parties who took
it. The statutes which followed that Act were passed
for the purpose of keeping the Roman Catholics out
of power, and the model taken for the framing
of them was the statute of James 1., in which
these words were inserted. That, therefore, showed
that these words were part and substance of the oath,
and that they could not mould and form it so as to
suit the views of particular parties and particular sects. The
Honourable and Learned Member for Aylesbury had re-
ferred to the Acts of George I. and George
not stated the circumstances under which they were passed.
The object of them was to defeat attempts made on the
part of Roman Catholics to disturb the King's Govern-
ment, but if the common law run with statute, what use
and
was there for passing those statutes? The Honourable but he had
f,o
George I. was carried out in the
Learned Gentleman said that the principle of the Act of Act George Ill.row,