Sitting of 28 July 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2° Metropolitan Interment; New Zealand Settlements; Lunatics (India); Attornies and Solicitors Regulation Act Amendment.
3° Land Clauses Consolidation (Ireland); Sheep, &c. Contagious Diseases Prevention; Poor Relief Act Continuance; Battersea Park Amendment and Extension; Emigration Advances, Distressed Districts (Scotland); Commissioners of Railways Act Repeal.

MEDICAL CHARITIES (IRELAND) BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, that, having regard to the opposition which this Bill had excited, and to the impossibility of carrying it in the original form through the Committee at this late period of the Session, he had thought it desirable to adopt the suggestion of his noble Friend the Member for Kildare (Lord Naas), and to confine the operation of the Bill to dispensaries alone. Having to that extent given up his own opinion, he hoped that the Committee would, in consideration of the desperate state of the dispensaries of Ireland, not now persist in its opposition to the Bill.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONwas very glad the Government had adopted this course, and he hoped that hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House would agree to make the measure as perfect as possible as far as dispensaries were concerned.
MR. SCULLYexpressed the deep regret he felt at the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman, as he had hoped that a general Bill would have been introduced this Session to remedy the evils of the existing system. At the same time he agreed in thinking it would be better to pass the measure in its restricted form, rather than not pass any at all; he hoped, however, that next Session Government would see the necessity of grappling with the whole question, and of introducing a more perfect and comprehensive measure on the subject.
COLONEL DUNNEthought it would have been impossible to pass the Bill this Session, except as a Dispensary Bill. It was not correct to say that the Irish Members, as a body, were opposed to the principle of the Bill. They were only opposed to its details.
Clause 9 (power to afford Dispensary Relief).
MR. G. A. HAMILTONproposed—
"In page 4, line 33, after the word 'Committee,' to insert the words, 'and the officiating Clergyman of each Denomination having charge of and being resident in any parish within such Dispensary district.'"
The object of the Amendment was to enable clergymen to be ex-officio members of the committees, for the purpose of giving tickets for medical relief to the poor of their districts.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEopposed the Amendment.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 21; Noes 22: Majority 1.
Clause agreed to. Clauses 10 to 19 inclusive struck out.
Clause 20.
MR. ROCHEwished to know whether it was the intention of the Government to bring in a Bill to reform the abuses connected with hospitals and infirmaries in Ireland?
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, no one could be more convinced than he was of the necessity of some change in the law relating to Infirmaries, and he intended to lake up the question early next Session.
Clause agreed to. Clause 21 struck out. Remaining Clauses agreed to.
SIR ROBERT FERGUSONproposed an additional clause, providing that the treasurer of each Union should deduct from the salary of each medical officer appointed under this Act the sum of 3l. per cent per annum, and so rateably from any such salary, of whatever amount; the sums so deducted to be paid to the Commissioners, and by them applied from time to time as occasion might require for the payment of such superannuation or retiring allowance, or gratuity, as might be ordered or appointed by the said Commissioners, with the sanction of the Lords' Commissioners of the Treasury.
SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLEsaid, he must oppose the Clause, on the ground that medical officers ought to be left to effect their own arrangements for securing annuities, or making any other provision for themselves or their families.
Clause withdrawn.
The House resumed. Bill reported, as amended.

DAVID SALOMONS, ESQ.—ACTIONS FOR PENALTIES.
MR. SPEAKERstated, that he had received a letter from Mr. Alderman Salomons, relative to certain actions brought against him for having sat and voted in the House as Member for Greenwich, which he read, as follows:—
"Great Cumberland Place,
Friday, July 25th."
Sir—I am advised that it is my duty respectfully to inform you and the House, that two actions at law under the Statute have been commenced against me, for penalties alleged to be incurred by me for having exercised, on Monday last, my right of sitting and voting in the House
1574
of Commons as Member for Greenwich, and that at the trial of those actions any resolution or proceeding which the House may adopt can be given in evidence in those actions.—With the greatest respect, I have the honour to be, Sir, your most obedient servant, "DAVID SALOMONS.
"To the Right Hon. The Speaker."

DAVID SALOMONS, ESQ.—THE GREENWICH PETITIONS.
Order for Consideration of Petitions from Greenwich [presented 25th July] read.
SIR BENJAMIN HALLsaid, that before submitting to the House the Motion of which he had given notice, he must, in the first instance, offer his own and the thanks of those whose interests he was about to advocate, to the noble Lord at the head of the Government for having permitted him to bring this subject before the House at that early period of the evening, and also as a substantive Motion instead of as an Amendment upon the Resolutions of which he (Lord John Russell) had himself given notice. It might, perhaps, be convenient to the House that he should state that in case any objection were offered to the Resolution which he should propose, he should divide the House upon it. The proposition which he had to submit to them was simple in its character, and was based upon justice and equity, and he hoped, therefore, that the House would assent to hearing the electors of Greenwich at the bar, rather than that they should be deprived of what they considered their just right and privilege. The facts of the case were simply these:—In 1832 the House determined that the borough of Greenwich was of so great and material importance that it ought to be inserted in the schedule amongst the places which were to return two Members to Parliament; and from that time to the present it had, of course, exercised its functions with which it was invested by the Reform Act; and it was a remarkable feature with reference to this borough, that although there had been contested elections whenever an opportunity was offered for the electors to record their votes, there was hardly an instance in which a gentleman entertaining other than what were called liberal opinions had been elected to the representation of the borough of Greenwich. Its population was about 80,000. At the last general election, in 1847, the seat was contested by three gentlemen, all entertaining the same, or nearly the same, political opinions. Admiral Dundas, who

1575
was at the head of the poll, had 2,409 votes; Mr. Barnard, 1,511; and Mr. Alderman Salomons l,236; so that at this election, when he came very late into the field, Mr. Alderman Salomans was defeated by only 275 votes. When, therefore, a few weeks ago a vacancy in the representation of this borough arose, Mr. Alderman Salomons felt that he had a fair right again to test the opinions of the electoral body, and he accordingly again presented himself to them. The circumstances of the election which ensued were rather singular. Both candidates entertained the same political opinions, and both were well known in the City of London, of which each was an alderman and a deputy lieutenant; but there was this difference between them, that the one was a Jew and the other was a Christian; and the inhabitants of Greenwich, actuated by the same feelings as those which had influenced the electors of the City of London, determined to test the question, and to advocate the rights of civil and religious liberty by returning a Jew to Parliament in preference to a Christian. Alderman Salomons was accordingly returned by a majority of 887 votes, having polled 2,165 votes, while his opponent had only 1,278. The hon. Member subsequently presented himself at the table of that House, and took the first two oaths. Previous to doing so, however, he demanded to be sworn upon the Old Testament; and the Speaker, acting under the Orders of the House, as conveyed in a Resolution of the House of last Session, declared without a dissentient voice that he should be so sworn, and therefore admitted him as a Jew to the table of the House. But when he came to the last words of the oath, the House determined he should be a Christian, and because he would not swear "on the true faith of a Christian" (the House having previously determined that he should be sworn as a Jew), he was ordered to withdraw. That was the absurd position in which they were placed; and they might rest assured that in these times of political inquiry, when the people were informed of everything that transpired in that assembly, that their proceedings were anxiously watched; and although many might differ with them, and censure their proceedings, let them not allow those proceedings to appear ludicrous in the eyes of the people, because, if they did, that assembly would become contemptible. After the hon. Gen-
1576
tleman was ordered to withdraw, he came into the House and voted three times; and the right hon. Gentleman in the chair had that evening read to them a letter, in which he stated that in consequence of his exercising that privilege, he was now threatened with actions. The House must also recollect that he addressed them; and every one who heard him must at all events have admired the determination which he had evinced to take his seat in that House, and the temperate and deferential manner in which he had addressed the House. A resolution was then submitted to the House by the hon. and learned Gentleman near him (Mr. Anstey), who, together with the Solicitor General, said that Mr. Alderman Salomons had taken the oath, and therefore should sit; while, on the other hand, the Attorney General and the noble Lord negatived the resolution; and a Motion now stood on the paper which would be brought on if he should not succeed in his Motion, declaring that, because the hon. Gentleman had not taken the oaths according to a law which was perfectly undefinable if they consulted the law officers of the Crown, he must be excluded that assembly. One party on this question contended that, though the law as it now stood was never intended to apply to the present case, yet, inasmuch as it was not repealed, it must apply; on the other side it was said, that the law was never intended to apply, and that so far was it from applying, that the Act of 1838 overruled its applicability. The one party said to the hon. Member, "You were never intended to be a Popish recusant convict; but you are one, and shall be so, although we admit you to be a Jew;" the other party said, "You are a Jew, and we do not want you to declare yourself a Papist." And, according to the Attorney General, although the hon. Member for Greenwich could not take his seat as a Member of that House, he had nevertheless taken the oaths at the table in so substantive a form, that if he foreswore himself, he would be amenable to a prosecution in a court of law. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, as far as he could understand, intended to oppose the Resolution which he was about to move, taking for his precedent the Resolution of last year. Now he thought that that Resolution was most hastily concocted, and most unadvisedly passed, and at whatever decision the noble Lord might arrive, he trusted that he would not again put a similar reso-

1577
lution on record, because he might depend upon it that the time would come when they would be obliged to rescind it, as they had the resolution which was passed in the case of Wilkes. Wilkes having published what was called an outrageous libel upon the King, and a most flagrantly immoral Essay on Woman, he was, on the 17th February, 1769, expelled the House. He was immediately re-elected by the electors, but the House nevertheless seated Colonel Luttrel by resolution, entering into a contest with the electors of Middlesex, similar to that on which they were about to embark with the electors of Greenwich. The result was, that in 1781 they had to pass a Resolution, declaring that the Resolution of the "17th of February, 1769, declaring that John Wilkes having been expelled the House, was and is incapable of being elected to serve in the present Parliament, be expunged from the Journals of this House, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of the electors of this United Kingdom." Now he contended that if they passed the Resolution proposed by the noble Lord, they would pass one which would be subversive of the rights of the whole body of the electors of the United Kingdom; and he hoped that the noble Lord would not press it, because he did not wish they should stultify themselves by passing a resolution one clay, and rescinding it the next. The electors of Greenwich, knowing that such a resolution was about to be proposed by the noble Lord, had petitioned that they might be heard at the bar in support of what they believed to be their rights; and they set forth in that petition that they believed that their Member was under no legal disability, but was well qualified to serve them in Parliament. When he (Sir B. Hall) suggested the possibility of a petition being presented from the electors of Greenwich, praying to be heard by counsel, the noble Lord said that he would give no opinion at that time, but that he would search for precedents if any existed. He (Sir B. Hall) was at that time aware, and he was still further fortified in that opinion by searching the Journals, that there was no precedent for such a proceeding as this, because he was happy to say there had never before been a ground for it; the House had never before allowed a man to come to the table to be sworn on the Old Testament; and after thus admitting him to be a Jew, sent
1578
him away because he would not swear he was a Christian. But he had found a precedent for the course which the noble Lord now proposed to pursue in the only unreformed and irresponsible corporation in England—that of the city of London. In 1835, Mr. Alderman Salomons was elected alderman of the ward of Aldgate; but the election was annulled by the Court of Aldermen, who ordered a new election, when Mr. Humphery was returned. He (Sir B. Hall) did not object to Mr. Humphery holding that office; on the contrary, his hon. Friend was the beau ideal of aldermanic representation. In 1844, Mr. Alderman Salomons was elected for Portsoken Ward; but the election was again annulled, and a gentleman named Moon was appointed. In 1847 he was again elected alderman for Cordwainers' Ward; and the election then received the assent of the Court of Aldermen. He would say, let them rather follow the course taken by the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger), than adopt the course that was proposed by the Government. Let them order a new writ to issue, but let them not pass a resolution that a man must take a certain oath according to law, when the law is undefined. Let them take a manly course, as suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and put themselves at once in collision with the electoral body, and let them give the electors an opportunity of fighting the battle and asserting their rights in the same way that the House asserted theirs. The petition presented from the electors stated, that David Salomons had been duly returned, and had qualified himself to be a Member of the House. They believed that their Member laboured under no legal difficulty that would disqualify him to sit and vote, and they humbly prayed the House to permit them to be heard by counsel at the bar in defence of their right to elect their own representatives. He hoped, as there could be no precedent for the proceeding, the noble Lord would not put that forward as an obstacle for resisting the Motion which he (Sir Benjamin Hall) now brought forward. The electors of Greenwich had chosen Mr. Salomons for their representative for the purpose of trying this great and constitutional question. Let them be heard in support of their rights at the bar of the House, and let them employ the best advocacy they can to support their claims. That privilege they were

1579
fairly entitled to in the present undefined state of the law—a law which was never meant to apply to a case of this kind, and which one of the law officers of the Government had said did not apply. Let the House not refuse the electors of Greenwich the privilege to which they were entitled—hear what they had to say, and then come to a calm decision on the subject.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
"That the Electors of the Borough of Greenwich he heard by Counsel at the Bar of this House, in pursuance of the prayer of their said Petitions."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYseconded the Motion.
The ATTORNEY GENERALconsidered that the Motion which had been submitted to the House by his hon. Friend was one that ought not to be agreed to. He hoped the House would be of opinion that the subject was one on which no further light could, by possibility, be thrown. It had been discussed on two separate occasions in this Session of Parliament as well as in the last. In the last Session the House had come to a solemn resolution on the subject, and the matter had been most fully and most elaborately discussed, not only by the Members generally of the House, but by the Members of the legal profession who have seats in the House. He could not think that counsel out of the House could throw any additional light upon it, nor persuade himself that any additional information or precedents could be brought before the House, or any additional Acts of Parliament, and therefore it would be a wasting of the time of the House to go further into the subject. The hon. Member who brought forward the question should have given the House some reason for believing that additional light would be thrown on the subject if counsel were heard at the bar; but he would put it to the House whether the hon. Gentleman could persuade them that any new light would bet hrown on the question? He (the Attorney General) would ask whether any person could suppose that this Motion was made for any other purpose than delay, and for keeping up excitement on the subject?
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, that if, as suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the electors of Greenwich had told them in their petition they had further arguments to urge, and new topics to touch upon, which could not have been brought forward before, the House would not receive the petition, for it would be
1580
said that, in referring to debates which had taken place in that House, they had committed a breach of privilege. The leader of the English Bar, however, must know that the House could collect more from a well-considered speech delivered by a Member of the Bar acting in his professional capacity, than from the speeches of thirty or forty Gentlemen, each anxious to forestall his colleagues, and avoid trespassing on his neighbour's arguments, yet not able to command the attention of the House. When the hon. and learned Gentleman said the subject had been well considered, would he also say it had been always well considered, or that an attentive hearing was given to the question on Monday last, until the hon. Member for Greenwich himself addressed the House? Were not hon. Members up to that period in a frame of mind which rendered it impossible to make an impression upon them by any argument? If they would not hear the arguments of counsel on the question, let them not proceed on it at all, but leave it to be decided by the courts of law. Instead of taking that course, they were determined to do the case as much damage as they could before it reached a court of law. That was the consistent, honourable, manly course that the Gentlemen who had cheered the Attorney General wished to pursue. However, if the hon. Gentlemen who are friends of the cause were true to themselves, it was their duty to prevent the House from coming to a hasty decision, which would prevent a British jury from doing justice, and a British Judge from correctly expounding the law. He (Mr. Anstey) was astonished that the Attorney I General did not hear the letter that had; been read from the Chair before this debate. In that letter the hon. Member for Greenwich told the House that actions for penalties had been commenced, and were now actually pending, against him. He further apprised the House that he had been advised by his counsel that it was his 1 duty to inform the House of that; and he I also told the House, that he was further advised that any resolution whatever, which I the House might adopt on the Motion of I the noble Lord, could be given in evidence; thus any resolution of the House would be applied to influence the decision of those two actions. And why? Because the whole question was one of construction, and it was a question on which two jurisdictions were competent to pronounce—namely, the Parliamentary tribu-

