The Sun.
London, England, 1857-07-22 00:00:00

TIIL OITII OF ABJURATION'.

Lord CA. VIPBELL, in pursuance of the notice which
he had given, rose to ask his noble and learned friend
on the w ()check a question respecting the state of an ap-
peal of very great importance which had been for some
years pending in their lordships' house—that of " Sal s•
mons v. Miller." No llama was attributable to his
noble and learned friend in thu matter, but the decision
of the question was ono of great importance, because on
that decision depended the impo-rtant question whether
according to the existing state of the law of England
Jews could lawfully it in Parliament. In the year
1851 Mr. Sulornons, a gentleman whom he was proud to
call his friend, was returned to Parliament for the bo-
rough of Greenwich, but being of the Jewish persuasien
he objected in the II )use of C rrrnons to take the oath
of abjuration according to the form prescribed by the
statute, and would only subscribe it by omitting the
words, " on the true faith of a Christ au." The Speaker
of the house very properly intimated to him that under
those circumstances he was not entitled to sit and vote
in the house, but Mr. Salomone, taking a different view
of the late, did sit and vote without taking the oath in
the manner prescribed by the law. After a time an
action has commenced against him for penalties, the
Legislature having enacted that any member of Parlia-
ment who shall presume to sit or vote without having
taken the oath in the manner prescribed should incur
the penalty of 5001. That action was brought in the
Court of Exchequer, and a special verdict was given by
which the jury found the simple fact of his having taken
the oath iu the manner described, leaving it to the court
to say whether he had incurred the penalties or not. The
special eerdict was solemnly argued before the Court of
Exchequer, and three of the judges were of opinion that
he had incurred the penalties, the fourth judge di sent
ing, the great question being whether the wends "on the
true faith of a Christian" was the mode of taking the
oath or a part of the oath. Judgment was pronounced
against Mr. Salnnons, who then appealed to the Court
of Exchequ r Chamber ; the court for the purpose of such
appeal consisting of the judges of the Court of Queen's
Bench and the judges of the Court of Common Pleas.
That appeal was heard in 1853, and after hearing an ela-
borate argument, the court, over which he, as Chief Jus-
tice, had the honour to preside, affirmed the judgment of
the Court of Exchequer. Now, in both houses of parlia-
ment he (Lord Campbell) had voted for the admission of
the Jews to parliament, believing the law to be oppres-
sive, and wishing them to be admitted in a manner con-
stitutional and lawful ; but sitting as a judge, where itt
was his duty to declare the law and not to make it, i
appealed to him that the arguments of the three Barons
of the Exchequer were unanswerable—that it clearly
was
read
the intention of parliament, when the act w
and construed, that no person should be allowed fairly
to take
oaths except in the manner prescribedpar-
liament. by the act of par-
liament. In coming to that conclusion he was partly in-
fluenced by the consideration that both houses of parlia-
ment had repeatedly put the same constru Alan on the act,
I.
for early in the reign of George an act was passed in
favour of the Jews, with respect to particular purposes,
and relieving them from the necessity of swearing on the
true faith of a Christian. Ile himself had proposed a bill
under which Mr. Salomons became sheriff of a county,
which bill would have been wholly unnecessary if the words
cted to bad not formed part of the oath, His noble
and learned friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) succeeded
in passing a measure enabling Jews to hold all municipal
offices whatever. Now these bills would havebeen wholly
unnecessary if the Jews could legally have taken the oath
of abjuration without the words, and the legislature de-
clared their opinion that as the law stood whenever the
oath of abjuration had to be administered it must be
taken in the manner prescribed. All the learned judges of
the Courts of Queen's Bench and Common Pleas con-
curred in the view which he had stated, and so far were
they from entertaining any doubt on the subject, that
after hearing the arguments in support of the appeal,
Without calling on the other side they affirmed the deci-
sion of the Barons of the Exchequer. Mr. Salomons
appealed to their lordships' house in 1854 against the de-
cision of the Court of Exchequer Chamber. That appeal
might have been decided in 1855. It was not decided in
that year, nor in the year 1856. It bad not yet been
decided. Now he considered it of great importance that
it should be decided, or dismissed ; then the adjudication
of the Exchequer Chamber would be final. But, so far
as he knew, no step had been taken to bring the writ of
error to a conclusion. In the meantime, both houses of
parliament had acted as if the judgment given in the

