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

THE OATH OF ABJURATION.

Lord CAMPBELL, in pursuance of the notice which
he had given, rose to ask his noble and learned friend
on the woolsack 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 "Sale.
mons v. Miller." No blame was attributable to his
noble and learned friend in the matter, but the decision
of the question was one of great importance, because on
that decision depended the important question whether
according to the existing state of the law of England
Jews could lawfully sit in Parliament. In the year
1851 Mr. Salomons, 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 persuasion
he objected in the House of Commons 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 an." The Speaker
of the house very properly intimated to him that under
those circumstances he was not entitled to sit and vote f
in the house, but Mr. Salomons, taking a different view
of the law, chef sit and vote without taking the oath in
the manner prescribed by the law. After a time an
action Ass commenced against him for penalties, the
Legislature having enacted that any member of Parlia-
ment who shall presume to sit or vete without having
taken the oath in the manner prescribed should incur
the penalty of 5001. That action wag 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 in the manner described, leaving it to the court
to say whether he had incurred the penalties ornot. The
special verdict 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• iant.
ing, the great question being whether the words " 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. Salomon'', who then appealed to the Court
of Exelrequt 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, end wishing them to be admitted in a manner con-
stitutional and leveful ; but sitting as a judge, where it
was his duty to declare the law and not to make it, it
appeared to him that the arguments of the three Barone
of the Exchequer were unanswerable—that it clearly was
the intention of parliament, when the act was fairly read
and construed, that no person should be allowed to
of takea
r.
oaths except iu the manner prescribed by the
!lament. In coming to that conclusion bewasacparptalyrpnain-
fluenced by the consideration that both bongos of
me netalidayd
iraeptheaetreedilgyapouft
Georgethesam el! oanas
actrue was onth
passee
dact,
for
favourar
relieving
ioef v the Jews,
og them
f rwoimt h
trespect e
necessity
tpya
or
ft.
swearingcu particular purposes, o
n
the
true
faith of a Christian. He himself had proposed a bill
under which Mr. Salomons became sheriff of a county,
which bill would have been wholly unnecessary if the words
objected to had not formed part of the oath. His noble
and learned
Qpassing
a
measureo enablingpposit Jewsto hold a
(Lord Lyndhurst) l
succeeded
in municipal
pee.....e
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. Ail 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
thr-17 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 Ex ihequer. 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 had 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

Exchequer Chamber were right, for they..llad not ad-
mitted the Jews without taking the oath
,prez.cribed by
the statute, and bills had been sent up from-the 'other
house for the purpose of altering the law. Un'fortunately
those bills had not met with their lordships' 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. Re
confessed he bad been in hopes that the manifesta-
tion of public opinion during the present Oesaion
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 comcientionily
voted against the admission of the Jews to Parlia-