1581
nal—he would not call it a judicial tribunal—which he had the honour to address, and a court of law to which the case was about to be submitted. He spoke in the presence of lawyers, and he asked any of them to contradict him if he could, when he asserted that there was a species of comity (not to say obligation) that bound one court of competent jurisdiction to respect the decision of another court of competent jurisdiction, pronounced upon the same, or upon an analogous case. It would be the duty of a Judge before whom the resolution of that House might be produced, if germane to the matter—it would be the duty of that Judge to inform the jury that, whatever might be their own private opinions, it was their duty, as it was his, to pay great respect and attach great weight to what was a decision of that House. The question they were going to try was the right of the electors of Greenwich to elect a Jew to represent them in Parliament. The House did not deny their right to elect, or his eligibility to be elected, but they obstructed and prevented him when he came to take his seat. The electors asked to be heard by counsel against that decision—they said the privileges of the House did not reach so far—that the House could not set itself above the law of the land—and that the law was on their side. Speaking from his recollection of former precedents, the House should not be permitted to do this injustice without going through the decent form of hearing the parties aggrieved. In 1759 and in 1760 were, he believed, the two last occasions on which the House had attempted to use its privileges in obstruction of proceedings in courts of justice; but on those occasions they heard the parties, or made an order to hear them by counsel. He did not think that hearing counsel would change their purpose; but by hearing him they would observe the forms of justice, and present their resolution in a decent shape to the country that was going to examine, and he thought to reverse, their acts. The Members of that House had no power at all over constituencies except indirectly, and for the purpose of determining the eligibility of its own Members. The point which belonged to that House was the eligibility of Members; the point which was not theirs was the right of the electors, of which they could not be divested except by Act of Parliament. But that House took away the right of the electors
1582
when it adopted a resolution not having the effect of law which prevented a Member whose eligibility was confessed, whose legal possession of the seat was undenied, from voting and attending to his Parliamentary duties. It was for the sake of the House more than for the sake of the prejudged constituency of Greenwich, that he asked them to hear counsel at the bar. In the case of Aylesbury, when a similar point had been raised, the House came to a resolution that, according to the known laws and usages of Parliament, it was the sole right of the Commons of England in Parliament assembled, to examine and determine all matters relating to the election of their own Members, except in cases specially provided for by Act of Parliament. But the privilege thus asserted was examined in a court of law, and was found to be excessive, and the House of Commons had to recede from it, and they had no right to interfere with the electors of the country, except in cases specially provided for by Act of Parliament. He (Mr. Anstey) asked them to show him an Act of Parliament that gave to the House the right to set aside the election of the hon. Member for Greenwich, by an ex post facto resolution. Was there ever so moderate, reasonable, and just a request as that of the electors of Greenwich? A general election was approaching, and the great liberal constituencies would act so that the House of Commons would have to deal, not with the two seats for London and Greenwich only, but the House seemed labouring blindly to bring itself at once into a position of hostility with the people of England, and the courts of justice: if they did, they would have (as had been done in Stockdale v. Hansard) to retrace their proceedings. It was to save the House from a dilemma that the Motion was pressed on its adoption. It was with difficulty the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury had been enabled to obtain a hearing for the few pregnant words he addressed to the House on the subject; an attempt was made to put him down, and to put down almost every Member who took the same side. Their statements were received with inattention or disregard. But the House would be bound to listen to counsel at the bar. The Government might desire to proceed to what they called more important business; but he denied that any business could be more important than what was now before them. Instead of the Government gaining time

1583
by the course they adopted, they would lose time, because they had rendered it incumbent on the friends of civil and religious freedom in that House to use against them all those constitutional forms of delay which Members of the House were empowered to use.
SIR FREDERIC THESIGERhoped that, in discussing this question, hon. Gentlemen would follow the advice which had been given by an honoured and lamented friend of his—a Chief Justice, who, at the close of a long circuit, recommended the Bar to put themselves on a short allowance of speech for the rest of the assizes: and the best way of acting on that advice would be to adhere closely to the subject. In his opinion the hon. and learned Member for Youghal bad entirely mistaken the argument of the Attorney General. His hon. and learned Friend never said it was necessary that persons who petitioned the House to be heard by counsel at the bar, should point out some new matter which they intended to bring before the House for consideration; but what he said was this, that they knew to what extent the discussion had gone; they knew that every point that could be urged had been raised and considered; and they could not believe that anything new would be brought before them to induce them to come to a different determination from that to which they had come in the last Session, when there was a solemn resolution on the very point now submitted to the House. The hon. Member had complained, and perhaps justly complained, that lawyers had differed on the subject before them; but he should like to know if there was any difficulty or embarrassment in consequence of that difference amongst the lawyers, how would they he assisted, not by hearing the question solemnly discussed on both sides, but by having counsel specially employed to take one particular view of it, and one view only? That was what he apprehended the Attorney General meant to convey, and did convey, in the observations he had made. It appeared to him that it really would be idle—that it would be trifling—if they were now, after all that had taken place on the subject, to allow the prayer of the petitioners to he heard at the bar, even though it was not objectionable in other respects. There was another question that arose upon the petition itself, which appeared to him entirely to remove the petitioners from any ground they might so
1584
urge upon them to be heard by counsel. The prayer of the petition was, "We humbly and earnestly pray that your hon. House will permit us to be heard by counsel at the bar in defence of our undoubted right to return our representatives." Who had ever disputed the right of the electors of Greenwich to elect their representatives? How would the principle involved in the question they had decided, and were called upon to decide, affect the right of the electors to choose their own representatives? The electors of Greenwich might, if they pleased, elect an alien, or they might elect a clergyman; but that House was not bound to admit a clergyman or an alien to take his seat. The question was not one as to the election of representatives, but whether the representative chosen had qualified himself to take his seat in the House. It appeared to him that, independently of the absurdity of hearing a one-sided argument on a question discussed so fully several times before, the petition did not contain any prayer on which they could possibly act, because they had never endeavoured to interfere, or claimed the right to interfere, with the electors of Greenwich in their choice of representatives.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the hon. and learned Member who had just spoken was the last man who ought to object to the prayer of the electors of Greenwich, on the ground that the House did not wish to interfere with their right te elect whom they pleased; for the learned Member was precisely the Member who had wished to interfere with that right, for he it was who proposed to issue a new writ for Greenwich, because they had chosen Mr. Salomons; he made the same Motion last year, in the case of Baron Rothschild; and, had he succeeded, he might, by continually disputing the right of the electors, compel them to yield, and abandon the Members of their choice. It was probable that if that new writ issued, the electors would again return Alderman Salomons; but the hon. and learned Member might again move for the issue of a new writ; and though Alderman Salomons was returned a third time, the hon. and learned Gentleman might go on making Motions for new writs until the electors of Greenwich became tired of electing Alderman Salomons, and they might be forced to admit themselves beaten by the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon. The other objection of the hon. and learned

1585
Member was equally invalid—namely, that it was not right to hear counsel for the petitioners, because they could not hear counsel on the other side; but the learned Member forgot while, on the one hand, he admitted the importance of counsel being heard—for the argument admitted the possibility that the reasons alleged by counsel might influence the decision of the majority of that House—he was one of a majority who had decided the point to their own satisfaction, and who pretend that no more information was required. He should remember that the electors of Greenwich were the victims of that decision, and before final judgment was passed by the House, they asked to be heard. He thought the electors of Greenwich had great reason in their request, and he agreed with them in its propriety. He thought the electors and the Alderman had both been very unjustly reproached for the attempt that they had made lately to procure emancipation for persons of the Jewish persuasion, after the resolution to which the House had come last year; but there was a very great distinction between the two cases. He begged the House to remember, that when they were discussing this measure last year, they did it in a very slovenly and careless manner, owing to the assurance that was then given that a Bill would be introduced this Session at once to remove all doubts with respect to the law; and that when the seat was vacated the other day, the Bill had not been discussed in the other House, and the electors might well have supposed that such an act of relief at this day at least would have passed. Mr. Salomons, far from showing any disrespect to that House, was careful in not presenting himself to take his seat till the fate of that measure was known. He (Mr. Villiers) considered, looking at the majority by which that measure was rejected, looking to the arguments then used, which were entirely religious in their character, and with the view to exclude the Jews as Jews, that this House and the constituency were in a very different position in consequence, and they were bound to consider, looking at the utter hopelessness now of ever getting a Bill through the other House to emancipate the Jews, whether they were not themselves straining the law for the purpose of exclusion, and were not availing themselves of the spirit and intention of a recent statute passed purposely to relieve the scruples of persons of different reli-
1586
gions for the object of excluding the Jews. This was a novel position in which they were placed this year, and quite recently, and it became them to consider the thing afresh, and gravely to ascertain what was within their own power and privilege in accomplishing this object. He said it was hopeless for the Jews to expect a better fate in the other House, because he observed that those who voted against the Jews were not only those who generally opposed concessions of this sort, but persons who considered themselves peculiar champions of religious liberty, and who had put themselves prominently forward to defend that principle this year—a most extraordinary view certainly of religious liberty which should sanction in its name the persecution of the Jews; for, in truth, this was literally the only matter in this country in which religious liberty, properly understood, was in question—
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISsaid, if the hon. Gentleman had not actually transgressed the rule of the House in the allusion he had made, he had so nearly done so as to justify him (Sir R. H. Inglis) in calling attention to the circumstance.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSadmitted that, if he had referred to the other branch of the Legislature he was out of order. He thought he had used the other conventional phrase to express the same idea, but he would say "another place" in future, though he would not add, to please the hon. Member, a "better place." He was contending that the arguments used, and the particular persons voting against the Jews in "another place," made it impossible for them ever to expect a measure to pass that House, and he therefore was anxious that they should more deliberately apply themselves to the law as it now stood, to see if the Jews were now really excluded by it. For this reason he should wish to hear a short, calm, careful statement made at the bar by some responsible and learned person, retained and prepared for the purpose, so that they should be left in no doubt as to the statutes in existence, and the legal operation, as near as they could apprehend them, of their provisions. He thought the House would, by that means, have clearer information than they now possessed; for what was still left undetermined was what the law did really require on the part of persons taking the oath in question. He objected to the resolutions that had been proposed, beecause they only stated the thing in question, and did no-

1587
thing to decide it. The House was unanimous about the law being observed, but what it wanted to know was, what the law was that they were to observe? Expecting, therefore, information would be obtained and impressed more upon the House by hearing counsel, he should vote for the Motion.
MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that the real point before the House seemed to be lost sight of. The electors of Greenwich had changed their minds. They elected Alderman Salomons in order that he might appeal to the courts of law, after he had distinctly pledged himself to do so. Alderman Salomons appealed to the electors to elect him, in order that be might incur the penalties, that he might go before a jury and try the case at law. The electors returned him for that purpose; but now they asked to be allowed to change the issue, and bring to the bar the one-sided statement of their counsel, in order to induce the House to settle the question in their favour without appealing to the law. There was another important point. A great deal had been made of the election for Greenwich; but he (Mr. Newdegate) had stated before, and he now repeated the statement, that a very large number of the electors, from 1,500 to 2,000 abstained from voting, because they did not think that the contest between Alderman Salomons and Alderman Wire was a bonâ fide contest. Alderman Wire was taunted on the hustings with having received 2,000 l. from a Jewish fund for advocating the cause of the Jews abroad; and although Alderman Salomons absolved him from having taken that sum, he said that he who was then his opponent as a candidate for the vacant seat for Greenwich, had been well remunerated. The question of principle was never raised at that election at all. The fact was, the question having already been decided by the House, the electors who voted for Mr. Salomons only did so that the question might be taken into the courts of law. Why should the Alderman have any preference over Baron Rothschild? The one represented London, and the other Greenwich; and was the latter of so much more consequence than the former, that the House should now depart from the precedent it had established? Greenwich, in his opinion, had nothing to recommend itself to that House. The expenditure at the last election had been enormous—the treating notorious; the
1588
porter pot seemed to be the symbol of the election; and upon the very hustings Alderman Salomons entertained the electors, by drinking porter himself, and by thrusting it upon his opponent. He could not believe that the House would stultify its decision in favour of such a constituency, and reverse the opinion so solemnly recorded last Session?
SIR JOHN HANMERsaid, reference had been made to what took place on the election of Mr. Salomons to an aldermanic chair in the City of London; but, if the facts were fully stated, they would be found to operate against the proposal now before the House. Mr. Salomons was twice elected Alderman; but it was on both occasions declared by the Court of Aldermen that he was unable to take his seat. After the second election Lord Lyndhurst brought a Bill into Parliament; legislation took place on the subject, and, when Mr. Salomons was elected a third time, he was enabled to take his seat. Alderman Salomons took his seat among the aldermanic body, however, not by dint of any forced exposition of law, but by an Act of Parliament. That was precisely the course now recommended by the noble Lord; and in his opinion it was a just and constitutional course. He had always given his vote in favour of the admission of the Jews, and should rejoice to see Baron Rothschild and Alderman Salomons taking their seats in that House; but he should always resist any attempt to remove the disabilities under which they laboured, except by an Act of Parliament.
SIR ROBERT H. INGLISwished to explain that he interrupted the hon. and learned Member for Wolverhampton, because he thought that in the remarks he had made, the independent action of the other branch of the Legislature was interfered with, and that it did not arise from any captious feeling on his part. There was a great deal of verbiage in the petition of the electors of Greenwich about limiting electors in the choice of their representatives. Did that House limit them in that choice? On the contrary, was it not the law of the land that did so? Suppose the electors of Greenwich had elected one of the distinguished foreigners now in this country. Did the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey) mean to say that such a person would have been eligible to take his seat in that House as the representative of Greenwich? ["No, no!"] Why, surely a Christian

1589
Frenchman had as good a right to sit in that House as an English Jew. The law proscribed aliens, and the law proscribed Jews. The law of the land proscribed an alien as well as a woman or a lunatic from sitting in that House. The House of Commons was the exponent of the law; and Mr. Speaker, no doubt, was the exponent of the House of Commons when he directed Alderman Salomons to withdraw. That law laid it down, that before a person could take his seat in that House he must be of full age—that he must not be an alien—and, next, that he was to be possessed of a certain amount of annual income. In all those particulars, the choice of the electors of Greenwich must be limited. In every instance the choice of representatives to Parliament by the people of England must be limited by those considerations. They never had the right to elect a Member to Parliament, unless he fulfilled those conditions of the constitution. The law had declared that Alderman Salomons was ineligible to sit in that House. The whole point of the issue was, whether a man who was in such a condition of mind that he could not take the oaths required by law, was eligible to take his seat in that House? The electors of Greenwich would do well to consider that they might as well have chosen a woman, a minor, or a lunatic for their representative, as one who would not fulfil the conditions on which, and on which only, the law of England allowed a man to take his seat in that House.
MR. AGLIONBYrose amid cries of "Divide!" He thought it was not respectful to the petitioners to be so impatient for a division; and he hoped before the debate concluded, that some Member of the Government beside the Attorney General would address them upon the question. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) objected to the electors of Greenwich being heard at the bar, on the ground that they sought to change the issue; but what they said was, that Alderman Salomons had fully fulfilled the pledge he had given, and what they complained of was, that that House was prejudging the question before it could be brought into a court of law, and they prayed to be heard in defence of their rights. It had been said that it would be anomalous to hear one party at the bar, and not another; but there was nothing in the constitution or the practice of Parliament opposed to hearing both sides by counsel at the bar.
1590
He apprehened there was nothing in the practice of Parliament to prevent the Speaker appointing counsel to be heard at the bar in defence of the liberties of the House of Commons. The hon. and learned Member for Abingdon based his opposition on a mere quibble of words, for he said the electors did not pray that Alderman Salomons should be allowed to take his seat, but that they should be heard in defence of their right to elect their representatives. Now, where would be the use of electing a representative if he was not permitted to take his seat? On the other hand, the hon. Baronet (Sir R. H. Inglis) said they might as well have elected a woman or an alien. The difference, however, was, that an alien and a woman were excluded by law, whereas a Jew was not. The Attorney General met the statement of the hon. Baronet, who presented the petition, by saying that the object was delay, and that no new light was likely to be thrown upon the question by hearing counsel at the bar. The last observation of the Attorney General might be very true, and their continued advocacy of the matter might only make it more intricate. They had all heard the lines—
"Counsellor Parker,
Made that darker
Which was dark enough before;"
and, so far as legal doubts went, it was possible they might be made darker than ever; but at any rate he would beg the House to remember that it was the declared opinion of many hon. Members that the legal question was clearly and without doubt in favour of the seat being taken. With reference to the remark of the Attorney General, that the object was delay, he must say that he thought the very best thing the Government and the House could do was to grant delay. Did the letter which had been that day addressed to the Speaker, and read by him, not suggest a ground for delay? Two writs had been served upon Alderman Salomons; the question must be disposed of in a court of law, and probably would be decided before the House met next Session; and the House should remember that they might be called upon to produce their decision as evidence before that court of law. They were often told in that House not to proceed with certain matters because they were before the legal tribunals; and now, when they were informed that this case was before the competent tribunals, he called upon them not