Excleolutr Clamber were right, far they had not ad-
mitted the Jews without taking the oath prescribed by
the statute, and bills had been sent up from the other
house for the purpose of altering the law. Unfortunately
Close bids had not met with their lord.hips'approbation .
He did not know that their lordships had been much to
blame in that respect, because, until the present session
of parliament there was reason to believe that the public
opinion was with the decision of the judges. He
confessed he had been in hopes that the manifesta-
tion of public opinion during the present session
would have induced their lordships to come to a dif-
ferent conclusion. The measure recently introduced
had been carried by an overwhelming majority, and
amongst those gentlemen who formerly conseitntiou,ly
voted against the admission of the Jews to Parlia-
ment, but who now supported the motion, he found Sir
J. Pakington and some other members connected with
the party of the noble earl opposite. The noble earl and
I his friends in their lordships' house, however, still re-
sisted the proposed change, and he expected the matter
would have been a!l)wed to stand over to some other
time. But, to his great surprise, on looking at the,votes
of the other house, he Lund a notice of motion, that as
Baron Rothschild decleres that the words " on the true
faith of a Christian" are not binding upon him, the
Howe of Commons should resolve that the clerk be in-
s rooted to omit those words in administering the oath
to Baron Rothschild, and that he should be permitted to
take his seat in tit Meuse of Commons by a resolution
of that house in defiance of what bad been done by their
I,rdship, and without the c ,neent of. the Crown: If
such a motion should be carried it would never come
before the lordships for discussion, but would instantly
be treated by the other house as law. Instead of con-
sidering it the law, he should consider it a flagrant vio'a-
tion—be would use the gentlest term he could, and say
it would be a coup d'etut such as that which had been
resorted to in a neighbouring country to bring about a
revolution —(hear, hew) —instead of being the law, it
would be contrary to law, because it would be an at-
t, rept, by a resolution of one house, to repeal onset of
Parliament, and make laws without the consent of the
other, and without the consent of the Crown. (Hear.)
Tors course of proceeding was justified by the precede: t
of Mr. Peaze. who in the year 1833 was elected for the
county of Durham. Ile (Lord Campbell) was then a
member of the House of Commons, end one of the law
officers of the Crown, and took an active part in the lo-
ves igation, and he could take upon himself to say that
what was then done had not the smallest application to the
case now under cnsideration. Mr. Pease was a Quaker.
There wee no qu, stion as to the mariner in w hich the
oath should be taken. He had to take no oath. The
geestion was, whether acts of Parliament had not parse
by which Quakers were absolved from takieg the oath.
It was his sincere and firm conviction that, under two
acts of Parliament passed in favour of the Quakers, they
were allowed to affirm with regard to the oath of abjura-
tion without swearing at all. The language of the acts
was so strong as to edmit of no other construction ; at d
because the Quakers were absolved from taking any oa h
they were allowed to affirm. The same arguments we: se
now used against the admission of the Jews. It was
said their admission would unchristianise the Legiola-
ture. Petitions were presented, stating that Quakers
were nut Christians; and protests were to be found en
their lordships' journals against the bills in favour of the
Qqa,ers, upon the very grounds that they were not Chris-
tians, because they objected to all the sacraments, Oven
the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper.: The
bile however, were passed in favour of the Quakers.
They were not called upon to swear at all, and on that
ground, and that ground done, Mr. Pease was allowed
to effirin, and he took his Leat with the unanimous ap-
probation of every member of the Howe of Commons.
No one said it was contrary to law. They were doing
what they believed the law rcqu!red them to do. It was
not made a matter of privilege. It was not an alteration
of the law by resolution of the House of Commons. It
was simply a chclaration of !be intention of the Legisla-
ture. Thera was no pretence for saying that the case of
Mr. Pease bad any application to the present case, be-
cause the passing of such a resolution would be a viola-

tion of the law as it had been solemnly adjudged, and
would be contrary to the intentions of one Louse of the
Legislature, and without the consent of the Crown. Ano-
ther precedent had been 'referred to in a recent case in
their lordships' house. Whether their lordships were
right or wrong in their decision, it had not the slightest
application to the present case, because they were exercis-
ing a jurisdiction analagous to that exercised by the House
of Commons when it decided whether a person taking
his seat had been lawfully returned or not. (Hear.) Their
lordships did not altar the law on that occasion. They
were the only tribunal by which the question could be
decided. Weil, then, what wonl lbe the cinsequence of
the.ceurse of proceeding now suggested ? They could
not stn) a resolition of tee House of Commocs. That
house c.n'emp:ated the bringing of actions to recover
penalties for sitting, and votit,g without the oath of abju-
ration baring betn tlizen in the manner directed by law.
It such an actin euouid be brought, he, as a judge
of the land, w,itiel be bound to lay down the law as it
bad been lad down by the Exchequer Chamber, and to
say that the penal les had been incurred, and to direct
the j try to find a verdict. Would there be any difficulty
in proving Vie fact ? None whatever ; for he mast in
ju=tice say, that in the case of Mr, Selornons the House
of Commons aff,rded every facility to prove the facts. They
woul I now vote it a breach of privilege for any one to
bring an action against a member of the House of Com-
mons who had been allowed to take his seat without
swearing in the manner required by the law. In the
caur,e c f his Painamectary career be Fad been a strong
supporter of privilege, and did not in the slightest de-
gree regret tto lengths to which he went in the contro-
versy between the Louse of Commons and the Court of
Queen'; Brrch wht—t he was a member of the House of
Commons. But that was in a clear case of privilege.
It the course now proposed should be per.istod in, it
seemed to I irn that it would be something like the
commencement of a revolution in this country. In
any strife whkh might be stirred up between the
courts of law and the House of Commons he should
not to afraid of consequences personal to himself.
He hoped, if an order should be made for sending him to
Newgate or to the Tower of London, the people would
rise in his defence. (Laughter.) The House of Commons
must not a uppose that the people would see the judges
of the land treated in such an arbitrary manner, and
with ss much iudign,iy. But he was perlectly prepared
for his fate if any such attempt should be made. He,
however, had so much confidence in the leaders of the

