The Sun.
London, England, 1851-12-09 00:00:00

TUESDAY

EVENING, DECEMBER 9, IBM.

This was an action of debt to recover from the de-

fondant three penalties of 5001. for having it at and
voted in the Commons House of Parliament without
having taken the oath of abjuration as required by
Act of Parliament.

Mr. Sergeant Channell and Mr. Macnamara ap-
peared for the plaintiff; Sir F. Kelly, Mr. Peacock,
Mr. Willis, and Mr. Goldsmid were counsel for the
defendant.

Mr. Sergeant CuaNNELL, in opening the plaintiff's
case, said that the statute upon which the present
action was brought enabled any person whatever to
sue for and recover the penalty imposed upon any
person who should presume to sit and vote before
taking the required oaths. The plaintiff in this case
was a clerk to a respectable firm of attorneys. The
defendant was well known to the jury as having been
recently elected a Member for Greenwich, of the
Jewish religion, a barrister and an alderman, and
formerly Sheriff of Kent. He (the Learned Counsel)
had had opportunities of becoming acquainted not
only with his hospitality, but with his efficiency and
his ability in the discharge of his public duties.
What he might say of the defendant, how-
ever, whether in praise or blame, was un-
important. He merely said thus much that it
might not be supposed that he entertained any feeling
of hostility to the defendant in the observations he
should feel bound to make in the case. He believed
that the oath of abjuration, upon which alone this case
would turn, was framed not merely to guarantee that
its substance should be observed, but as a means of
securing the Christianity of the country, to which we
are indebted for all the order and stability, all the
civilization and refinement which we enjoy. It was

not his purpose, however, to enter upon- the policy of
the law ; it was for those who objected to it to obtain
from the three branches of the Legislature a legal
alteration. The defendant having been elected a
Member presented himself at the table of the House
of Commons and claimed to be sworn upon the Old
Testament, as the form most binding on his conscience.
This claim was admitted so far as concerned the oaths
of allegiance and supremacy, but upon the Clerk of
the House reading over to him the oath of abjuration,
the defendant omitted the concluding words " upon
tae true faith of a Christian," and adding the words
"So help me God," kissed the Old Testament. This
not being deemed by the Honse a proper taking of
the oath, he was required to withdraw, but before
doing so he did, to use the words of the Act of Parlia-
ment, presume to sit and vote. Now he was prepared
to go through the numerous Acts of Parliament on
the subject, and to show that there was nothing in
them to exempt Jews from taking this oath in the
form prescribed.
Mr. Baron MARTIN here interrupted the Learned
Sergeant, and inquired whether this was not a case
which ought not to be turned into a special verdict,
and the opinions of a Court of Law taken upon the
point. The facts could not be in question.
Sir F. KELLY said that he thought that would be
the proper course. All the facts had been already
admitted, as there was no desire on the part of the
defendant but to have the question fairly brought
before the Court.
Sergeant CHANNELL said that upon his Lordship's
suggestion he would consent to a special verdict being
taken. On the part of the plaintiff there was only a
desire to fully raise the question. If it were not so,
he (the Learned Sergeant) would have been no party
to the case.
Mr. Baron MARTIN said that it was necessary for
him to say what his opinion upon the matter was ; but
as one of the most eminent lawyers of the day had
stated his opinion to be that Alderman Salomons had
duly taken the oath of abjuration, it was right that
the case should be argued with a view of taking it, if
necessary, to the House of Lords, the highest legal
tribunal of the country.
It was then agreed that a special verdict should be
drawn up upon the admissions made by the parties,
the verdict to be settled by his Lordship in case of dis-
agreement.