1851. Russell's Oath of tion (Jew) Bill. their being read said, "I omit these words as not binding upon my conscience," and concluded with the words, "So help me God." He was then directed to withdraw. A motion was subsequently carried by 166 votes to 92 “that the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not entitled to vote in this House or to sit in this House during any debate, until he should take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by law." It was further formally resolved by 142 votes to 106 to take the form of the oath of abjuration into consideration during the next session with a view to the relief of persons professing the Jewish religion 1. The following Session, in pursuance of this resolution, Lord John the Oath of Abjuration (Jew) Bill was introduced by the Government. It provided that whenever any of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion shall present himself to take the oath of abjuration the words "upon the true faith of a Christian" shall be omitted from the oath, and passed the House of Commons, though the majority on the second reading was only 25, but was rejected in the Lords by 144 votes to 1082. take the Oath of Mr. Salo- In the meantime Mr. David Salomons had at a byemons pur- election been returned to the House of Commons as member ports to for the borough of Greenwich, and on July 18, 1851, the Abjuration day after the rejection of the Government's bill by the without Upper House, attended at the table for the purpose of being sworn. Upon the New Testament being tendered to him by the clerk, he requested to be sworn on the Old Testament, which being reported to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker asked him why he desired to be sworn upon the Old Testament; he answered because he considered it pronounc ing its final words. 1 Com. Jour., vol. CV, pp. 584, 590, 612; Hansard, vol. 113, pp. 298-333, 396-453, 486-533, 769-817. 2 Hansard, vol. 115, pp. 1006-19, 1030 ; ibid., vol. 116, pp. 367-412; ibid., vol. 117, pp. 1096-1102; and ibid., vol. 118, pp. 142-7, 188, 859-909. "Jew Bill passed second reading House of Commons by 25; 202 to 177. This will encourage the Peers" (Lord Malmesbury's Memoirs, vol. I, p. 283). binding on his conscience; Mr. Speaker then desired the clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament: there being no debate and no division such as had taken place in the case of Baron de Rothschild a year previously. The clerk then handed him the Old Testament, and tendered the oaths. The oaths of allegiance and supremacy having been duly taken, when the oath of abjuration was administered Mr. Salomons read as far as the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," which he omitted, and concluded with the words "So help me God." He then read the following declaration from a paper which he had in his hand, and then pushed over to the clerk at the table: "I have now taken the oaths in the form and with the ceremonies that I declare to be binding on my conscience, in accordance with the statute 1 & 2 Vict., c. 105. I now demand to subscribe to the oath of abjuration and to declare to my property qualification." The omission of the words of the oath being reported to Mr. Speaker, he desired Mr. Salomons to withdraw. "He thereupon retired from the table and sat down upon one of the lower benches; upon which Mr. Speaker informed him that, not having taken the oath of abjuration in the form prescribed by the Act of Parliament and the form in which the House had on a former occasion expressed its opinion that it ought to be taken, he could not be allowed to remain in the House, but must withdraw: and he withdrew accordingly." A short discussion of the subject, which was adjourned to the following Monday, July 21, ensued1. On the resumption of the debate on that day Mr. Salomons Mr. Salotook his seat in the House. The Speaker rose and desired takes his him to withdraw; but the request fell upon deaf ears, and, seat in the amidst a scene of great confusion, the Speaker appealed to refuses to the house to support the chair. The Prime Minister, withdraw. Lord John Russell, then moved: "That Mr. Alderman Salomons do now withdraw." To this Mr. Bernal Osborne moved as an amendment that Mr. Salomons, 1 Hansard, vol. 118, pp. 979-86; Com, Jour., vol. CVI, p. 372. mons House and having taken the oaths required by law in the manner most binding on his conscience, is entitled to take his seat in the House. The adjournment of the debate was then moved, but was defeated, 65 voting for, and 257 against it; Mr. Salomons himself voting in the minority. After further discussion Mr. Bernal Osborne's amendment was put to the vote, and lost by a majority of 148. After the division Mr. Salomons, who had taken no part in it, as it involved a question personal to himself, re-entered the house and took his seat as before, when the debate on the original motion for his withdrawal was continued. The adjournment was again moved, and during the debate on it Mr. Salomons, being directly challenged as to the course he intended to pursue, rose amidst loud cries of "withdraw," and, having obtained a hearing, explained his position. After