1591
to prejudice the question by coming to a premature vote.
LORD JOHN RUSSELL,in obedience to the wish expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman, that some Member of the Government, besides the Attorney General, should address the House, was quite ready to state his opinions. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that undoubtedly the electors of Greenwich had a locus standi upon this question; but it appeared to him that they had not, because he saw that in their petition they stated that the House contemplated some measure by which their undoubted right of electing representatives to the House of Commons might be interfered with. Now, there was no Motion before the House by which the rights of the electors were interfered with. The House was pursuing a sacred duty, which it was necessary for them to discharge when a Member came to their table to be sworn, namely, to see that he was sworn according to what they believed to be the law. Whether they were right in their interpretation of the law, was another question; but undoubtedly it was their duty to see that a Member, before he took his seat, took the oaths appointed bylaw. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman that this case was not similar to that which was put by the hon. Member for the University of Oxford—that it was not like the case of the election of a woman, a lunatic, or an alien, as those parties had a legal disqualification; but it was similar to that of a person coming to the table and refusing to take the oath of allegiance. It was quite obvious that if a person came to the table of the House and refused to take that oath, he could not say that the privileges of the electors gave him a title to take his seat, notwithstanding his refusal to accept the oath; yet the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman went that length. His hon. and learned Friend asked what Was the use of having the power of electing a Member unless they had also the power of securing that he should take his seat. That was no doubt true; but in order to take his seat in the House he must comply with the rules and conditions which the constitution and the law require. This was not a question for the electors of Greenwich alone; it was a matter in which the whole kingdom was concerned, and in regard to which that House had a duty to perform in insisting upon the laws being respected and enforced. They might be
1592
mistaken as to the law, or the law might require to be altered. That was another point; but it was not a question on which they could hear the electors of Greenwich at the bar. As to the question of law, all they could do was to interpret it according to the best of their ability, and accordingly he had, for that purpose, submitted a Resolution to the consideration of the House.
MR. ALDERMAN SIDNEYsaid, it was because the electors of Greenwich considered that their Member had taken the oaths according to law, that they petitioned to be heard by counsel at the bar. He could not pretend to argue the question of law with the ability of the hon. and learned Members who had addressed the House; but he did undertake to say that, according to his feelings and judgment in construing the law, the hon. Member for Greenwich had really taken the oaths according to law. He rose principally to disabuse the minds of hon. Members with regard to an imputation which had been thrown out by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), who had stated that the last election for Greenwich was characterised by intemperance beyond all former precedent. The hon. Member instanced the scene which had taken place during the nomination of the candidates. Now, on that particular day the sun shone remarkably bright, and his hon. Friend Mr. Alderman Salomons unquestionably felt its power, and having partaken of some refreshment, handed the porter to his opponent. It was from that circumstance alone that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire assumed that the whole electors of Greenwich on that occasion had been contaminated by the use of intoxicating liquors. On behalf of the electors of Greenwich, he (Alderman Sidney) altogether denied it. He denied also that the last election was not a manifestation of the public opinion of the electors of Greenwich. He could tell the hon. Member (Mr. Newdegate) that at the general election of 1847 not more than 3,000 persons voted in the borough of Greenwich, whilst at the last election not less than 3,443 electors registered their votes. They decided by an immense majority that Mr. Alderman Salomons should be their representative; and whatever might be the legal quibbles introduced into the discussion of this question, the common-sense view of it out of doors was that Alderman Salomons had taken the oath required by

1593
the Legislature in a way which was binding on his conscience, and had qualified himself in every respect to sit as the representative of the borough of Greenwich. He (Mr. Alderman Sidney) asked the House whether they were now prepared to declare as null and void the solemn act of the electors of Greenwich? If Mr. Alderman Salomons was again sent back to his constituents, they would again return him triumphantly as their Member. This struggle might be prolonged, but he could not doubt for a moment that the common-sense understanding of the people of England would settle this question, whether or not the Legislature felt disposed to settle it. He believed the Jews, as Jews, were not popular in this country; but if it was intended that the Legislature was to be permitted to construe an Act of Parliament in a manner to mock the understandings of the people of England, he believed the Jews would become the most popular candidates at every election throughout the country. He believed in his conscience that Baron Rothschild and Mr. Alderman Salomons had taken the oath of abjuration in a legal and constitutional manner; and it was on that ground that he should vote in favour of the electors of Greenwich being heard at the bar.
MR. MACGREGORrose amid loud cries of "Divide!" The question at issue was one which came fairly within the jurisdiction of that House. It was of much more importance than hon. Members seemed to be aware of; it did not concern merely the electors of Greenwich and of the City of London, for it was a question bearing upon the rights of constituencies, and on the cause of civil and religious liberty in general. The intolerants who opposed the admission of the Jews, had not made themselves acquainted either with ecclesiastical or political history. That House had no right to step in between those electors and the exercise of their undoubted constitutional privilege to select whom they pleased to represent them in the Commons House of Parliament. A general election was not far distant, and that House might take his word for it, that those Members who were now endeavouring to prevent the electors of Greenwich and London from exercising their constitutional privilege, would find to their cost that they had committed a most fatal blunder. They might call themselves Christians; but in acting with so little charity to their Jewish brethren, they were acting more like
1594
Pagans than Christians, and were pursuing a course at variance with the precepts of our Saviour, as promulgated in the sermon on the mount.
The House divided:—Ayes 75; Noes 135: Majority 60.

List of the AYES.

Adair, H. E.

Mangles, R. D.

Aglionby, H. A.

Martin, J.

Alcock, T.

Mitchell, T. A.

Anderson, A.

Moffatt, G.

Anstey, T. C.

Morris, D.

Armstrong, R. B.

Murphy, F. S.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Bass, M. T.

O'Connell, M. J.

Bell, J.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Bethell, R.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Bright, J.

Pinney, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Power, Dr.

Brotherton, J.

Robartes, T. J. A.

Brown, W.

Salwey, Col.

Clay, J.

Scobell, Capt.

Cobden, R.

Scully, F.

Colebrooke, Sir T. E.

Seymour, H. D.

Dawes, E.

Sidney, Ald.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T.

Smith, J. B.

Duncan, G.

Spearman, H. J.

Ellis, J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Evans, Sir De L.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Evans, J.

Tennent, R. J.

Ewart, W.

Thompson, Col.

Ferguson, Col.

Thompson, G.

Forster, M.

Thornely, T.

Fox, W. J.

Tollemache, hon F. J.

Geach, C.

Villiers, hon. C.

Heathcoat, J.

Wakley, T.

Heywood, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hindley, C.

Wawn, J. T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Keating, R.

Willcox, B. M.

Lacy, H. C.

Willyams, H.

Locke, J.

Wilson, M.

Lushington, C.

TELLERS.

M'Gregor, J.

Hall, Sir B.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Smith, J. A.

List of the NOES.

Archdall, Capt. M.

Carew, W. H. P.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Carter, J. B.

Baldock, E. H.

Chichester, Lord J. L.

Bankes, G.

Child, S.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F. T.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Barrow, W. H.

Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G.

Bellew, R. M.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Berkeley, Adm.

Cocks, T. S.

Berkeley, hon. H. F.

Coles, H. B.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Collins, T.

Blackstone, W. S.

Conolly, T.

Blandford, Marq. of

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Boldero, H. G.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Cubitt, W.

Bowles, Adm.

Currie, H.

Bramston, T. W.

Denison, E.

Brisco, M.

Denison, J. E.

Broadley, H.

Disraeli, B.

Brooke, Lord

Divett, E.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Dod, G.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Cabbell, B. B.

Dundas, Adm.

1595

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Mackinnon, W. A.

East, Sir J. B.

Maunsell, T. P.

Edwards, H.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Egerton, W. T.

Mullings, J. R.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Naas, Lord

Fergus, J.

Newdegate, C. N.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Packe, C. W.

Forester, hon. G. W. C.

Palmer, R.

Fox, S. W. L.

Palmer, R.

Freestun, Col.

Palmerston, Visct.

Freshfield, J. W.

Parker, J.

Fuller, A. E.

Peel, Col.

Gladstone, rt. hon. W. E.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Portal, M.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Pusey, P.

Greene, T.

Reid, Col.

Grenfell, C. P.

Ricardo, O.

Grenfell, C. W.

Richards, R.

Grosvenor, Earl

Russell, Lord J.

Gwyn, H.

Sandars, G.

Hale, R. B.

Seymour, Sir H.

Hall, Col.

Seymour, Lord

Hallewell, E. G.

Shelburne, Earl of

Hanmer, Sir J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Hawes, B.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Headlam, T. E.

Spooner, R.

Heald, J.

Stafford, A.

Henley, J. W.

Taylor, Col.

Hervey, Lord A.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hodges, T. L.

Thornhill, G.

Hodgson, W. N.

Towneley, J.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hotham, Lord

Verner, Sir W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Vyvyan, Sir R. R.

Jermyn, Earl

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Johnstone, J.

Waddington, H. S.

Knightley, Sir C.

Walpole, S. H.

Knox, Col.

Watkins, Col. L.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Wigram, L. T.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Williams, T. P.

Langston, J. H.

Wilson, J.

Legh, G. C.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Lemon, Sir C.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Young, G. F.

Lockhart, A. E.

TELLERS.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Hayter, W. G.

Lygon, hon. Gen.

Hill, Lord M.

CASE OF BARON LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD—THE CITY OF LONDON PETITION.
Order for Consideration of Petition from London [presented 25th July] read.
MR. RAIKES CURRIEsaid, that having presented, on Friday last, a petition which had been placed in his hands as the chairman of a most important meeting in the City of London; he was at liberty, he believed, to move that the prayer of the petition be granted. But, as the House had just come to a decision upon a petition from the electors of Greenwich, the prayer of which was of a precisely similar character, he thought it would be more conducive to the ultimate object of the petitioners themselves if he declined entering upon a renewal of the discussion on the present occasion. He yielded the more readily to
1596
that course, because he was willing to confess that that part of the petition which prayed that the petitioners might be heard by counsel at the bar of that House, was one in the expediency of which he was not able to coincide. But, having presided at that important meeting, he should scarcely do justice to the strong but respectful feeling which was there exhibited, if he sat down without venturing to make a respectful but most earnest appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and who was one of the representatives of the City of London, and urging upon the consideration of that noble Lord the fact of the deep feeling of disappointment with which the electors of the City of London regarded the course which he had felt it his duty to pursue. The noble Lord, at the close of the Session of last year, felt it his duty to pass a declaratory resolution relating to the right of Baron Rothschild to take his seat as a Member of the House of Commons; and the noble Lord accompanied that resolution with a further declaration, that the House would take the whole subject into their early consideration, with a view to legislate thereupon. Now, he (Mr. R. Currie) thought that if, coming from the mouth of the Prime Minister, those words had any meaning at all, they meant that the whole power of the Government should be thrown into such legislation—and so they were interpreted by the electors of London. If the words meant not that, then they meant absolutely nothing, and were a mere delusion and a snare. They had heard of former Administrations which had pretended to show fight, and had brought measures forward only to be rejected; but surely the City of London had a right to consider that the noble Lord would act in a very different spirit, and that when he spoke of legislation he was in earnest, and was ready to stake the existence of the Government upon the point. He (Mr. R. Currie) would not, however, look back to the past, but would look forward to the future; and the light in which he viewed this Jewish question, he confessed, was wholly subordinate to that great constitutional axiom which he had always maintained, namely, the inherent and indefeasible right of the electors of this country to return to Parliament those men whom in their consciences they deemed best fitted to represent their interests. Now, the noble Lord had promised a measure of reform. He (Mr. R. Currie), for one, most earnestly desired to

1597
see such a measure brought forward. Remembering with gratitude what the noble Lord had already done in the cause of reform, he had no doubt that the promised measure of next year would be worthy of the noble Lord's ancient reputation. But the noble Lord had hinted to them that the remission of the property qualification would be one portion of that measure. Now, he (Mr. R. Currie) earnestly hoped that a much larger change than that would be effected, and that the abolition of all oaths to be taken as religious tests would form an integral part of that measure. He meant, by integral part, such a part as would make it a question on which, by its success or failure, the Government were determined to stand or fall.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYfelt bound to discharge the duty with which the hon. Gentleman had been entrusted, and which he had failed to perform. As the notice did not stand in any particular name, it was competent for him to do so. He would, therefore, move that the prayer of the petition of the electors of London be then taken into consideration. He had a right as an elector of the City of London, to complain of the conduct of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. R. Currie), to whom the petition had been entrusted. He could speak as one of the electors who was present at the meeting where the petition was adopted, that if that meeting could have known that the hon. Gentleman would, in his place, have expressed his dissent from the prayer of the petition, it would not have been entrusted to him for presentation. He (Mr. Anstey) felt that he should be discharging his duty by moving, in the terms of the notice on the paper, that this petition be taken into consideration, and that the House hear counsel on behalf of the electors of the City of London, in pursuance of the prayer of that petition. Those electors had a right to consider their case as distinct from that of the electors of Greenwich. The case of Baron Rothschild was essentially distinct from that of Alderman Salomons. Alderman Salomons had yet to be debarred, by a formal resolution, from taking his seat. Having just decided that they would not hear counsel at the bar on behalf of Alderman Salomons, they were now called upon to say whether they would hear counsel on behalf of the City of London. It was well known, last year, that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, if Baron Rothschild expressed a wish to be heard by himself or coun-
1598
sel, he (Lord John Russell) should have every disposition to hear him. Well, Baron Rothschild did wish to be heard, and he had authorised this petition to be presented to the House. He had done what Alderman Salomons could not do. Alderman Salomons had sat in his place; he could not, therefore, request to be heard at the bar of the House, either in person or by counsel, or in any other place except where he ought to be heard, namely, in his own proper seat in the House. But Baron Rothschild had not yet asserted his right to a seat and vote in Parliament; he was, therefore, in a position to be heard at the bar, and he now requested to be heard; in conjunction with his fellow-constituents, he requested the House to do that which the noble Lord, last Session, said he was ready to do. He (Mr. Anstey) trusted the House would see that they were not precluded from complying with that request by reason of the unfortunate decision to which they had just come in the case of Alderman Salomons. Before he sat down he begged to say that it was his intention to press this Motion to a division: he therefore would tell his doubting or timid Friend (Mr. R. Currie) not to waste time by endeavouring to persuade him not to take that course. He would advise the citizens of London to leave nothing untried to obtain their rights. He wished to impose the responsibility on those who refused those rights. ["Hear, hear!"] He was glad to find that hon. Gentlemen opposite accepted that responsibility. He would take this opportunity of explaining, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Inglis), which the forms of the House had prevented him from doing before, that the point was really this—that Baron Rothschild was duly qualified, was duly elected, had taken the oaths prescribed and required by law, and was, therefore, entitled to take his seat. The points of qualification and election the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had admitted, but there he stopped. The hon. Baronet argued that Baron Rothschild was no more qualified than a lunatic, a female, a minor, or an alien; but the cases were not at all parallel; for neither a lunatic, a female, a minor, nor an alien, was eligible; and if any one such were elected, such person could not sit, the votes of the electors would be thrown away, and the person next on the poll could demand to be returned by the returning officer. But Baron Rothschild was eligible, and this

1599
was the distinction which the friends of that Gentleman took. When he (Mr. (Anstey) said that the oath tendered at the table to the Jew was at all events illegal so far as the Jew was concerned, because it was not binding on his conscience, he at the same time affirmed that the solemnity of the oathtaking should be altered; and he contended that it was competent for Baron Rothschild and Alderman Salomons to alter the oath themselves. The resolution of last Session distinguished the case of Baron Rothschild from that of Alderman Salomons; and to enable the former to sit and vote, it was necessary that they should rescind that resolution. To remove all doubts, the citizens of London asked them to rescind it, and then, by another resolution, to declare that the oath as taken by Baron Rothschild was well taken, or by some other solemnity to do what in justice they ought to adopt. He was astonished that the noble Lord should have given up the case of Baron Rothschild in the manner in which he did. The noble Lord admitted that the case of Baron Rothschild was not like that of a lunatic, an alien, a female, or a minor; but said that it was the case of a man who came to the table and refused to take the oath required by law. Now, what was the whole contest about last year? It was whether Baron Rothschild had refused to take the oath or not? Nobody doubted that if he had refused to take the oath, the House of Commons would have had no discretion, but must have declared the seat void, and have issued a new writ. The cases of Fanshawe and of Mr. O'Connell were quoted on that occasion; but in both those cases the parties absolutely refused to take the oaths, which necessarily imposed upon the House the duty of ordering new writs to issue. The Resolution of last Session admitted that Baron Rothschild had taken the oaths of allegiance, that he had not refused the oath of abjuration, and that the seat was full, and that the only question was as to the form of the oath. What he (Mr. Anstey) contended was, that Baron Rothschild had not only not refused to take the oath, but that he had taken it. The House, on the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger), that a new writ be issued, decided reasonably, justly, and as it became them, that a new writ could not be issued because the seat was full. But the noble Lord would seem now to say that the House, last year, had decided unjustly, in-
1600
consistently, and. unreasonably; and that, although the seat was full, although they could not issue a new writ, and although the oaths had been taken and not refused, yet, nevertheless, the House ought not to let Baron Rothschild either sit or vote. That was the resolution of which he and the electors of London complained; and it was upon that point they wished the House to be instructed by counsel. The question was, could they, after having by unanimous assent recognised the right of a Jew to sit in Parliament, and after having allowed a Jew to be sworn twice at their table in a particular manner, could they afterwards legally impose upon that Jew a Christian solemnity for the purpose of taking a third oath? That was the question which counsel would have to argue; and no doubt the House would listen more patiently to arguments advanced by them than to any thing which hon. Members of that House were capable of urging. This advantage was at present denied to the electors of the City of London, to which they were entitled as a right. The House had promised to recognise that right, and it was in their name that he now, for the reasons he had given, asked the House to agree to the following Resolution:—
Motion made, and Question put—
"That this House will hear Counsel for the Electors of the Ciy of London, in pursuance of the prayer of their said petition."
MR. AGLIONBYsaid, that as an elector of the City of London he was present at the meeting to which allusion had been made, and a more respectable and intelligent meeting it had never been his lot to witness. A better-conducted assembly he never saw, which was more than could be said of all assemblies, for even where parties opposed to their views addressed them, they accorded a most patient hearing. The petition, as originally prepared, did not contain the prayer to be heard by counsel at the bar, but only a prayer calling upon the Government to give pledges of their sincerity in the vindication of the great principles of civil and religious liberty; the subsequent prayer was added for the sake of unanimity. It seemed to him that these two prayers were quite consistent. The noble Lord had misapprehended him in supposing that he had contended for the right of one branch of the Legislature alone to set aside the law; while he agreed with the petitioners in calling upon the noble Lord to abolish the oath of abjuration, he, at the same

