36

Majority against the Bill The decision of the Legislature against the claims of the Jews to be admitted by an Act of Parliament being thus pronounced, Mr. Alderman Salomons, the newlyelected Member for Greenwich, determined to try another mode of obtaining a solution of the question. Acting under the advice of his lawyers, and following to a certain extent the course pursued by Baron Rothschild, the worthy Alderman presented himself at the table of the House of Commons, on the 18th of July, to take the oaths. At his own desire the oath was administered to him on the Old Testament. When he came to the words, at the conclusion of the oath of abjuration, "upon the true faith of a Christian," he declined to repeat them after the clerk, and was thereupon directed by the Speaker to withdraw. Mr. Salomons, however, sat down upon one of the

benches on the right of the chair, but, the Speaker repeating that he must withdraw, Mr. Salomons took his seat upon a bench behind the bar, usually occupied by peers and distinguished visitors, and consequently considered to be without the House; Sir B. Hall, one of the Members who introduced the hon. Alderman, observing, that although he had withdrawn in deference to the command of the Speaker, he insisted upon his right to take his seat.

In answer to Sir Benjamin Hall, who inquired whether the Government would instruct the Attorney General to prosecute Mr. Salomons in order try his right to sit, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, observing that Lord J. Russell was unavoidably absent, stated the course which he recommended the House to pursue. The questions raised by this proceeding were two

the right to sit in the House, and the liability to penalties. He thought that time should be afforded for considering these questions; that no further proceedings should be taken at present, but that the whole matter should stand over until Monday, the 21st.

Mr. T. Duncombe said he was unable to understand what was the question of which the consideration was to be resumed on Monday.

Sir F. Thesiger felt himself in the same difficulty as Mr. Duncombe. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said two questions were raised. With respect to the first, as to the seat, he (Sir Fre derick) had no doubt that Mr. Salomons, by refusing to take the whole of the oath of abjuration, was utterly incapable of sitting in the House. There could, therefore,

be no question upon that point, which had been settled by a resolution of the House last session. Upon that occasion, when Baron Rothschild refused to take the entire oath of abjuration, he (Sir Frederick) had moved that the Speaker should issue a new writ; but he was opposed by Sir J. Romilly, then Attorney General. He had since carefully considered the question, and had come to the conclusion that, where a person elected to a seat in that House refused to take either of the oaths, the seat was void.

After some remarks from Mr. B. Osborne, it was agreed to defer further discussion till the 21st.

On that evening the discussion was resumed, the Speaker commencing by reading a letter addressed to him by Mr. Salomons, pointing out, that all notice of his demand to subscribe the oath of abjuration, and declare to his property qualification, had been omitted from the printed votes, and requesting that the minutes might be corrected. The Speaker explained that as Mr. Salomons had made this demand after he had been directed to withdraw, the statement referred to in the letter was not before the House. Sir B. Hall then asked the Ministers whether they were disposed prosecute Mr. Salomons, to which Lord J. Russell answered in the negative.

to

On the suggestion of Sir Benjamin Hall, Mr. Salomons now entered, amidst vehement cries of "Order!" and Chair!" interspersed with cheering, and took his seat below the gangway on the Ministerial side. The Speaker called upon him to withdraw, which not being complied with, the cries of "Withdraw!" became

loud and angry. Lord John Russell rose amid the storm, and Mr. Osborne ran up to the Speaker and placed a paper in his hand. Mr. Salomons was again requested to withdraw. He did not move;

and the Speaker said, that since his order was not obeyed, it remained with the House to enforce it.

On this appeal, Lord John Russell moved that Mr. Alderman Salomons be ordered to withdraw from this House. To this Mr. Osborne moved an amendment, to the effect that, Mr. Salomons having taken the oaths in the manner most binding on his conscience, he is entitled to take his seat. Loud cries instantly demanded a division; but Mr. Anstey rose, and, amidst much interruption, referred to the omission in the minutes; and then, annoyed at the disorder of the House, he moved the adjournment of the debate. This motion was negatived by 257 to 65, Mr. Salomons himself voting with the minority.