meet, but who now supported the motion, he found S'r
J. Pakington and some other members connected with
the party of the noble earl opposite. The noble earl and
his friends in their lordehips' house, however, still re-
sisted the proposed change, and he expected the matter
would have been allowed to steed over to some other
time. But, to his great surprise, on looking at the votes
of the other house, he found a notice of motion, that as
Baron Rothschild declares that the words " on the true
faith of a Christian" are itot binding upon him, the
House of Commons should resolve that the clerk be'in-
teructed t a omit those words in toaninisterin; the oath
to Baron R othschild, and that be show(' be permitted to
take his seat in the House of Commons by a resolution
of that house in defiance of what had been (Mee by their
lordships, and without the c .assert of the Crown. If
such a motion should be carried it would Lever come
before the lordships for discussion, but woul I instantly
be treated by the other house as law. Instead of con-
sidering it the law, he should consider it a flagrant vioht-
tion—Cie would use the gentlest term he could, and say
it would be a coup d'etzt such as that whicl, bad been
resorted to in a neighbouring country to bring about a
revolution (hear, hear)—instead of being the law, it
would be contrary to law, because it would be an at-
tsmpt, by a resolution of ono house, to repeal an'act of
Parliament, and make laws without the consent of the
other, and without the consent of the Crown. (Hear.)
This course of proceeding was justified by the precedent
of Mr. Pease. who in the year 1833 was elec:ed for the
county of Durham. He (Lord Campbell) was then a
member of the House of Commons; and one of the Jaw
officers of the Crown, and took an active part in the in-
ves•igation, and he could take upon hinusslf to say that
what was then done had not the smallest application to the
case now under consideration. Mr. Pease was a Quaker.
There was no question as to the manner in w hich the
oath should be taken. Ile had to take no oath. The
question war, whether acts of Parliament had not passed
by which Quakers were absolved from taking the oath.
It was his sincere and firm conviction than under4wo
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 ac's
was so strong as to admit of no other construction ; and
because the Quakers were absolved from taking any oath
they were allowed to affirm. The same arguments were
now used against the admission of the Jews. It was
said their admission would uochristianise the Legisla-
ture. Petitions were presented, stating that Quakers
were not Christians ; and protests were to be found on
their lordships' journals against the bills in favoUr of the
Quakers, upon the very grounds that they were not Chris-
tians, because they objected to all the sacraments, even
the sacraments of baptism and the Lord's Supper. The
bide, huwever, were passed in favour of the Quakers.
They were not called upon to swear at all, and on that
ground, and that ground alone, Mr. Pease was allowed
to affirm, and he took his seat with the unanimous ap-
probation of every member of the House of Commons.
No one said it was contrary to law. They were doing
what they believed the law required 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 declaration of the intention of the Legisla-
ture. There was no pretence for saying that the case of
Mr. Pease had 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 house 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 lordehips were
right or wrong in their decision, it had not the slightest
application to the present case, because they were exercis-
ing a jurisdiction analogous to that exercised by tbeHouse
of Commons when it decided whether a person taking
his seat bad been lawfully returned or not. (Hear.) Their
lordships did not alter the law on that occasion. They
were the only tribunal by which the question could be
decided. Well, then, what woult be the consequence of
the course of proceeding now suggested They could
not stop a resolution of the House of Commons. That
house contemplated the bringing of actions to recover
penalties for sitting and voting without the oath of abju-
ration baying been taken in the manner directed by law.
If such an action should be brought, he, a t a judge
of the land, would be bound to lay down the law as it
had been laid down by the Exchequer Chamber, and to
say that the penalties had been incurred, and to direct
the jury to find a verdict. Would there be any difficulty
in proving the fact ? None whatever ; for he must in
justice say, that in the case of Mr, Salotnons the House
of Commons afforded every facility to prove the facts. They
would 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. Is the
course of his Parliamentary career he had been a strong
supporter of privilege, and did not in the slightest de-
gree regret tae lengths to which he went in the contro-
versy between the house of Commons and the Court of
Queen's Bench when he was a member of the House of
Commons. But that was in a clear case of privilege.
If the course now proposed should be persisted in, it
seemed to him that it would be something like the
commencement of a revolution in this country. In
any strife which might be stirred up between the
courts of law and the House of Commons he should
not be afraid of consequences personal to himself.
He hoped, if an order should be made for sent ing him to
Newgate or to the Tower of London, the peop!e would
rise in his defence. (Laughter.) The House of Commons
must not suppose that the people would see the judges
of the land treated in such an arbitrary manner, and
with se much indignity. But he was perfectly prepared
for his fate if any such attempt should be made. .
however, had so much confidence in the leaders of the
House of Commons that be should be very much mis-
taken if they took any such step. He bad read in the
newspapers accounts pointing out the way in which the
Prime Minister was to be treated, and pressed, and
urged, and compelled to agree to such a resolution, but
he had great confidence in the firmness of the noble lord,
and 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. (Hear, hear.) He had thought it his duty
to inquire into the state of the appeal to which be bad
referred. If the judgment of the Exchequer Chamber
could be reversed he should greatly rejoice, for he should
be glad to see the Jews constitutionally and lawfully in-
troduced 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 then they ought to submit to
the deprivation under which they were labouring.
(Hear, hear.)
The LORD 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 was 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 Jane this year another appli-
cation was made to adjourn the case for two months,
which would postpone it till the 15th of Angtist, and
thus throw it over the session. (Hear, hear.)
Lord BROUGHAM hoped that no such indiscreet
act would be either done or attempted elsewhere as that
to which his noble and learned friend had adverted. He
loarmapedptetFlr.
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 apps ar on the
journals of the house—as to try, by way of privilege,u .a
gallant admiral, complained t bat a per
rse
oifgchtoomfmfiosohse,rya.(Laughter.) A member of the I ,
• to the Court of Queen's Bench, he made it a
ofpevoowshitirhe,awfisehreeurypozhijonhatheewc,
•
log
son
Choaads interfered
summoned the man,
• that it was a judicial matter, s
who was taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms,
of privilege, and the House of Commons, ntivendraam.
ofan d
competentpromised
would not say a
admiral thereby obtained—he
gallant
verdict and judgmen
taon and
repeatha vingi t cwkanso
dischargedwl
on payment of fees. The
etd
reodmls saocffoeunrcte,
diction, but the benefit of the sentence of the House of
Commons, proceeding by way of privilege. He hoped
and trusted the House of Commons would not attempt
to carry their privilege to the extent now contem-
plated, from which they could not, escape without such
violent conflicts as disgraced our ancestors 150 sears ago.
Lord CAMPBELL said tbat 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.—(YrsTRILDAY.)
The SPEAKER took the chair at 12 o'clock.
The LordsP RI
Amendments to the Keith and Dufftown
Railway (No. 2) Bill, and Manchester Corporation Bill
were considered. PATE. BUSINESS.
SCINDE RAILWA.Y,
Mr. C. FORSTER moved that in the ease of the
Scinde Railway Bill, the Examiner of Petitions for Pri-
vate Bills have leave to sit and proceed forthwith.—
Agreed to.
HUNTINGDON ELECTION

The members of the committee appointe,: to try the
merits of the petition against the sitting member were
palled to the table and morn.

LEAVE OF ABSENCE.

The SPEAKER read a letter from the olieitorof Mr;
Locke, one of the members of the committee, si ating
that he was at present at Aix-la-Cha elle or the lenefit