1601
time, fully concurred with the noble Lord that that could not be done by the House of Commons alone. The second part was quite consistent with the first, and all the law required had been done. It was hopeless to divide the House; but as there was nothing unconstitutional in asking the House to alter the decision of last Session, he would support the Motion.
MR. RAIKES CURRIEsaid, he threw himself on the indulgence of the House for a moment. Though he seldom troubled them, there were occasions on which a man was obliged to speak, and he felt that this was one of them. He might be permitted to state that he felt unfitted, by his taste, his habits, and his pursuits, to take part in political agitation; but having taken a deep interest in this question for several years past, he could not refuse to take the chair at the public meeting when he was called upon to do so. He quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Aglionby) as to the respectability of the meeting, at which, as was usual in such cases, resolutions were prepared beforehand, and were proposed and seconded, not by Members of Parliament or by professional agitators, but by men of great eminence and high standing in the commercial world—by such men as Mr. John Dillon and Mr. Samuel Morley. Those resolutions, two in number, were proposed and discussed, and were carried unanimously. To show the calmness of the meeting, he might state that one gentleman who proposed that Baron Rothschild should vacate his seat, and who did not appear to have a single supporter in the meeting, was yet heard through a long speech without any interruption whatever. As he sat admiring this scene—contrasting it with the excitement that often prevailed in more aristocratic assemblies—as he thought of what had taken place in the House only a few nights before, when the hon. and learned Member for Youghal desired at once both to rouse and to defy the tempest; he happened to turn round, when, lo! the hon. and learned Member himself stood by his side, flourishing in one hand his well-known pocket handkerchief, and brandishing in the other a formidable petition. What a sight was this for the chairman of a public meeting! He (Mr. Currie) actually trembled at the apparition. The hon. and learned Member came down to say that they were all wrong, and that he was the only one right—that he was the only one who knew what
1602
ought to be done. He expostulated with the hon. and learned Gentleman, but the hon. and learned Gentleman declared vehemently, "I'll carry it." Why, the hon. and learned Gentleman, with his vehemence and perseverance, could carry anything—no public meeting could stand against him. But just at this crisis—at this terrible nodus in which the hon. and learned Member threatened to bind the meeting—Deus intersit—Minerva came down in the shape of the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth. That hon. and learned Gentleman, as the House well knew, carried oratorical guns of large dimensions, of no mean report, and no inconsiderable bore. He observed at that time that the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was absolutely pawing the ground, eager for the wordy battle; doubtless he felt—
"That stern joy which warriors feel
In foemen worthy of their steel."
He expected nothing less than that a rencounter would take place, and that the two hon. and learned Gentlemen would come into actual collision. But at that moment his attention was called off to the business of the meeting—for this, it must be observed, was all by-play—behind the scenes—and when he turned round again he found that the hon. and learned Member for Cockermouth had used the interval with great diplomatic ability in soothing the hon. and learned Member for Youghal, so that he was able to announce that political panacea they had so often heard of—a compromise. He would put it to any hon. Gentleman who had ever had the misfortune to be chairman of a public meeting, whether, in such circumstances, he would not have gladly accepted such a compromise? He certainly felt no desire to quarrel with it at that time; but he begged the House to observe that the result was the petition before them, concluded with three prayers. The first of them, which prayed the House to call upon Her Majesty's Ministers to secure the great principles of civil and religious liberty, by passing a measure for the total abolition of all religious oaths, was, he might say, the legitimate child of the two resolutions that had been previously passed. But the other two prayers were at best but the grandchildren of those resolutions, begotten upon the corpus—he liked to use the legal phrase—of the petition by the two hon. and learned Gentlemen. That was the plain matter of fact; and was he to be

1603
taunted for having, as chairman of a public meeting, deserted his duty to that meeting by not supporting two extraneous prayers which had been foisted into their petition? He was quite aware that the meeting unanimously assented to the prayers; but he submitted that they were unable at the time to criticise anything that was proposed by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal.
MR. NEWDEGATEthought it was perfectly clear that the meeting in the city of London had but a very imperfect idea of what it was about. Which was the amendment, and which was the resolution, nobody could say.
MR. RAIKES CURRIE: There was no amendment.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY: I beg pardon; there was an amendment.
MR. NEWDEGATEthought this contradiction only confirmed what he had said of the confusion. But the meeting of the City of London was not to decide this question. Whatever might be the opinions popular in the City of London, or in the borough of Greenwich, hon. Gentlemen opposite must be good enough to remember that this question had not yet been submitted to the people of England at a general election.
MR. BERNAL OSBORNEdid not rise to enter into any dispute as to whether the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down was a more correct representative of the people of England than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Northampton (Mr. R. Currie). He (Mr. Osborne) believed that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Newdegate) did represent a small certain party in Warwickshire; but he protested against it going to the country that the hon. Member spoke the opinions of that small party on any question but that of protection. On the question of civil and religious liberty he believed the hon. Member was entirely at issue with his constituents; and he thought that the hon. Member would find this out at the forthcoming general election. He (Mr. Osborne) simply rose now to protest against the language used by his hon. Friend the Member for Northampton. His hon. Friend might be a very good chairman of a meeting, but he took leave to say that his hon. Friend was a very bad advocate of a cause like this. When his hon. Friend attempted to throw odium upon an hon. and learned Gentleman who, however he might excite the risible faculties of that House, he (Mr. Osborne)
1604
believed to be superior to very many in that House in learning and in moral courage, and who had done good service on this question; his hon. and learned Friend must see that he was not advocating the cause which he as well as the hon. and learned Gentleman had at heart. He (Mr. Osborne) begged to tender his thanks to that hon. and learned Gentleman for the able, manly, and independent stand which he had taken in these discussions. He (Mr. Osborne) would, on this occasion, venture to offer the noble Lord at the head of the Government a few words of advice. He (Mr. Osborne) had been present at the City meeting, and he knew what the opinions of that great constituency were on this question; and however the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) might sneer at the City of London, it so happened that the opinions of the City of London were generally carried out in the legislation of this country. He did not suppose that this difficulty could be settled this Session; but unless the noble Lord determined next Session to take up this question in reality, he (Mr. Osborne) I was satisfied that the general feeling of the people would be for a reform of the House of Lords. He would frankly say that, for one, he did not wish that demand to be agitated; but be warned the noble Lord that if that was agitated, a devil would be raised not easy to lay again. He hoped the noble Lord would take this danger into consideration. He hoped the noble Lord would bring in a Bill to abolish all religious tests whatever; and he apprehended that hon. Gentlemen opposite were not better Christians than hon. Gentlemen on the Ministerial side of the House, or, if practice was to go for anything in Christianity, that they were not one whit better Christians practically than the hon. Alderman the Member for Greenwich. He hoped that when the noble Lord did bring in a measure dealing with this difficulty, it would at the same time deal with the whole question of religious tests. He hoped that this farce would not go on Session after Session, and that they were not to get for next year a mere "promise to pay," which was never to be honoured.
SIR JOHN TYRELL,as one of those who had voted for the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Osborne), must express his dissatisfaction at the course he had pursued. The hon. Member was one of the stock pieces at all oratorical platform meetings. [Mr. OSBORNE: I never was at one in my

1605
life.] Why, the hon. Member was reported to have been at one the other day. The hon. Member seemed to say, no one was so liberal as himself; but he (Sir J. Tyrell) took the liberty of reminding him that he had been as silent as a mouse during the discussion of the Papal question. [Mr. OSBORNE: I beg your pardon; I was not.] The hon. Member had voted directly against the feeling of the bulk of his constituents, as he would find next election. [Mr. OSBORNE: You don't know.] He was sorry his observations had been taken so much amiss, as at the last election he gave the hon. Member a plumper. As a Member of the reformed House of Commons, he must say they had been drawn into every conceivable question while discussing the present case; and, though most unfavourable similies had been drawn between it and the present House, he must say, as one who had been a Member of the unreformed House of Commons, that they would have got rid of all those pettifogging questions with respect to the petition, and would at once have come to the substance of the case. The hon. Member (Mr. Currie) had certainly taken the most gentlemanly view of it, and he wished those who represented metropolitan districts would take their lesson and their cue from him.
MR. HOBHOUSErose to defend the hon. Member for Middlesex against the imputations of the hon. Baronet. He said he was dissatisfied with the course taken by the hon. Member for Middlesex, but at all events he could not have been deceived by it, for the course taken by his hon. Friend, as Member for Middlesex, was the same as that taken by him when Member for Wycombe. He could also state, in opposition to the insinuation of the hon. Baronet, that his hon. Friend was fully determined again to present himself before the electors of Middlesex; and he (Mr. Hobhouse) did not doubt that he should again hail him as the representative of that important constituency. While he gave full credit to the hon. Member for Northampton for heartiness in the cause of Jewish emancipation, he contended that he had acted on this occasion contrary to his own better judgment. He thought the question before them was a grave and a constitutional one, affecting the liberty of the subject, the constitution of the country, and the rights of the electors; and he wished to know if they could have a better opportunity of having this subject brought
1606
before them in all its aspects than by allowing counsel to speak at the bar? He need not say that there were many precedents for such a course. In the first Parliament in which he had the honour of a seat in this House a loud outcry was made against what was called the sacrifice of the constitution of Jamaica, and counsel were heard at the bar on their behalf. This was a case where a colony was concerned—would they do less where the city of London and the constituency of Greenwich were concerned? Were those near at home to be treated with greater indifference than those abroad? For his part he thought they ought to admit the hon. Member at once. They must admit him soon. If they were prevented much longer, he believed the House of Lords would be in danger. He considered that the House of Lords had a right to reconsider the decisions of the House of Commons—that it formed a useful balance in the powers of the constitution; but if that House opposed itself to the repeatedly expressed opinions of the people, he believed that would only lead to the question being settled in an unconstitutional way. It was for this reason that he should like to hear the arguments of counsel at the bar, as he believed they would throw much light on the case. He congratulated himself for having the other night called up the hon. Member for Greenwich, who did credit to himself, and, he was sure, materially advanced the question, by the taste, the propriety, and the talent he then displayed. He believed the same result might follow from the arguments of counsel. With regard to the settlement of the question, he thought no time was better than the present, when no other question was pressing itself upon their attention. Next year they were to have Parliamentary reform, and other questions were talked of, which would form an impediment to the settlement of this great question, and which, in fact, had always been postponed for questions of ephemeral importance. He would advise hon. Gentlemen opposite not to push their opposition to this question too far, for the time would come when they would yield to clamour what they denied to justice.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEY,in reply, said he would not go into the personal questions that had been raised, and which, in his opinion, were more discreditable to the Gentlemen who promoted them, than to the Member who was the occasion of

1607
them. He rose only to say, that the petition as it now stood was not inconsistent with the resolutions that had been passed. The prayer, to which the hon. Member for Northampton objected, was that the House should at once seat Baron Rothschild, or give him a hearing. Now one of the Resolutions was, that the House had, by a strained interpretation of an Act of Parliament, and an unworthy interposition of their privileges, defeated the rights of the electors. He put it to the House if there was not the utmost harmony between the prayer and the resolution?
The House divided:—Ayes 41; Noes 77: Majority 36.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Kershaw, J.

Bell, J.

M'Gregor, J.

Bethell, R.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Bright, J.

Mitchell, T. A.

Brown, W.

Moffatt, G.

Clay, J.

Pilkington, J.

Cobden, R.

Power, Dr.

Collins, W.

Salwey, Col.

Dawes, E.

Scobell, Capt.

Devereux, J. T.

Sidney, Ald.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T.

Smith, J. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Duncan, G.

Thompson, Col.

Ellis, J.

Thompson, G.

Evans, Sir De L.

Villiers, hon. C.

Forster, M.

Wakley, T.

Fox, W. J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Hall, Sir B.

Williams, W.

Henry, A.

Willyams, H.

Hobhouse, T. B.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Anstey, T. C.

Keating, R.

Osborne, R. B.

List of the NOES.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Baldock, E. H.

Freshfield, J. W.

Bankes, G.

Fuller, A. E.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Barrow, W. H.

Gwyn, H.

Beresford, W.

Hallewell, E. G.

Blackstone, W. S.

Halsey, T. P.

Bowles, Adm.

Hamilton, G. A.

Bramston, T. W.

Hastie, A.

Brisco, M.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Brooke, Sir A. B.

Hawes, B.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Headlam, T. E.

Bunbury, E. H.

Heald, J.

Cabbell, B. B.

Henley, J. W.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Hodges, T. L.

Cardwell, E.

Hodgson, W. N.

Child, S.

Hotham, Lord

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Coles, H. B.

Johnstone, J.

Collins, T.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Conolly, T.

Lockhart, A. E.

Cotton, hon. W. H. S.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Cowan, C.

Maunsell, T. P.

Denison, E.

Maxwell, hon. J. P.

Dick, Q.

Mullings, J. R.

Edwards, H.

Newdegate, C. N.

Fergus, J.

Packe, C. W.

1608

Parker, J.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Plowden, W. H. C.

Thornhill, G.

Portal, M.

Vyse, R. H. R. H.

Pusey, P.

Walpole, S. H.

Renton, J. C.

Watkins, Col. L.

Richards, R.

Wigram, L. T.

Russell, Lord J.

Williamson, Sir H.

Sandars, G.

Wilson, J.

Sibthorp, Col.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Spooner, R.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Stafford, A.

TELLERS.

Stuart, J.

Hill, Lord M.

Taylor, Col.

Craig, Sir W. G.

DAVID SALOMONS, ESQ.—THE OATH OF ABJURATION—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Amendment proposed to Question [22nd July]—
"That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House during any Debate, until he shall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by Law."
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he dissented from the Resolution as it stood, and, even when amended, it was by no mean such as he could wish; but he would accept it, as affording a fair chance of bringing to a satisfactory decision a question of a most unpleasant nature. He could not entirely approve of this Amendment, because it seemed to call on the hon. Member for Greenwich to take the oath of abjuration a second time—for that the hon. Member had taken the oath already he firmly maintained; but it was better he should take it a second time than have his seat in Parliament sequestrated; and without some such resolution as that now proposed, the hon. Member would be excluded from all privileges belonging to the seat, though the seat—as in the case of the hon. Member for the City of London—might be declared full. The noble Lord at the head of the Government seemed to press for a decision on this question. The noble Lord could hardly object to the House paying some regard to the religious scruples of the hon. Member for Greenwich: indeed, he (Mr. Anstey) was glad to see the House adopting more liberal views, to judge by the example of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis), who last year tenaciously adhered to the notion that until Baron Rothschild abjured Judaism and professed Christianity he was not entitled to be spoken of, even in courtesy, as the hon. Member for the City of London; but who had now abandoned that notion, and spoke of Alderman Salomons as the hon. Member for Greenwich. The effect of the oath