Mr. Milner Gibson then proceeded to put some questions to the Speaker, as to whether the sense of the House upon the oath of abjuration had been taken this session, and whether a resolution of the House last session (in the case of Baron Rothschild) was binding in the present case. Mr. Gibson was proceeding with these inquiries, but Lord J. Russell objected to the Chair being thus interrogated, observing that the House had resolved last session that the Baron de Rothschild could not sit in that House "until he had taken the oath of abjuration in the form required by law."

Mr. Anstey entered very copiously into the technicalities of the

question, and called upon the House to do justice by admitting the hon. Member for Greenwich, because, first, the Act 1st and 2nd Victoria had placed Jews in all respects on a footing of perfect equality with others in the matter of oaths; secondly, the oath was not a lawful oath, and the House had no authority to impose it; and thirdly, assuming its legality,

he had taken the oath in the form prescribed by law.

Mr. Hobhouse considered that grave difficulties might occur if Mr. Salomons should be required to withdraw. Any person elected to a seat in that House might sit and vote at the risk of incurring penalties. Minors had sat in the House, and he cautioned the Speaker not to expose himself to penalties, since a court of law might take a different view of the question.

The Attorney General said, the question appeared to him to be a very simple one. The Act of Parliament positively and peremptorily prohibited any member, until he had taken certain oaths (including the oath of abjuration), from sitting and voting in Parliament. The House was not to allow a person to take upon himself the risk of the penalties; it was a matter within its exclusive jurisdiction, and if a member declined to take the oaths in the manner required by law it was the duty of the House not only to obey the law, but to enforce it. Some had contended that Mr. Salomons had taken the oath; but upon that point the House came to a solemn decision last year. He admitted that the exclusion of Jews from the House was a mere accident in legislation

and that it was a disgrace to our statute book; at the same time, the House, acting in a judicial capacity, had but one duty to perform-to administer the law as it was.

Mr. M. Gibson observed that the House was placed in a position of more than ordinary difficulty by the discord of legal opinions, the law officers of the Crown differing from each other, and the chief law officer of a former Government being at direct issue with both. There might be embarrassments in the question, but as exclusion would be a penalty not only upon Mr. Salomons, but upon the constituency which had returned him, he should have the benefit of the doubt. Putting the only reasonable construction upon the state of the law, he came to the conclusion that, under the statute of Victoria, the House would be justified in allowing a Jew to omit the words upon the true faith of a Christian." At all events, the law was not sufficiently clear to enable him. to pronounce a deliberate opinion that Mr. Salomons was not entitled to sit in that House.

The Solicitor General explained and justified the course he had taken in the case of Baron de Rothschild. He did not acquiesce in the decision of the House in that case; but, that being a judicial and binding decision, if the oath of abjuration had not been taken as that decision required it to be taken, and there being a mandatory clause in an Act of Parliament, the simple corollary was, that the House could not permit Mr. Salomons to sit there.

After some remarks from Mr. Clay and Mr. C. Villiers in favour

of Mr. Salomons' right to sit, Lord J. Russell said, he had been prevented from moving a resolution by the entrance of Mr. Salomons into the House, which had compelled him to call upon the House to support the Chair. The question, therefore, simply was, whether or not Mr. Salomons should be required to withdraw a question upon which there ought to be no doubt; for even those who considered the resolution of last year erroneous, might say "Let us respect it as long as it exists." He acknowledged that he thought the state of the law most unsatisfactory; that the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" were formal only, and were so treated in the case of Quakers; yet the same words, in the case of Jews, were considered as not of form but of substance, which was an unjust distinction.

Mr. Bethell said, in his opinion, by the common statute law, as well as by the resolutions of the House, the oath of abjuration had been well and legally taken by Mr. Salomons, and the House had no authority to require him to withdraw. A member was entitled to require the oath to be administered to him, and the House was bound to administer the oath, according to law, which prescribed that it should be administered in a manner binding upon the member's conscience. This latter principle applied to any particular set of words contained in the oath; and Mr. Bethell, in an elaborate argument, endeavoured to show that, whether the words in question were, as he thought, only the sanction of the oath, or a part of the oath, the manner in which Mr. Salomons

had taken the oath, he having been permitted to take it upon the Old Testament, satisfied the law.