apologizing for his presumption in addressing the House, which he would not have done had he not been directly appealed to, he said: "But I beg to assure you, Sir, and the House, that it has been far from my intention to indulge in anything contumacious or presuming towards either. But, having been returned to this House by a large constituency, and believing that I labour under no disability whatever, and that I am in a position to fulfil all the requirements of the law, I thought I should not be doing justice to my own position as an Englishman and a gentleman did I not adopt the course which I thought right and proper of maintaining my right to appear on this floor-without thereby meaning any disrespect to you, Sir. I thought I was bound to take this course in defence of my own rights and privileges, and of the rights and privileges of the constituents who have sent me here. In saying this, Sir, I shall state to you that whatever the decision of this House may be, I shall willingly abide by it, provided that just sufficient force be used to make me feel that I am acting under coercion." In conclusion he besought the House not to come to a final decision without giving him an opportunity of addressing it on what he believed to be the rights and privileges of himself and his constituents. The motion for adjournment was again defeated, and the original motion, "that Mr. Salomons do now withdraw," was put and carried by 231 to 81 votes. "Whereupon Mr. Speaker stated that the Honourable Member for Greenwich had heard the decision of the house, and hoped that the Honourable Member was prepared to obey it. "Mr. Alderman Salomons continuing to sit in his seat, Mr. Speaker directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him below the bar. Whereupon the Serjeant-at-Arms having placed his hand on Mr. Alderman Salomons, he was conducted below the Bar 1." ceedings House of The next day the subject was resumed, the Prime SubseMinister moving that Mr. Salomons was not entitled quent proto vote or sit in the House during any debate, until in the he should have taken the oath of abjuration in the Commons. form appointed by law. To this Mr. Bethell moved as an amendment that both Baron de Rothschild and Mr. Salomons, having taken the oaths in the manner in which the House was bound by law to administer them, were entitled to take their seats as members of the house. The amendment was defeated by 118 votes to 71. After a fruitless motion for adjournment a further amendment was proposed "and that this House, having regard to the religious scruples of the Honourable Member for Greenwich, will exercise its undoubted privilege in that behalf, and proceed forthwith to cause such alterations to be made in the form and mode of administering the said oath as shall enable the Honourable Member to take and subscribe the same." After further discussion the debate was adjourned 2. Meanwhile petitions were presented to the House on behalf of the electors of the borough of Greenwich, praying 66. 1 Com. Jour., vol. CVI, p. 381; Hansard, Parl. Deb., vol. 118, pp. 1143-1217. • Com. Jour., vol. CVI, pp. 386–7; Hansard, Parl. Deb., vol. 118, pp. 1318 T The case to be heard by counsel at the bar in defence of their right to elect their own representatives, and also on behalf of the inhabitants of London, praying the house to forthwith adopt a resolution admitting Baron de Rothschild to his seat in the house and to hear counsel in support of the petition. These petitions were considered separately, and both were refused by substantial majorities, it being thought that the subject had been so thoroughly discussed that no further light could be thrown upon it. On the resumption of the adjourned debate the amendment pledging the House to alter the oath of abjuration was defeated by a majority of 38, and the original motion declaring Mr. Salomons not entitled to take his seat until he had taken the oath of abjuration carried by a majority of 551. Such were the proceedings in the House of Commons; Salomons. at the sitting last mentioned the Speaker had read to the House a letter which he had received from Mr. Salomons, in which the latter stated that actions had been commenced against him for penalties alleged to have been incurred for having sat and voted as a member of the house on the 21st of July. The action was tried in the Court of Exchequer by Baron Martin and a jury, which, under the direction of the learned judge, returned a special verdict embodying the facts already set forth. Upon this verdict a learned argument took place before the full Court of Exchequer on January 26 and 28, 1852. On behalf of Mr. Salomons four grounds were put forward for asserting that the penalties were not enforceable against him: (1) The oath of abjuration laid down by the statute contained the words "our sovereign Lord King George," and therefore it was submitted that since the reigning sovereign did not bear the name of George, the obligation to take the oath no longer existed. (2) That when the law imposes an oath upon any person, it not only permits but requires him to take it 1 Com. Jour., vol. CVI, pp. 406-7; Hansard, Parl. Deb., vol. 118, pp. 15731629. |