1609
was the substance of the oath, and the hon. Member for Greenwich had been called on to subscribe to the effect of the oath. He (Mr. Anstey) had repeatedly quoted two Acts of Parliament (8 Geo. I. and 1 Geo. III.), in which the effect and the solemnity of the oath were separated; and whilst lawyer after lawyer had been raising technical objections, they had in no way referred to his argument on those statutes. His argument was, that when Parliament had declared what was of force and effect in the oath, common law would step in and take the effect as substance of the oath in one hand, and with the other change the solemnity, to afford relief to persons willing to subscribe to the substance, but not capable of subscribing to it in a particular form. In neither of those statutes to which he had referred did the words "on the true faith of a Christian" appear, and, therefore, it was evident those words were not considered part of the substance of the oath, but merely the form of adjuration. Under the 6th George III., chap. 53, there would be no adjuration in the oath at all, unless "on the true faith of a Christian" was that form, because the words "so help me God" were not contained in it. To transfer legality of title from Sovereign to Sovereign, the body of the oath had been altered, not by Act of Parliament, but by Resolution of the House; "Queen" had been substituted for "King," and "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" for "Great Britain and Ireland: if, then, the House had power to alter the body of the oath, they had much more to alter the form of adjuration. In the case of Mr. Pease, the House not only resolved that the words "the true faith of a Christian "should be omitted—although, if those words had not been thought to form the adjuration, Mr. Pease, as a Quaker, would have had no objection to repeat them—but even altered some passage in the body and substance of the oath, in which an allusion was made to "force of arms." Either the alterations made already were illegal, or the alterations he proposed were legal; and the House having altered the oath by resolution on former occasions, could do so again in the present instance. The Attorney General had said there was no parity between the alterations he proposed and the alterations in former instances; if it was only the alteration of a word, he (the Attorney General) would agree to it, above all, if that word was a proper name.
1610
Supposing the hon. Member for Greenwich had read on to the word "Christian," and concluded the oath with the words "on the true faith of a Jew, so help me God," here would have been only one word altered—one proper name substituted for another proper name, and the all-important words "on the true faith" would be retained. It might be absurd to put such a case; but the Attorney General compelled the absurdity, for that was the legitimate and natural consequence of the right hon. Gentleman's argument when pushed to its extreme. The hon. Members opposite, and especially their great leader in another place, had objected to the admission of the Jews upon conscientious grounds. But what did the Earl of Derby say when he was consulted on a similar matter in his capacity of a Privy Councillor and a Minister of the Crown, and not as the leader of a faction? Did he say then, as he said now, that these words were a part of the constitution—that they meant a profession of Christianity, and that to change them would be to change the religion of the State? In the year 1829 Sir James Kempe, the Governor of Canada, consulted Sir George Murray, the then Secretary for the Colonies, on an opinion of the Canadian Attorney General as to the effect of a local Act to extend certain privileges to persons professing the Jewish faith. By a clause in the 31st George III., chap. 31, certain local and provincial Acts were required to be laid before Parliament and the Sovereign, through the Secretary of State for the Colonies, before they could pass into law; and amongst those required to be so submitted were all Acts containing any provision relating to any religious form or mode of worship. The question was whether Acts removing the civil disabilities of Jews in Canada must necessarily be submitted to Parliament, and allowed by the Queen. That question was much considered by the Duke of Wellington and the law advisers of the Crown under his administration, and by Lord Grey and the law advisers of the Crown under his administration, until four years afterwards, when, on the 28th of August, 1833, Lord Derby, then Mr. Stanley, wrote thus to Lord Aylmer, the then Governor of Canada:—"I am not aware why this difficulty (the Jewish disabilities) should not be removed by an enactment of the provincial legislature. If it is supposed that such a law should be laid before Parliament, I cannot

1611
think the opinion well founded." He (Mr. Anstey) thought the noble Earl was right in 1833, and wrong in 1851. The question recurred, "Why did they swear the hon. Member for Greenwich on the Old Testament? Because he was a Jew. What authorised them to do that? The Common Law. The House merely followed the example of courts of justice, who every day decided that "the Holy Gospel" of the Jew was contained in the Pentateuch. In the same way he held that the House would be justified in allowing the omission of the words "on the true faith of a Christian." He conceived that the House of Lords had no concern in the matter. All that was required to be done was a mere ministerial Act, and this the House of Commons were perfectly competent to do of their own accord. The noble Lord at the head of the Government professed to be anxious to see the hon. Member for Greenwich admitted. Why, then, did he throw an obstacle in the way of the settlement of the question? The House was not asked to decide the question, but merely to leave it for the decision of a court of justice. The Resolution proposed by the noble Lord, however, might so far prejudice the case as to create a doubt in the minds of a jury whether, in the face of such a Resolution, they would be justified in deciding in favour of the hon. Member for Greenwich. It was quite true that this difficulty might be overcome when the rest of their proceedings were put in evidence, and when the jury were informed by what inconsistent steps the Resolution had been arrived at; but this would depend upon the condition that they had a bench of Judges and twelve men in the jury box, of firmness, acuteness, honesty, and enlightenment sufficient to enable them to disregard the terrors of interfering with Parliamentary privileges, and to do their duty to the subject. But it was because he did not wish to reduce the question to this fearful contingency, that he wished the House to adopt the Amendment proposed.
MR. HEADLAMsaid, he had taken no part in the discussion of this question, either on this or on former occasions; not because he had underrated the importance of the subject, but partly because the matter was amply discussed by others, and partly because the conclusion at which he had arrived was a painful one, against which he had struggled, and was consequently not one which he was desirous of pressing upon those who could conscientiously come to a
1612
different result. But the case had now assumed a different aspect, and he was therefore anxious to state the view he took of it. In the first place, he begged to say that he did not think it possible to exaggerate the absurdities and inconsistencies that existed under the present law. He felt that the oath of abjuration was utterly unsuitable to the present times; had become entirely obsolete, and that it was not desirable for any reason whatever that it should be retained. As had already been remarked by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey), "the descendants of the person who pretended to be Prince of Wales during the life of the late King James II." were all extinct; and even had they not been extinct, they would not be of any importance in modern times, such as to make it desirable that they should be made the subject of an oath. Under these circumstances, the oath was worse than useless—it was most objectionable to compel Members when they first entered upon their duties in that House, whether they were Christians or Jews, to go through the solemnity of taking that unnecessary oath: it was a practice calculated to impair the idea of the sanctity of an oath, and to weaken the sense they would otherwise have of the engagements which upon such occasions they might fairly be called upon to enter into. If the oath itself was obsolete and unsuited to the times, the mode in which it was taken was still more improper, and, in his mind, approached even to blasphemy. In the first place, they handed to a Jewish Member coming to the table of the House an Old Testament, thereby recognising his denial of the truth of Christianity, and then, after recognising his denial of the truth of Christianity, they called upon him to swear upon the true faith of a Christian. It was also most unfair and ungenerous to retain an obsolete formality, not for the purpose for which it had been created, not for any purpose which was ever imagined by those who framed it, but for the purpose of making it the means of precluding a portion of our fellow-subjects from the exercise of their just rights and privileges, which rights and privileges could not be now taken away by open and direct legislation. For his part, however, even if the evils and inconsistencies of the present law were ten times as great as they are, he did not think the House would be justified in so far violating the constitution as to take upon itself the power of altering the law and redressing the

1613
evil without reference to the other branch of the Legislature. This proposition seemed to him so clear and self-evident, that he felt he was open to the charge of uttering simple truisms, when he stated it to the House; but at the same time when Motions like the present were seriously proposed for their adoption, it became necessary to state such propositions, however obvious and undoubted they might be. Though, however, it was quite clear that the House of Commons alone could not alter the law on account of its evils; yet he admitted it was a different question what the existing law really was, and whether a Jew could be permitted to omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Although on this question he had a strong opinion, yet, after the conflicting statements that had been made by high authorities on the subject, it would be presumptuous in him to say that the matter was absolutely free from doubt. If, however, the subject was accurately considered, the apparent difficulties would vanish, and he thought that the House would at once see that they had no power to allow the Jew to omit the words in question from the oath. Much misconception had arisen from the fact, that they had allowed the Jew to swear on the Old Testament. Members imagined that the House in so doing had exercised somewhat of a dispensing power, and they thought that if a power existed to alter, for the sake of the Jew, the mode in which the oath was administered, the book on which he was to be sworn, then that by an exercise of a precisely similar power, they might omit the words "on the true faith of a Christian," from the oath itself. This idea was not an unnatural one, but it arose from an inaccurate conception of the principle upon which the House proceeded, when it allowed the hon. Members for London and Greenwich to swear on the Old Testament. The fact was, that this House exercised no dispensing or peculiar power upon that occasion: it simply administered the oath in the manner prescribed by the common law, which is, with respect to a Jew, by swearing upon the Old Testament. By the 6th of Geo. III., the Act prescribing the present oath, two things had been enacted, first, that the oath should be taken, and second, that a certain form of words should be used. When the statute enacted that the oath should be taken, it did not prescribe whether it should be taken on the Old or the New Testament, but left that to be decided according to the common law.
1614
When they referred to the common law they found that it was quite as much a portion of that law that the Jew should be sworn on the Old Testament, as that the Christian should be sworn on the New Testament. This was the view taken and acted on by Lord Hardwicke. The House, therefore, in permitting Jews to be sworn on the Old Testament, exercised no inherent power of its own, but simply adopted and acted upon the practice of the common law, as laid down by Lord Hardwicke, and recognised at various different periods; but the statute itself gave no power to omit from the oath any expressions which it contained, and which were in truth intentionally introduced in consequence of the distrust at that time prevailing with respect to the Roman Catholic subjects of the Crown. A good deal had been said as to whether the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were of the substance of the oath, or whether they were simply words of adjuration. It was, however, quite a separate and distinct matter to leave out words from the body of the oath; and the practice of Jews swearing by the common law on the Old Testament, constituted no argument, afforded no analogy, to justify the House in exercising such a power. In his view, the question was not very material, because, whether they were of the substance of the oath, or words of adjuration, in either case they were something prescribed by the statute in addition to the ordinary taking of an oath. There was no doubt but the words "on the true faith of a Christian," as well as other expressions in the oath, were distinctly prescribed by the Legislature as guarantees to be enforced by the House; and therefore, however absurd the law might be, there was no authority enabling the House to omit those words, and the oath must be taken according to the form prescribed. An argument had been raised on the 10th George I., which he confessed had surprise him. That statute was quoted as an authority to justify the House in leaving out the words in question. The legitimate argument from the statute was directly the reverse. For a particular period, and a particular occasion, this Act authorised the omission of those words. The inference was, that except on that occasion the omission was not authorised, and that it required an Act of Parliament to justify such an omission. His hon. Friend the Solicitor General felt that this statute was opposed to his view, and laboured to

1615
reduce its effect. And the other, the Government argued strongly from these statutes in favour of their view; but neither party last year thought that it could be seriously argued, that this statute afforded an argument in favour of the omission of these words from the oath. What then was the House to do? It would not, in his mind, be doing its duty if it tamely submitted to the decisions come to in another place on a question involving the principles of religious liberty, and in favour of which the majority of that House had again and again declared. The electors of the city of London had exhibited a steady perseverance in this question; and they would not be doing their duty towards them or towards themselves if they allowed the question to rest in its present state. How then must it be carried? Not by violating the constitution or the law; but it must be carried in the same manner as other great questions which were opposed by a minority, namely, by throwing upon those who resisted the change, the responsibility of carrying on the Government upon the principle involved in that resistance. He believed that if the Government took up the question next year in an earnest and sincere spirit, success would attend their efforts. He regretted the delay that had already taken place; but there was this consolation, that when this measure was carried, as carried it would be, it would be more valuable than if carried in the first instance, and would effect a triumph by promoting the cause of civil and religious liberty, not only in this country, but throughout the world.
MR. JOHN EVANSdid not conceive that noble Lords who had thrown out the Jews Bill in another place, had exercised more than their constitutional privileges; neither did he participate in the opinions of some individuals who charged the noble Lord at the head of the Government with lukewarmness and indifference on this question. He believed the noble Lord to be sincerely anxious for the success of the measure which he sent up to the Lords, and that no man was more desirous to admit the Jews to seats in the Commons' House. With regard to moral influence, he did not see how the discussions of the last few days could have the effect of exercising any moral influence over those who rejected the Jews Bill in another place, as those discussions had had no relation to the propriety of the measure, but only to the law of the question. As regarded the
1616
law, he did not agree in the conclusions of his hon. and learned Friend who last spoke. In order to ascertain what the law really was, it was necessary to look into the black-letter Acts on the question. The first of all these Acts was that of the 13th of William and Mary, which provided that the oath of abjuration should be taken before any Member could take his seat. The Act of the 1st of George I., ch. 13, introduced a new oath, but it had reference only to persons in the pay of the Government. Another Act, the 9th of George I., passed, which extended the abjuration oath beyond the parties referred to in the Act of the 1st of George I. It extended to every person in England, Wales, and Berwick-on-Tweed, and the oath was to be taken before the 25th of November. If not taken by that time, it was to be taken before the 25th of March in the following year. In the following year the 10th of George I. was passed, and it extended to all the subjects of His Majesty, except women, who were expressly exempted. In the last clause of that Act it was provided that when the oath was tendered to persons of the Jewish persuasion, the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should be omitted. That showed that the oath was to be taken in the form which was most binding on the conscience. His hon. and learned Friend said that this Act was of local application, and only passed for a particular time. No such thing, for every person in the kingdom was to take the oath in the form prescribed in the Act of Parliament except the Jew, in whose favour the words "on the true faith of a Christian" were omitted. This showed the meaning of the Legislature, and proved that the terms in question might be varied according to circumstances. For if a Jew took the oath, omitting the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," and a Christian took the oath with those words, what was the difference in regard to what they swore to? Did they swear to a different thing? No. The difference was not in what they swore to, but in what they swore by; one swore by the faith of a Christian, the other swore on the faith of a Jew. That was no part of the oath, but only of the adjuration; and since the case of "Omichund v. Barker," the rule had been that the adjuration which was binding upon the conscience was to be observed.
Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 88: Majority 38.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Alcock, T.

Martin, J.

Barron, Sir H. W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Bethell, R.

Murphy, F. S.

Boyle, hon. Col.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Brien, J.

Brotherton, J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Osborne, R.

Crawford, W. S.

Pilkington, J.

Currie, R.

Scobell, Capt.

Dawes, E.

Scully, F.

Devereux, J. T.

Smith, J. A.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T.

Spearman, H. J.

Duke, Sir J.

Stuart, Lord J.

Ellis, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Evans, Sir De L.

Thompson, Col.

Evans, J.

Thompson, G.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Thornely, T.

Forster, M.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Fox, W. J.

Villiers, hon. C.

Geach, C.

Wakley, T.

Heathcoat, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

Henry, A.

Willcox, B. M.

Hutt, W.

Kershaw, J.

TELLERS.

Langston, J. H.

Anstey, T. C.

Locke, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

List of the NOES.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Hallewell, E. G.

Bankes, G.

Hamilton, G. A.

Baring, rt. hn. Sir F.T.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Barrow, W. H.

Hastie, A.

Bellew, R. M.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Beresford, W.

Hawes, B.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Headlam, T. E.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Heald, J.

Bouverie, hon. E. P.

Henley, J. W.

Bowles, Adm.

Hervey, Lord A.

Bremridge, R.

Hildyard, T. B. T.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Hodges, T. L.

Bunbury, E. H.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

Cabbell, B. B.

Hotham, Lord

Campbell, hon. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Campbell, Sir A. I.

Jones, Capt.

Cardwell, E.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Child, S.

Lacy, H. C.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Lewis, G. C.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Cocks, T. S.

Lockhart, A. E.

Coles, H. B.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Collins, T.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Cowan, C.

Morris, D.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Naas, Lord

Cubitt, W.

Newdegate, C. N.

Currie, H.

Oswald, A.

Denison, E.

Packe, C. W.

Dodd, G.

Palmerston, Visct.

Dundas, Adm.

Parker, J.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Portal, M.

Dunne, Col.

Reid, Col.

East, Sir J. B.

Ricardo, O.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Richards, R.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Rumbold, C. E.

Freshfield, J. W.

Russell, Lord J.

Fuller, A. E.

Sandars, G.

Goold, W.

Seymour, Lord

Gore, W. O.

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir. W.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Spooner, R.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Stanford, J. F.

Gwyn, H.

Thesiger, Sir F.

1618

Wigram, L. T.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Williamson, Sir H.

Wrightson, W. B.

TELLERS.

Hayter, W. G.

Hill, Lord M.