Sir F. Thesiger took an entirely opposite view of the law, though he agreed with the hon. Member that the House had brought itself into a difficulty by allowing the oath to be taken on the Old Testament. If Mr. Bethell had proved that the words in question were of form, and not of substance, he would undoubtedly have demonstrated that, inasmuch as every person should take an oath in the form binding upon his conscience he might omit these words. Sir Frederick, however, argued that these words were not a formula; and he urged the absurd consequences of allowing persons, on the ground of scruples, to omit words in an oath which were part of its substance. Mr. Alderman Salomons, in his opinion, had been contumacious, and, having disobeyed the orders of the House, he should have been prepared to concur in a vote that he be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. The noble Lord had taken a milder course, and he consented to his motion.

Mr.

Mr. Aglionby, Mr. Bright, Colonel Thompson, and Muntz, opposed the resolution, and argued strongly in favour of the claims of the Jews to sit. They relied on the precedent of Mr. Pease, the Quaker, who had been excused from taking the oaths, and on general principles of religious liberty.

Sir R. Inglis thought the course pursued by Lord John Russell was most consistent with the dignity of the House, and with the requirements of the case. Mr. New

degate charged Mr Salomons with having grossly violated the orders of the House.

Mr. Crowder said, the real question was whether Mr. Salomons had taken the oath of abjuration. It was impossible for the House to decide this question, which was a question of law, except as judges. He had no legal doubt upon the subject; he could come to no other conclusion than that Mr. Salomons had not taken that oath, and he supported his conclusion by a reference to the statutes and the resolution of the House. Where the terms of an oath were prescribed by law they could not be altered without an Act of Parlia

ment.

Mr. J. A. Smith said he had been requested by Mr. Salomons to state that he had voted upon the last division, but as the present question was personal to himself, he should retire, but by so doing did not abandon one tittle of his rights.

Upon a division, Mr. B. Osborne's amendment, that Mr. Salomons was entitled to take his seat, was negatived by 229 against 81. The division being over, Mr. Salomons again entered the House amid shouts of "Withdraw." Regardless of this cry, he again took his seat on the Ministerial side of the House. The discussion was now resumed, and Mr. Hobhouse called upon Mr. Salomons to state the course he intended to pursue. On this Mr. Salomons rose. The loud cries of " Withdraw" were stifled by still louder cheering. He addressed the House as follows:

"I should not have presumed to address you, Sir, and this House, in the peculiar position in which I am placed, had it not been that I have been so for

cibly appealed to by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. I hope some allowance will be made for the novelty of my position, and for the responsibility that I feel in the unusual course which I have judged it right to adopt; but I beg to assure you, Sir, and this House, that it is far from my desire to do anything that may appear contumacious or presumptuous. Returned, as I have been, by a large constituency, and under no disability, and believing that I have fulfilled all the requirements of the law, I thought I should not be doing justice to my own position as an Englishman or a gentleman, did I not adopt that course which I believed to be right and proper, and appear on this floor, not meaning any disrespect to you, Sir, or to this House, but in defence of my own rights and privileges, and of the rights and privileges of the constituents who have sent me here. Having said this, I beg to state to you, Sir, that whatever be the decision of this House, I shall abide by it, provided there be just sufficient force used to make me feel that I am acting under coercion I shall not now further intrude myself upon the House, except to say that I trust and hope, that, in the doubtful state of the law, such as it has been described to be by the eminent lawyers who have addressed you, no severe measure will be adopted towards me and my constituents, without giving me the fairest opportunity of addressing the House, and stating before the House and before the country what I believe to be my rights and the rights of my constituents. believe the House never will refuse what no court ever refuses to the meanest subject in the realm,

I