House of Commons that lie should be very much mis-
taken if they took any such step. He bad read in the

rewrpapersaccounts pointing out the way in which the
Prime Minister was to be treated, and pressed, and

urged, and conip:.lled to agree :o such a resolution, but

he had great confidence in the firmness of the noble lord,
acd believed that he would give them a very courteous
but very decisive refusal, telling them that such a pro-
ceeding is contrary to the law and the constitution of

this country. (Heir, hear.) He had thought it his duty
to ir,qure into the state of the appeal to which he bad
referred. If the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber
could be reversed he should greatly rejoice, for he should
be gl-td to see the Jews constitutiona'ly and lawfully in-

t-oduced into Parliament. He believed that no danger
would arise from their admission, and hoped the time
was not far distant when the reproach of their exclusion
would be removed, but till than they ought to submit to

the deprivation under which they were labouring.
(Hear, hear.)

The. LOFD CHANCELLOR had a very short reply
to make to the question of his noble and learned friend.
The writ of error in the case of Salomons and Miller was
set down for hearing in May, 1855. Nothing was
done in that session. In the last session an applica-
tion waT made by both the plaintiff and the defendant
that the case might stand over till this session, and it
was directed to stand over accordingly. Their lordships
were aware that an application of that kind was granted
as a matter of course. In June this year another appli-
cation was made to adjourn the case for two months,
which would postpone it till the 15th of August, and
thus throw it over the session. (Hear, hear.)
Lard BROUGHAM hoped that no such indiscreet
act would be either done or attempted elsewhere as that
to which his noble and learned friend bad adverted. He

always thought his noble and learned friend had carried
his doctrine of privilege a great deal too far, but there
appeared to be others who were disposed to go much
farther. in one case they actually went so far—it would
have been scarcely credible did it not appear on the
journals of the house—as to try, by way of privilege, a
right of fishery. (Laughter.) A member of the House
of Commons, a gallant admiral,
complained that a per.
son had interfered with a fishery which be claimed on
the coast of Devonshire, whereupon, instead of appeal-
ing to the Court of Queen'a Bench, he made it a matter
of privilege, and the House of Commons, neverdream-
ing that it was a judicial matter, summoned the man,
who was taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-A.rms,
and having acknowledged his offence, and promised never
to repeat it, was discharged on payment of fees. The
gallant admiral thereby obtained—he would not say a
verdict and judgment from a court of competent juris-
diction, but the benefit of the sentence of the House of
Commons, proceeding by way of privilege. He hoped
ptaolnadt
ec
adtrr,ruyfs
from
otehdme
ithe
h eHouseh privilege
theyo
sewcnaot
pa
el
idwoniwtoht
without
tnt attempt
to
couldCotnh °inn
not escape :et
violent conflicts as disgraced our ancestors 150 ye ire ago.
Laird CAMPBELL said that with reference to the
explanation of his noble and learned friend, as to the
cause of the delay in bringing the case for decision
before the house, it appeared that though it was
fairly and honestly argued, the plaintiff and defendant
appeared to have a close understanding on the mat-
ter, and whatever one suggested the other agreed to.
With all respect for his friend Mr. Alderman Salo-
mons, he must say that he thought it desirable that
the case should be brought to a conclusion, and a final
opinion given on the judgment of the Court of Ex.

chequer.
The subject then dropped, and the house adjourned at
5 minutes past eight.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—(YESTBRDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
Amendments to the Keith and Dafftown
APmE BUSINESS.
e
Railway (No. 2) Bill,
VATE
The Lords
and Manchester Corporation Bill
were considered.
SCINDE RAILWAY.
Mr. C. FORSTER moved that in the case of the
Scinde Railway Bill, the Examiner of Petitions for Pri-
vate Ms have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—
Agreed to.
HUNTINGDON ELECTION

The members of the committee appointer: to try the
merits of the pet►tion against the sitting member were
oalled to the table and morn.

LEAVE OF ABSENOZ.

The SPEAKER read a letter from the olicitor Mr.
Locke, one of the members of...the committee, etatitqf
that he was at present at Aix-la-Cha ello • the bend;