MR. BETHELLsaid, that he begged to represent to the noble Lord and to the House the manner in which the proceedings of Her Majesty's Government, and of the noble Lord at the head of it, would be regarded in after times. Let them observe the state of the question before the House. A point having arisen whether certain Gentlemen elected Members of that House by overwhelming majorities of two of the largest constituencies of the kingdom should be sworn at the table of the House, and in what manner that should be effected, it had been admitted on all sides of the House that there was no principle in law nor any statutory enactment that prevented the admission of the Jew to be a Member of that House; but Gentlemen on the other side of the House discovered that the form used, and particularly the language at the end of it, might serve the purpose that they had in view. Accordingly, professing to act on Christian principles, and with a view to preserve the Christianity of the House, they adopted the principle of letting the end sanctify the means; and although it was admitted on all sides that the words in question were not intended to have any reference to Jews, and although it was plain by the language of the Act of Parliament that they were introduced for a purpose altogether different and diverse, still those Gentlemen had not scrupled to avail themselves of that technical objection, and upon that to rest the whole of their opposition to the admission of the Jews. Now, let them observe, that upon this question the great principle evolved itself for the first time—shall any citizen of this empire, in all other respects qualified to be elected a Member of that House, be excluded from the House on account of his religious faith? He repeated that this principle now for the first time evolved itself, for it never arose with respect to the Roman Catholic, who was not excluded on account of his religious faith, but because it was believed, rightly or wrongly, that, along with his religious faith he held a particular political tenet—that citizens and subjects might be absolved from their allegiance; and it was on that ground, and that alone, that Papists were excluded. To have struggled for the whole of his life to establish the great principle of civil and religious liberty, had been the

1619
pride and glory, and would hereafter be the greater part of the reputation, of the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but he (Mr. Bethell) regretted his shortcomings on this occasion. The moment that this technicality was brought forward on the other side, he might have crushed the petty attempt, and have upheld and carried out a great principle, had he really had faith in it; and that House and the country would have abided by him in that course. He might have declared that the Jew, if not excluded by common or statute law, should not be excluded by this wretched attempt to pervert mere formal words into substance, and to convert them into a purpose altogether alien from that contemplated by the Act of Parliament. But, playing the game of his opponents, he gave up that great principle, and declared his intention to bring in an Act to make law of that which was already the law. By so doing, he brought the matter to this pass, that unless those on that side of the House who were in favour of this great principle took their stand there, and fought out the battle that he should have fought, this great question must be altogether abandoned until the light of free discussion should break in upon another place. He called on him not to pursue so suicidal a course as to bring forward a Resolution, which was a most wretched and miserable conclusion of these debates and this protracted investigation of the subject, inasmuch as it was really no more than the question itself, in the shape of an affirmative proposition couched in very bad English. That Resolution declared that Alderman Salomons was not entitled to sit and vote in that House, not having taken the oath in the form appointed by law. Now what was the form appointed by law, and whether Alderman Salomons had taken the oath or not, were the questions that had been so much discussed, and they were questions which it belonged to that House to decide. If there were a difficulty about the matter, he trusted that House would adopt a course analogous to that pursued by the other branch of the Legislature. Had a question of similar difficulty arisen there, recourse would have been had to the advice of the learned Judges on the construction of the statute. Now, the duty of the House of Commons as legislators was at an end when they had made the law; its interpretation belonged to the proper tribunals of the country. And as they had not the opportunity of
1620
consulting the learned persons who presided there, the proper course on a question which certainly admitted of great doubt would have been, not to bring forward a Resolution that should conclude the matter, stifle discussion, hang up this question in a most unsatisfactory state, and be, so far as that House was concerned, a prohibition of further agitation on the subject, but to have left the matter to the decision of the proper tribunals to whom the constitution had committed the sole right of interpreting the statute law when once it was passed by the Legislature. But, although entreated to adopt that course, and to admit of the light to be derived from the learning which would have been brought forward by the learned counsel at the bar, the noble Lord had refused, as far as he was concerned, to promote any further discussion, and was now prepared to contend that this matter should not be put in course of investigation and trial before the proper tribunals of the country, and would not lend his aid to have this important legal question legally determined. Let them do what they would, however, to prevent a trial in a court of law, it would be had, and the opinion of a court would be pronounced; and what reputation and character would they have before the country, if, having prevented any further discussion in that House, by a resolution of the kind proposed (totally at variance with what they had previously professed), they were found to have put upon a statute an interpretation totally at variance with the judicial and rightful interpretation of it by the Courts of Westminster Hall? They must then do that which they had been obliged to do before, whenever the House had been brought by its leaders into conflict with the people, instead of being the exponent of their desires, feelings, and wishes. The House was in a false position whenever it put itself in opposition to the great constituencies. They had placed themselves in that false position, and they might depend upon it that on every vacancy which arose Jews would come forward, and if there was any liberty or independence in the constituency, they would be returned; and if the Parliament lasted long enough, Jew after Jew would be returned, until they were brought to a sense of their position by the miserable absurdity in which they found themselves involved. For what could be more absurd than to admit that Baron Rothschild was the legal Member for the City

1621
of London, and Alderman Salomons for Greenwich, and yet to refuse to admit them to a seat in that House; thus overruling all the political rights of that large body of the constituency of the United Kingdom by a resolution which refused to allow the matter to be investigated? He begged the House to consider how disadvantageously their course on this occasion contrasted with former precedents. The case of Wilkes had been alluded to; but there was another, that of Horne Tooke, which had not yet been cited in the course of the debate. Horne Tooke, being a priest in holy orders, was permitted to take his seat, and on that occasion a question was raised as to whether the election was legal, or whether the election was not a void one altogether. On that point there was a great difference of opinion, and many conflicting opinions were given by lawyers who were Members of the House. The House resolved that, in consequence of those doubts and of the difficulties in the state of the law, they would pass a Bill to alter the law, or rather, in fact, to declare it for the future; yet Horne Tooke retained his seat, spoke throughout the whole of that Session, and continued to sit, act, and vote as a Member of that House until its termination. The House in that instance did not proceed to the disfranchisement of the constituency which elected Horne Tooke, or to the exclusion of the elected Member. He adverted to that matter to show in what a different way that Parliament acted when a question was started and difficulties arose with regard to what was the law. He humbly submitted that in conformity with what had previously taken place, they could not exclude Mr. Salomons until the whole question bad been discussed before a tribunal which was the legal expositor of the law in question, and to whose decisions on the point the most bigoted and obstinate in that House would have the grace to submit. He entreated the noble Lord to withdraw this Resolution, and to consider what sort of an account he would have to give of his conduct in this matter, when he might unquestionably have prevented matters reaching their present pass, or at all events have suspended the decision of the House until the question had been submitted to a legal tribunal. He was far from wishing that any question which it was one of the privileges of that House to decide, should be determined by another court; but this question involved what was
1622
part of the law of the land, and they would, therefore, involve themselves in no inconsistency, or any surrender of their undoubted privileges, in obtaining from a court of law the proper construction of the law, for in all that they had been doing they had been professing to be trying to ascertain, and then to follow, what was the law according to the true construction of the statute. He begged the noble Lord, out of regard to his own credit, to let the matter rest undetermined at all events for this Session, further than it might be considered to be prejudiced by the proceedings of last Session, which went upon different grounds; and, in the meantime, let an effort be made to obtain an interpretation, by the tribunals to whom the constitution had committed the duty, of that statute upon which Gentlemen on the other side relied, and which those on that side of the House admitted to be the only obstacle to the admission of the Jews.
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, that he must observe that although the hon. Gentleman who had just resumed his seat was a very eminent lawyer, with all the resources at his disposal that his knowledge of the law gave him, he had carefully abstained from all reference to the legal part of the question. He had instead appealed to him (Lord John Russell), and had said that if he valued religious liberty, and would follow the broad principles of the constitution, and had a regard for religious peace, he would act as he (Mr. Bethell) advised him. But as this was a legal question, he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman should have shown that the course which he had recommended was in accordance with the law; for whatever might be his (Lord John Russell's) opinion on the advantage of admitting a Jew in Parliament, he could not act on those principles if the law were against him. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had shown him that it was clear according to law that they might admit Mr. Alderman Salomons to take his seat in that House, and could have shown him how he could effect, what he wished to see, all religious disqualifications abolished, he could understand that being urged upon him as an additional argument; but that on a question of law this should be the only motive appealed to, only showed that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who was so good an authority, did not rush into those topics that others less acquainted with the law were apt to do; but, on the contrary, he

1623
carefully abstained from them, because he knew the ground, and knew that it was ground upon which he could not obtain a sound footing. The hon. and learned Gentleman had also on this, as on former nights, avoided all reference to the history of this case, and had spoken as if he (Lord John Russell) had for the first time brought forward a resolution which he had concocted in bad English (as he was pleased to say), and had endeavoured to induce the House to adopt it for the first time. But this Resolution, as those who had been longer in the House than the hon. and learned Gentleman were well aware, was not an original resolution of his (Lord John Russell's); and this was not the first time that it had come before the House. Last year his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General had a Committee on this subject; and though that Committee was not authorised or desired to report opinions, yet in the course of the discussions in that Committee, it was not difficult to discover what was the opinion of Members of that Committee on that subject; and out of twenty Members who composed that Committee, his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford had not more than one Member with him upon the question as to whether Baron Rothschild could take his seat. It was quite evident what was the opinion of the legal members of that Committee, and of others who had had long experience in that House; they were not prepared to defend the view which the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (the Solicitor General) took upon the question. What occurred when Baron Rothschild came to the table of the House to take the oaths? His right hon. Friend.the Master of the Rolls proposed two resolutions, one of which was in the terms of the Resolution now before the House; and after a great deal of discussion, and after an Amendment had been moved by the hon. Member for Montrose (who, he regretted to say, was now absent from indisposition), the House decided by a majority of 166 to 92 in favour of the Resolution which now stood on the Journals of the House. So that, so far from the House adopting and placing on its records for the first time this Resolution, they would only be reaffirming what they had already adopted. That being the case, it did not appear to him necessary again to argue the reasons for this Resolution. Alderman Salomons having taken a course not exactly the same as, but similar to, that
1624
taken by Baron Rothschild, it appeared to him, if the House came to any resolution on the subject, that that which it could most fitly come to was the Resolution already placed on its Journals. The hon. and learned Gentleman said, "Why not take the opinion of a court of law?" He (Lord John Russell) had no objection to the opinion of a court of law being taken on those questions which properly belonged to such a tribunal; and they had been informed that day by the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Alderman Salomons) that the opinion of a court of law would be taken as to whether or not he had incurred the penalties contained in an Act of Parliament. Now, that was a question which properly came before such a court; but how they could refer to a court of law the question whether a Member at the table of the House had properly taken the oaths or not, he really could not conceive. For that House to wait there till a court of law had given its opinion on that point, was a course which he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman must see it would be impossible for the House to adopt. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted some cases, and others had quoted them, as if they were precedents in this matter. But he held that these precedents were totally inapplicable. In one instance, that of Mr. Wilkes, the House of Commons, proceeding on its own view of its own powers, chose to say that the author of a libel ought to be expelled from the House, and afterwards that a Member who had been expelled from that House could not sit in it again. But in those cases the House proceeded entirely on its views of its own character, and on certain precedents which were thought to bear on the question. They were not proceeding upon the construction of any law; but, right or wrong (and he believed they were very wrong), they were proceeding on their own opinion of what the House ought to do in a matter on which the law did not guide them. So that these precedents had nothing to do with the present case; and he must again repeat that the question before them was whether they were right or wrong in the interpretation of the Act of Parliament which stood before them? The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the question as if it were a matter for his (Lord John Russell's) discretion, or the discretion of the Members of that House to settle. But, as far as he could learn, hitherto, and until the last year certainly,

1625
it had been generally supposed that the interpretation of the law could not be other than that which the House had put upon it. It was alleged that the case relating to the oath of abjuration was not exactly the same, but very similar to that of a declaration contained in an Act of Parliament which he had had the honour of introducing in that House. It was a declaration which persons admitted to offices were allowed to make, and to that declaration was added by the House of Lords an Amendment, to which this House afterwards assented—the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Yet, in 1845, and not without former precedents, a Bill was introduced by Lord Lyndhurst—a considerable authority in any matter of this kind—and in the preamble of that Act it was declared, "Whereas, persons of the Jewish persuasion cannot conscientiously make the declaration contained in the Act" to which he had referred. Why, according to the doctrine now laid down, that preamble should have been that the parties were not obliged in that declaration to use the words "on the true faith of a Christian." Instead of which here was an Act of Parliament, solemnly passed by Parliament, declaring with respect not to all offices, nor to every instance in which the declaration was required to be taken, but with regard specifically to municipal offices, that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" should not be necessary to be taken, and that those having a conscientious objection to the words so mentioned might make the effect of the declaration in other words. This Act of 1845 was an additional proof that hitherto the law was interpreted in the sense in which he understood it. He thought the House of Commons could not do otherwise, therefore, than to persist in its previous course, and attach the same sense to these words. If, in the course of the question coming before a court of law, any new light should be thrown on the subject, there was no reason why the House of Commons should not avail itself of that new light; but he thought all the information which they had at present before them, must induce them to believe that they would overstep the law if they permitted Alderman Salomons to take his seat without taking the whole of the declaration.
MR. CHISHOLM ANSTEYsaid, he could not allow the arguments of the noble Lord to pass altogether unnoticed. Since the agitation on the Jew question first
1626
began, an Act had been passed, and the preamble of that Act the noble Lord applied as a kind of argument against the right of a Jew to sit in Parliament. Now, the first legislative measure to relieve the consciences of the Quakers was passed in the time of William III.; and ever since that time down to a recent period there had been an accumulation and a superfluity of enactments for the same purpose. Among these Acts was an Act of George II., allowing Quakers to affirm; but the power previously existed, and that Act was wholly unnecessary. So there was equally no necessity for the Act of 1845, which had been cited in this case by the noble Lord. There existed the 1st & 2nd of Victoria, which allowed the omission of the words objected to by the Jew when appointed to "any office, or employment, or on any occasion whatever"—a declaration as general as words could be; and that statute was in force in 1845, when the statute which the noble Lord quoted became law, and therefore the Act of 1845 was supererogatory. Yet the noble Lord had been totally silent with regard to the 1st & 2nd Victoria. Again, there was no distinction between this case and that of Mr. Wilkes. There were no precedents for the course recommended by the Government, and they had not the decision of a single court of law in their favour; it was, therefore, only just and reasonable to demand that they should allow the matter to stand over until it had been entertained by a court of law, whose jurisdiction was admitted to be competent to decide upon it. Although an election petition complaining of the undue return of a Member of that House did not prevent them from allowing that Member to sit and vote; although the validity of his right to do so remained undecided for months; yet, by this Resolution they refused to allow an. hon. Member, against whose return no complaint had been made, and who had taken the oath in some form at all events, to sit for a few weeks, or even days, pending the decision upon an objection to his claim, raised upon an absurd, obsolete, and condemned statute. It might be worthy of those hon. Members who were zealous for "Christianity," as they called it, but which he called intolerance, to furbish up such a rusty weapon as that in our day; but it was unworthy of the noble Lord, who had hitherto distinguished himself as the champion of civil and religious liberty. And he still ventured to

1627
urge upon the noble Lord, for the sate of the right of the subject and of the freedom of the constuencies, to withdraw the Resolution altogether, and to submit it to the House in another shape at the beginning of the next Session, when he would have the assistance and guidance of the Courts at Westminster, which would certaily give a decision on the subject during the recess.
MR. J. A. SMITHwished to protest against the conclusion to which the noble Lord had come, that because this Resolution had been passed last year in the case of Baron Rothschild, they should therefore again adopt the same in the case of the hon. Member for Greenwich. He had protested at the time, and he still protested, against the Resolution of last year, and he thought it was drawn up unskilfully and in haste, and that it went far beyond the necessities of the case. Even conceding, as he did, that the noble Lord, from his peculiar position, was bound to lend his aid to protect the rights of that House, and to prevent those rights, and the law of the country also, from being infringed; yet he did feel strongly that the noble Lord had come to a harsh and unduly severe decision with respect to the rights of the hon. Members for London and Greenwich, and the rights of their respective constituencies. The noble Lord might, with the support he could command, carry the Resolution he had proposed; but he might be assured that the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury spoke the words of truth, of experience, and of wisdom, when he said that such a Resolution could not terminate the discussion of this most important question. They would come again and again before the House in every way that ingenuity and perseverance could devise; and if they were, as he presumed they should be, defeated that night, they would submit to their defeat with the most certain and de-liberate conviction that they would ultimately be triumphant.
Main Question put.
The House divided:—Ayes 123; Noes 68: Majority 55.

List of the AYES.

Adderley, C. B.

Birch, Sir T. B.

Baines, rt. hon. M. T.

Boldero, H. G.

Baldock, E. H.

Booth, Sir R. G.

Baldwin, C. B.

Bowles, Adm.

Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T.

Bramston, T. W.

Barrow, W. H.

Bremridge, R.

Beckett, W.

Broadley, H.

Bellew, R. M.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Beresford, W.

Cabbell, B. B.

1628

Cardwell, E.

Jones, Capt.

Carew, W. H. P.

Knightley, Sir C.

Child, S.

Knox, hon. W. S.

Clements, hon. C. S.

Labouchere, rt. hon. H.

Cockburn, Sir A. J. E.

Lacy, H. C.

Cocks, T. S.

Legh, G. C.

Coles, H. B.

Lewis, G. C.

Collins, T.

Lindsay, hon. Col.

Conolly, T.

Lockhart, A. E.

Cotton, hon. W. S.

Lowther, hon. Col.

Cowan, C.

Manners, Lord C. S.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Matheson, Col.

Craig, Sir W. G.

Melgund, Visct.

Currie, H.

Meux, Sir H.

Denison, E.

Morris, D.

Duckworth, Sir J. T. B.

Naas, Lord

Dundas, Adm.

Newdegate, C. N.

Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D.

Ogle, S. C. H.

Dunne, Col.

Owen, Sir J.

East, Sir J. B.

Packe, C. W.

Ebrington, Visct.

Palmer, R.

Egerton, W. T.

Palmerston, Visct.

Estcourt, J. B. B.

Parker, J.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Plowden, W. H. C.

FitzPatrick, rt. hon. J.W.

Pusey, P.

Forester, hon. G. C. W.

Reid, Col.

Freestun. Col.

Ricardo, O.

Freshfield, J. W.

Richards, R.

Fuller, A. E.

Rumbold, C. E.

Goold, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Russell, F. C. H.

Graham, rt. hon. Sir J.

Sandars, G.

Grenfell, C. P.

Seymour, Lord

Grenfell, C. W.

Sibthorp, Col.

Grosvenor, Earl

Somerville, rt. hn. Sir W.

Gwyn, H.

Sotheron, T. H. S.

Hall, Col.

Spooner, R.

Hallewell, E. G.

Stafford, A.

Halsey, T. P.

Stanford, J. F.

Hamilton, G. A.

Sutton, J. H. M.

Hamilton, J. H.

Taylor, Col.

Hanmer, Sir J.

Thesiger, Sir F.

Hatchell, rt. hon. J.

Tyrell, Sir J. T.

Hawes, B.

Waddington, H. S.

Hayes, Sir E.

Wigram, L. T.

Headlam, T. E.

Williamson, Sir H.

Heald, J.

Wilson, J.

Henley, J. W.

Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.

Hervey, Lord A.

Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.

Hindley, C.

Wynn, H. W. W.

Hodges, T. L.

Young, G. F.

Hogg, Sir J. W.

TELLERS.

Hotham, Lord

Hayter, W. G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Hill, Lord M.

List of the NOES.

Adair, H. E.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Aglionby, H. A.

Duke, Sir J.

Alcock, T.

Duncan, G.

Anderson, A.

Evans, Sir De L.

Anstey, T. C.

Evans, J.

Armstrong, R. B.

Ewart, W.

Bell, J.

Fitzroy, hon. H.

Bright, J.

Forster, M.

Brocklehurst, J.

Fox, W. J.

Brotherton, J.

Geach, C.

Clay, J.

Greene, J.

Crawford, W. S.

Hall, Sir B.

Currie, R.

Heathcoat, J.

Dawes, E.

Heywood, J.

Dawson, hon. T. V.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Devereux, J. T.

Hollond, R.

D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T

Howard, Sir R.

1629

Hutt, W.

Smith, rt. hon. R. V.

Langston, J. H.

Spearman, H. J.

Locke, J.

Stuart, Lord D.

M'Cullagh, W. T.

Stuart, Lord J.

Mahon, The O'Gorman

Tancred, H. W.

Mitchell, T. A.

Thompson, Col.

Murphy, F. S.

Thompson, G.

Norreys, Lord

Thornely, T.

Norreys, Sir D. J.

Tollemache, hon. F. J.

Nugent, Sir P.

Villiers, hon. C.

O'Brien, J.

Walmsley, Sir J.

O'Connell, M. J.

Westhead, J. P. B.

Osborne, R.

Willcox, B. M.

Pechell, Sir G. B.

Williams, W.

Pilkington, J.

Wilson, M.

Power, Dr.

Salwey, Col.

TELLERS.

Scobell, Capt.

Bethell, R.

Scully, F.

Smith, J. A.

CONVEYANCE OF MAILS BY RAILWAYS BILL.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 1.
MR. BECKETT DENISONsaid, he objected to this clause, which repealed the 11th section of the 7th &c 8th of Victoria, c. 85. The effect of the Bill was to allow any post-office officer to stop at any place upon a railway, and drop or take up bags, on consideration that he should pay the same sum that any other passenger did; but there was this difference in the case's, that no passenger was allowed to put down or take up luggage at any station except the one he himself stopped at without additional payment. The Railway Companies complained that new charges were put down in the Bill, that, in short, greater services were required than before. He considered that the Post Office ought not to be allowed to fix its own terms, but that the rate of remuneration shall be left to arbitration. He objected, therefore, to this clause.
MR. CORNEWALL LEWISsaid, he could not admit that the demand of the Government was at all unreasonable. The Bill, in truth, would not make any substantial difference to the different Railway Companies. Its only object was to define more clearly a Clause in the 7th and 8th Victoria, which this Bill proposed to repeal. The sole point at issue was, whether the messenger of the Post Office should have a right to come on the platform to deliver and take away his mail bags. No dispute in that point had occurred in England, and, therefore, to the English Railway Companies the Bill would not make the smallest difference; but in Ireland and Scotland the question had arisen. In Ire-
1630
land, Lord Chief Justice Blackburne had decided, with very great hesitation, in favour of the Railway Companies; but he had recommended, in the present doubtful state of the law, that it should be amended. In Scotland, on the other hand, it had been decided in favour of the Post Office. The object of the Bill, then, was simply to remove the existing doubts, and to reconcile these varying decisions.
MR. BECKETT DENISONthought the law should remain as it was till the dispute was fairly settled. No question had arisen upon the point in England.
MR. COWANsaid, the Railway Companies objected to the Bill, because it was unjust for the Government to exact the maximum of service for the minimum of remuneration. There was a very general complaint in the north of Scotland respecting the delay of the mails.
MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, that it was clear that this Bill imposed an obligation on Railways to which they were not liable at present; and as the Bill had been brought in at a very late period of the Session, he thought it ought not to be persevered with.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that all that the Government proposed to do was, when they found a train going, to send a servant of the Post Office with a bag of letters, and that was all. They did not propose to alter the times of starting, or the places for stopping, and they would put the railways to no expense whatever. They would pay for the man who went with the bags, and this arrangement would enable the Post Office to afford accommodation to many small towns in England, which must be withheld if it could not be given at this cheap rate. He was well aware that there had been conflicting decisions on the subject in Ireland and Scotland; and he thought that instead of censure, the Government deserved praise for an attempt to place the law on an intelligible and uniform footing.
MR. BECKETT DENISONadmitted that letters were sent by the ordinary trains of the Great Northern Railway from Leeds to Peterborough; but they were sent as a parcel, and without a guard. The effect of the proposal made by the Government was, that the guard should get out at every station where the train halted, delivering one bag of letters, and taking in another. This would occasion great inconvenience to the passengers.
MR. MANGLESopposed the Clause. The Railways throughout the kingdom only paid, on the average, 2 per cent to the proprietary, and the public had no right to a cheaper rate of conveyance for letters than a fair arbitration would give them.
MR. LOCKEsaid, he should certainly support the Amendment of the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. B. Denison). The Railway Companies based their position on the Bill of 1844, and all they asked for was a fair remuneration under that Act, and to that they were justly and reasonably entitled.
MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, they had the Irish and the Scotch Courts of Law coining to conclusions on this point precisely at variance. It was, therefore, highly necessary that the law should be made more intelligible. He denied that the Bill had anything like confiscation for its object. The Government were obliged to come to that House and ask for an interpretation of the law, which would be equally just towards the public and the Railway Companies. Finding that the law was obscure, the Government could not do less than ask that House to confirm the decision which had been given by the Courts of Law in Scotland, which, in the opinion of the Government, and of the Law Officers of the Crown, had put the right construction upon the Act of Parliament.
MR. CLAYsaid, if it appeared, on investigation, that the intention of the law was conceived in a spirit of unfairness, either towards the Railway Companies or the public, he did not see why that House should not set the matter right. Under the provisions of the Bill, considerable delay would take place by the trains stopping at all the small stations for the purposes of the Post Office. That would be a great inconvenience to the Railway Companies, for which, in fairness, they were entitled to compensation; and he thought the person to determine that compensation was an arbitrator, and not the authorities at the Post Office.
COLONEL THOMPSONwas under the necessity of maintaining the right of the Legislature, within reasonable bounds, to control the proceedings of the Railway Companies where the interest of the public was concerned. The railways were the creatures of the Legislature, to an extent which authorised this claim; and there was no want of parallel cases, where the Legislature assumed and exercised a sim-
1632
ilar power. The instance which first occurred to him, was that of quartering troops upon the keepers of houses of entertainment. He should not have been so earnest on this subject, if it had not been within his knowledge, that in the part of the country with which he was connected, the interests of the public in the conveyance of their letters were set at defiance by the unreasonable use made of their present powers by the Railway Companies.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere) had stated that his object was to give a clear construction to the Act of 1844. If the Government had been charged with an attempt to aggress on the Railways on this occasion, it was partly owing to the form of the Bill which they had introduced. There could be no doubt as the right of the Legislature to interfere with railways, but in the exercise of that right Parliament was generally governed by the wishes of the Railway Proprietors themselves. If this Bill were intended as a new enactment, he should say it was founded on a principle which was not tenable, the only ground on which it would be justified was its being only a construction of the existing law. He did not think the Bill could be sustain-as a Declaratory Act, because the Bill of 1844 (which he himself introduced) simply authorised the carrying of mail-bags as luggage, and enacted that the servants of the Post Office should be charged for as passengers. The question of the convenience or the inconvenience of the Railway Companies at stations, never entered into the views of the Government in their communications with the Companies on this subject. The Government had not in their view the question of transactions at stations. It was clear that no passenger had a right to deal with his luggage as he liked on a journey, or to get in and out at the intermediate stations. He was ready to admit that a guard with his letter bags was a very troublesome kind of passenger, so much so that few people would be found that would like to travel in the same carriage with him; and he thought this was a case in which the Railway Companies had a fair claim to compensation.
MR. G. SANDARSsaid, he must protest against the case alluded to by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer being drawn into a precedent; he was himself chiefly instrumental in that arrangement being carried out, and it was simply this, the conveyance by the Great

1633
Northern Railway of a bag daily from Leeds and Wakefield to Peterborough, and for this service a certain remuneration was to be given; but had it been required, as in this Bill, that a guard with the letter bags should accompany each train, with liberty to leave and take up bags at every station where the train stopped, then, of course, a larger remuneration would have been required; and he (Mr. Sandars) could see no better way of deciding what that should be than as at present existed, namely, leaving it to be settled by arbitration. He considered the object of the proposed clause unjust toward Railway Companies, and it should have his decided opposition.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the Committee seemed to have lost sight of the principle on which these railways were founded. They were all founded on Acts of Parliament, which were based on the principle that private rights were to be over-ridden in consideration of the railways being for public purposes. He thought, then, that in principle railways should be required to perform this service. It was admitted that as the law now stood, they were liable to perform this duty, and it was said they were willing to perform it; but then it was said, "give us a fair remuneration." It was said the amount of compensation required would be but small, but on that subject he must confess he had his doubts. The main question seemed to be, not whether the guard was to go as a passenger, not whether he might not get out and amuse himself on the platform, but whether the guard was to pay for every bag that he took up as a fresh parcel. Now he thought it was very arbitrary that every passenger should be made to pay for every parcel he took in without exceeding the weight that was allowed him. Really he did not see why the public should be compelled to conform to that regulation, provided, as was provided by this Bill, that the railway should not be put to additional expense by carrying additional weight. This Bill did not impose any obligation with regard to stoppages or delay, or with regard to additional weight. It simply provided that they should perform a public service for a certain remuneration.
MR. GEACHthought the argument that the Railway Companies were put to no more expense unsound and dangerous. The great outlay of capital for a railway was required in the first instance, and then the remuneration for that outlay was ob-
1634
tained from the traffic, in which was aggregated a vast number of minute accounts. When the express train was very full, the actual cost of taking a passenger from London to Birmingham might not be more than 1s.; but did the noble Lord suppose that all the rest of the fare was profit? Why were they to take a guard in any other way than as a passenger? and no passenger was allowed to get out and take in new parcels, arbitrary as the restriction appeared to be in the eyes of the noble Lord. It was absurd to suppose it was intended that passengers having 100 lbs. of luggage were to be permitted to get out at each station and change their 100 lbs. of luggage-for another 100 lbs. of luggage. Had these conditions been attempted to be imposed by Government before railways were made, no one would have ventured their capital in them, and the public would have been without the benefit of railways. The fact was, Government were determined to get the maximum of advantages and facilities from railways, for the minimum of remuneration. This clause, if carried, would be most injurious to the Railway Companies.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwould ask what had been the object of introducing into the Bill of 1844 the clause referred to? Clearly, to give some advantage or other to the Post Office guards. But if it was only to enable those officers to take parcels not exceeding a certain weight from London to Edinburgh, they had that right already in common with other passengers, and the clause was wholly superfluous.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, the impression at the time the Clause was introduced was, that a guard had not the power of carrying the Post Office bags as common luggage. The concession was made by Railway Companies, but it never was anticipated that letters were to be carried as luggage in the way contemplated by the clause. As for the decision of the Scotch law courts, he was surprised how a Judge could come to such a decision.
MR. LOCKEsaid, if this Clause were carried, it would have a very serious effect on railway property. There was no knowing where Post Office exactions would stop if this Clause were carried.
MR. B. DENISONsaid, Railway Companies did not object to do what was asked of them, but they required to be paid for the service.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 53; Noes 56: Majority 3.
House resumed.

NEW ZEALAND SETTLEMENTS BILL.
Order for Second Reading, read.
MR. HAWES,in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, said that the settlers had intrusted their representatives here with the mode of distributing the Nelson fund, so that no objection could be made as to this part of the measure. The Bill was rendered necessary in consequence of doubts having arisen whether the New Zealand Company had not exceeded their powers. It might be said, indeed, that all the settlers ought to be consulted as to the transfer of the land, but this was scarcely practicable; any other objections to be urged against the Bill would be best brought forward in Committee. He trusted they would allow the Bill to pass the second reading now.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
MR. BROTHERTONmoved the House should adjourn. The Motion would lead to discussion, and it was understood no opposed Motions should be taken after twelve o'clock.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, that he must confess that the Bill was not on a sufficiently broad basis to satisfy him. If it was doubted whether the New Zealand Company had not exceeded their powers, the proper thing to do would be to bring in a Bill to ratify what the Company had done. It was plain the question was one on which the settlers ought to be consulted; but they had not had the smallest opportunity of stating their views, and were not aware that the House was going to alter the terms of purchase. He objected particularly to the first two Clauses of the Bill. He also protested against the attempt to press a measure to destroy the minimum price of land in the colony, within nine days of the prorogation of Parliament, and without the knowledge of the colonists.
MR. VERNON SMITHsaid, no reason had been given why this Bill should be passed during the present Session. He objected to this bit-by-bit legislation for New Zealand, when it was notorious that it would be necessary to bring forward other measures next Session.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the objection of the right hon.
1636
Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was directed against the first two Clauses of the Bill, which might be considered hereafter. The rest of the Bill applied to the Nelson settlement, and it was desirable for the sake of those colonists that the Bill should be passed. He therefore trusted the House would consent to the second reading.
MR. ADDERLEYwished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman intended that the two Clauses should be omitted, or whether he wished the second reading to be taken on the supposition that they should be discussed in Committee. If the right hon. Gentleman intended the principle of the Bill to be discussed in Committee, he (Mr. Adderley) should oppose the second reading. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hawes) had intimated that no alteration would take place without the consent of the colonists. It would, however, take some time to obtain that consent, and he greatly objected to placing this power in the hands of the Government until it should be obtained. It was unfair at this period of the Session to press forward such a measure—to smuggle it through Parliament, and he could not consent to hand such a power over to the Government.
MR. AGLIONBYbegged to assure the House that the New Zealand Company had no interest in this Bill. He thought the Government had been unfairly treated, and trusted that they would not withdraw the Clauses referred to, which would confer a material benefit on the colonists.
Motion made, and Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."
The House divided:—Ayes 3; Noes 51: Majority 48.
Question again proposed.
MR. ADDERLEYmoved that the debate be now adjourned.
MR. HAWEShoped the hon. Member would not persist in his Motion. The Bill was not objected to, except the two Clauses referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone), and the Government were willing to modify those Clauses.
MR. GLADSTONEsaid, he was unwilling to stop the progress of business in the House, and, therefore, he had voted against the adjournment. In the hope, therefore, that Government would give some further information than they had yet afforded with regard to the Bill, he would not oppose the second reading.
The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, if hon. Gentlemen would allow the Bill to be read a second time, he would communicate with his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies early in the morning, and state his views respecting these Clauses to-morrow. It would be a pity if that part of the Bill to which there was no objection were retarded.
MR. ADDERLEYsaid, that the proper time for the right hon. Gentleman to make any such statement was on the Motion for the second reading. He should therefore persist in moving the adjournment of the debate.
Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
The House divided:—Ayes 17; Noes 34: Majority 17.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read 2°.
Notice taken that Forty Members were not present; House counted, and Forty Members not being present,
The House was adjourned at half after Two of the clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Battersea Park Amendment and Extension; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Customs; Poor Relief Act Continuance; Sheep, &c. Contagious Disorders Prevention; Emigration Advances (Distressed Districts Scotland); Commissioners of Railways Act Repeal.
2a General Board of Health (No. 2); Militia Pay; Soap Duties; Mercantile Marine Act Amendment; Merchant Seamen's Fund; Leasehold Tenure of Land (Ireland) Act Amendment; Farmers' Estate Society (Ireland).
Reported.—Local Acts (Preliminary Inquiries); Episcopal and Capitular Estates Management (No. 2); Copyhold, Inclosure, and Tithe Commissions; Commons Inclosure (No. 2); Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland); Charitable Institutions Notices.
3a Tithe Rentcharge Assessment; Public Works (Ireland); Victoria Park; Unlawful Oaths (Ireland); Turnpike Roads (Ireland); Private Lunatic Asylums (Ireland).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION.
The EARL of ABERDEENsaid, he had
1562
a question to put to the noble Marquess opposite (the Marquess of Lansdowne), connected with the appellate jurisdiction of that House; and he did so at the request of a noble and learned Friend, who was unfortunately now unavoidably absent, and whose opinion on this subject appeared to have been misunderstood. He (the Earl of Aberdeen) understood that there had been communications going on between Her Majesty's Government and the Faculty of Advocates in Scotland, with respect to the propriety of obtaining the assistance of a Scotch assessor in the hearing of appeal cases from that country. Now, his noble and learned Friend had been represented as expressing his approbation of that proposal, whereas all those who had heard the speech of his noble and learned Friend were aware that his opinions were directly the reverse of that. His noble and learned Friend had said, that this question had often been considered by Lord Eldon and his successors, and that they had invariably come to the conclusion that the proposal was impracticable. His noble and learned Friend was anxious to have this mistake corrected; and he (the Earl of Aberdeen) wished to know from the noble Marquess whether such communications as he had referred to had taken place, and whether the Government had arrived at any decision on the subject?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE(who was very indistinctly heard) was understood to reply that some correspondence of the nature stated by the noble Earl had taken place; but the Government had come to no determination on the matter.

SMITHFIELD MARKET REMOVAL BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order.)
EARL GRANVILLEthen rose to move certain Amendments on the Report of the Select Committee. His object was to obtain the omission of certain clauses which had been inserted in the Bill by the Select Committee (namely, of Clauses B, C, D, E, and F), and the restoration of certain Sections (namely, xxxvii., xxxviii., and xxxix.), which the Committee had struck out. The clauses to which he objected were those which directed compensation to be given to the Corporation of the City of London. He thought that those clauses must have been introduced inadvertently by the Committee; and were, as he had already stated, only carried by a majority of one. The Committee then thought that

1563
there was no reason for retaining the optional clauses of the Bill introduced by the Commons, inasmuch as the Corporation of London had declared that it had no interest in Smithfield market, and had declined the option of managing the new market, as tendered to them. Now, he thought that it would be fair to the Corporation, while moving that the compensation clauses should be omitted, to move also that the optional clauses should be reinserted. He hoped that no Member of the Committee would feel that he was acting unfairly by them when he endeavoured to reverse their decision; for, if their Lordships, on referring a Bill to a Select Committee, were to be bound not to deviate from its report, there was no occasion for having further stages in the Bill. They would, indeed, be stultifying themselves by such a decision, especially in such cases as the present, where the report was only carried by a narrow majority of one. The other plea offered against his Motion was, that the Corporation had a charter, and that their Lordships ought not to meddle with the vested interests which they enjoyed under it. Now, the Corporation had stated that they had no interest in Smithfield market, and that they had not claimed compensation in the House of Commons on that account. When he reminded their Lordships that the Bill had been passed by a large majority in the House of Commons, and that it was the universal opinion in both Houses that Smithfield market, as now conducted, was a public nuisance, he thought that they ought not to pass the Bill in its present state—which would insure its rejection in the House of Commons during the present Session—but that they should adopt his Amendment, and restore, the Bill to the condition in which it was when it first reached their Lordships.
Moved, to omit Clause B.
EARL POWISsaid, that the clauses in question had been considerably discussed in Committee—the Judges had been called in and consulted on the subject, and in consequence of their opinion the Committee had inserted the compensation clauses. If their Lordships now reversed the decision of the Committee, of what value would Committees of their Lordships' House be? If the reports of Committees were thus set aside, it would be a mockery to sit on Committees hereafter. It had been shown that in 1845 the City of London had received an income of 5,000 l. from Smithfield market; and it was but fair that they
1564
should be compensated for the loss of such a revenue. The optional clauses, as they were called, gave the Corporation power to form a new market, but they did not give them any power to purchase lands. Without very much higher tolls than the Bill gave, the Corporation could not afford to purchase the necessary site. Therefore, the offer of the management of the market was a mere pretence to cheat them out of compensation. As to the alteration in the Bill being an invasion of the privileges of the other House, he considered that if the House of Commons would not waive the objection, there was sufficient time for another Bill to be brought in and passed. If they took away the rights of the Corporation in this manner without compensation, it would go far to shake the security of all property in the kingdom.
The BISHOP of OSSORYsaid, that having been, he need hardly say, very unwillingly, a Member of the Committee whose report was under consideration, he felt it to be necessary to state the grounds on which he had voted for the Clauses introduced in Committee, which it was now proposed to omit. He had come to the conclusion that it was, on the whole, for the public benefit, that the site of the market should be changed. For though, he felt obliged to acknowledge, much more had been said and proved than he had beforehand thought possible, both as to the advantages of the central situation of the existing market, and as to the extent to which the acknowledged disadvantages and evils of its limited area would be remedied, by the enlargement and improvements which the Corporation were prepared to effect; yet, looking to the prospective increase of the supply of the metropolitan cattle market, he thought it better for the public that the site should be changed to one in which it would be comparatively easy to make the further enlargements which were likely to be required from time to time; and also to provide lairs and public slaughter-houses, in connection with the market, by which the evils of driving through the City from the market, would be so much lessened. On these grounds he had felt it to be right to vote for the removal. But he, at the same time, had felt bound to vote for compensation to the Corporation of London, from whom the removal would take away the tolls and other emoluments arising from Smithfield Market. He held that the rights of property, whether of corporate bodies or of

1565
individuals, were not to stand in the way of a measure which the interests or the convenience of the public required. But on the other hand, he believed it was an acknowledged principle, as he was sure it ought to be, that, when to serve the public interests or convenience, the property, whether of individuals or of corporations, is injured or taken away, the public are bound to make compensation for such injury or loss. And, accordingly, finding the Corporation in possession of a clear income of 5,000 l. per annum from the market, which they held by a charter of Edward III., confirmed by Act of Parliament, he had felt no doubt that if, for the public benefit, they ought to be deprived of this income, they ought, at the same time, to be compensated for the loss. It had been said that the Corporation had no claim to compensation, because they had no rights of property in the case. He supposed that it was meant that they had no right to divide those funds, or to expend them, for the benefit of the individual members of the Corporation. He did not know whether such was the fact; but in his judgment it made no difference whether it was so or not. For if the members of the Corporation had no such direct personal interest in this fund, yet the Corporation was the trustee of the fund, and the guardian of the corporate interests for which it was to be expended. And he believed that the rights of corporations to the incomes which they enjoy, without considering the personal interest of their members in those incomes, had been always as distinctly recognised and respected by the House, as the rights of individuals. In the case of the very right in question, the principle that it was not to be impaired without compensation, was distinctly affirmed by Parliament in the Islington Market Bill, in which compensation to the amount to which the establishment of that market might diminish the revenue from Smithfield was secured to the Corporation. It had been said too, that the claim of the Corporation was shown to be unfounded by the fact that it had not been put forward before the Committee of the House of Commons; that it was first thought of when the Bill came before the Committee of their Lordships' House; and that the Committee had been imposed upon by the statement of the counsel for the Corporation, to the effect that it was usual to reserve such a claim for a Committee in the Lords, when the object was to throw
1566
out the Bill altogether. And it had been said that this statement was contrary to the fact. He, of course, did not pretend to know what the practice in such cases was; but the statement referred to was distinctly made by the counsel for the Corporation, and he did not recollect that it was contradicted by the counsel for the Bill. This he did recollect, however, that in confirmation of their statement of the practice in such cases, the counsel for the Corporation had distinctly stated, and that the statement had not been contradicted, that in the Islington Market Bill the course which they stated to be the usual one had been actually pursued: that neither before the Committee of the Commons, nor at any other stage of the Bill in the Lower House, had any claim for compensation been put forward on the part of the Corporation: that the claim was, for the first time, put forward before the Select Committee of the House of Lords; that it was there admitted, and that the compensation clause, as it now stands in the Act, was then and there introduced into it. This was distinctly stated, and was not contradicted; and he thought that it was of more weight than any bare assertion of the practice on either side could be. But, to his mind, this was a matter of minor importance. The question with him was not whether the Corporation claim had or had not been put forward in the usual mode, or whether the mode in which it was put forward was or was not open to objection, but whether it was or was not founded in justice. What his opinion on that question was, was sufficiently apparent from what he had said. In fact, he had felt so thoroughly the justice of the claim, that, in voting in Committee for the Preamble of the Bill, he stated that he was doing so on the presumption that the Corporation would be compensated for the loss which they were to suffer by the removal; and that if fair compensation were not granted to them, he would feel constrained to vote against the Bill. He felt in the same way still. He believed that if Parliament were to pass an Act, by which, for the benefit or convenience of the public, the property of the Corporation was to be taken away without compensation, it would be doing what was absolutely without precedent, and what was itself a most dangerous precedent, and he, therefore, felt obliged to vote against the proposed Amendments.
The EARL of LONSDALEsaid, that

1567
ever since he had been in Parliament he had entertained but one impression as to the nuisance of Smithfield market. He thought that the Corporation of London ought to suffer the penalty which it deserved for not having claimed compensation, if it had any claim to it, in the House of Commons. This market had been voted a nuisance by both Houses of Parliament, and, instead of giving the Corporation any compensation for its removal, he would rather fine them 5,000 l. a month until they should remove it.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHobserved, that when he first came into Parliament he had taken the part of the Corporation of London on this matter. He recollected well that as he was leaving the House on that occasion the late Earl of Liverpool took him by the arm and said, "Let me, as an old Member, give you, who are a young one, a little piece of advice. Never have anything to do with the Corporation of the City of London. Its members are the greatest jobbers I have ever known in the whole course of my political life." Not having studied the subject anew, the recollection of that anecdote would prevent him from voting on either one side or the other on this occasion.
VISCOUNT SIDNEYstated, that as a Member of the Committee, he had been of opinion that no case for compensation had been made out by the Corporation. He should therefore give his vote in favour of the Amendment of the noble Earl.
The MARQUESS of SALISBURYsaid, he should support the clauses introduced by the Committee, believing that they had gone through the case most carefully, and had satisfied themselves of the claim of the City to compensation. The terms of the Charter of Edward III. expressly provided that no other market should be established within seven miles. Nothing could be more destructive of the confidence of the country than to take away those chartered rights without giving compensation.
The EARL of HARROWBYdid not mean to contend that these chartered rights ought to stand in the way of improvement, but he thought that compensation ought to be given. He would suppose the case of the Mansion House itself being moved for the sake of widening the street, and asked if compensation was not as justly due in this case as it would be for the Mansion House? It would be exceedingly difficult to draw a line betwixt this and other kinds of property.
LORD BEAUMONTsaid, the question ought to be decided on its own merits, without reference to precedent. The moment the Preamble of the Bill was declared to be proved, away went the charter and all belonging to it: it was a virtual repeal of the charter. ["No, no!"] At all events, the preamble was declared proved. The grant of the charter had been originally made for the public good, and not for the sake of putting money into the pockets of the Corporation; the latter was an accidental circumstance. By the Bill, as proposed in the Commons, compensation was given them by their being allowed to manage the new markets; they were placed in as good a position as that they now occupied. Looking at the small majority of one in the Committee for the compensation, and believing that the City would be perfectly compensated by the reinsertion of the original clauses, he should vote for the Bill being restored to that form.
LORD COLCHESTERreferred to the establishment of the Islington market, and said that the small number of buyers and sellers resorting thither was a proof that the buyers and sellers of cattle had no dislike to Smithfield market. He thought the compensation would not injure the buyers and sellers of cattle, and ought to he consented to on the ground of the great principle involved.
LORD REDESDALEsaid, he could never sanction property being taken away without compensation. If ever Lynch law had been practised in this country, it had been brought to bear against the Corporation of London in this case. If they were to be treated in this way, their property being taken away, no man's property would be safe. The Corporation was not to blame for the market having continued on that spot; they had sought its removal, but could not obtain the sanction of Parliament. The compensation proposed was on a most fair principle; and unless it were granted, great injustice would be inflicted.
LORD CRANWORTHdid not think the Bill interfered in any way with the rights of property. In point of fact, and of law, the Corporation of London had no right to compensation. The short facts were these:—The charter, as it was called, under which the Corporation claimed, was, in point of fact, an Act of Parliament passed in the reign of Edward III., and by which Smithfield market was established. But, even suppose a Royal Charter had been granted conferring ex-

1569
clusive privileges, the terms of the charter must in that case he strictly observed. The Corporation, in such case, would be bound to keep the market in such a state that there would be adequate and complete facilities given to all the parties who resorted to it. Now, it was a matter of notoriety that Smithfield market did not answer the purpose for which they could assume that a charter had been granted. Now, that being so, his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack would tell their Lordships that, by scire facias, the letters patent might be repealed. There would be no compensation then. But Smithfield market, as he had already said, was established by Act of Parliament, and they would be in no better position under an Act of Parliament than under Royal Charters. He, however, entirely approved of the concession which had been made to the Corporation by the Commons—granting them their privileges at another market, the right of levying tolls, &c; but this was the utmost the Corporation of London could expect. Let him remind their Lordships that Smithfield market, as originally founded by the Act, was outside the walls of the town: it was then convenient that it should occupy its present site, but circumstances had since occurred which rendered it an intolerable nuisance. When it was said by the noble Lord that this measure was brought forward because of popular feeling, he would only remark that 99 out of 100 who knew any thing upon the subject were in favour of its removal. Interested parties wished to hold that which they were not entitled to hold. It was intended by the Legislature that a convenient market should be maintained; but it never could be intended that a disgraceful nuisance should be perpetuated. The Corporation had no absolute or legal right to compensation; but they had an equitable claim to be put as nearly as possible in the same position with respect to their rights and privileges, after as before the passing of the Bill; and this had been amply provided for by the clauses introduced by the Commons, and now proposed to he restored. Their Lordships would he acting with a slavish deference to what was improperly termed vested interests, if they acted upon any other principle. He supported the Motion of the noble Earl.
After a few words from Earl BATHURST,
EARL GRANVILLEreplied: After the observations of the noble Lord (Lord Cranworth), he hoped their Lordships
1570
would dismiss from their minds any fear of dealing injuriously with vested interests.
On Question, "That the said Clause stand part of the Bill,"
Their Lordships divided:—Content 15: Not Content 59; Majority 44.
Resolved in the Negative.
Further Amendments made; and Bill to be read 3a To-morrow.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S FUND BILL.
Order of the Day for Second Reading read.
EARL GRANVILLEmoved that the Bill be now read 2a.
The EARL of ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he some time ago addressed a few observations to their Lordships, in the hope that the Government would be induced to reconsider the plan then before the House of Commons, and one clause to which he then alluded had since been amended. If it had been possible to induce their Lordships at this period of the Session, for the sake of the great financial interests involved in the measure, to delay its passing until the House of Commons could reconsider the subject, he would have endeavoured to produce that impression. The Government, he thought, could not be aware of the extent to which the revenue would be affected by the inconsiderate manner in which the clause had been framed. It would cause a loss of between 400,000 l. and 500,000 l. before the clause could be finally wound up. Under the existing law there were 160,000 seamen upon this fund, three-fourths of whom had already acquired a right to pensions. The parties engaged in the foreign trade, who were employed on the average for nine months in one year, paid 9s. Those engaged in the coasting trade averaged about six months, and paid 6s. The first class would therefore pay 27 s. during three years, and the latter 18 s. Under this clause, if a seaman paid 2s. in the first quarter of three years, he would save himself from forfeiting his right during that period, and the loss to the revenue would amount to 120,000 l. The fund was treated in the Bill as one fund, but there was a fund to every port, and the trustees of those funds, which had been well managed, complained that an average was to be struck between them and those which had been ill managed. It appeared, also, that pensioners were to be paid on the average of the last five years, and it was to be left to the Board of Trade to determine the mode of taking the average. He

1571
thought it would have been much better if the Act had defined the rights of the parties, and he did not approve of their being left at the discretion of a board. He also objected to the ambiguity of the clause, which was so worded that in all probability many of the seamen would lose their pensions. Though by this Bill these pensions would he very burdensome to the State, yet from the reading of the clause as to the payments by the seamen, he thought it would work great hardship in individual cases. Although he did not expect that these observations would produce any effect, he trusted that the measure would operate as a caution to the Government never to permit any Bill to be introduced into the House of Commons which in the smallest degree touched on financial matters without strict inquiry.
EARL GRANVILLEbelieved it to be utterly impracticable to have introduced a Bill, previous to the difficulties of working it being ascertained, which would not have required renewed legislation. It was true that Mr. Finlaison had shown it would have been cheaper to have continued the present system than to wind it up; but that continuance was impossible, because it implied not only an advance from the Treasury, but increased contributions by the seamen themselves, and that increase they rejected. The object of the Government, when they found that the old system must be wound up, was, that the seamen should be put as much as possible in the same situation as they would have been in had they continued under the old system, either as receivers of pensions or contributors, or rather in a bettor situation.
After a few words from the Earl of ELLENBOROUGH in reply,
On Question, Resolved in the Affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly.
House adjourned till To-morrow.