The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-26 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
THE OATHS BILL.
On the motion that this bill be read a second time,
Sir F. THESIGE said that when the noble lord, now
more than three montlis ago, introduced this measure to
the attention of the house, he (Sir F. Thesiger) took the
liberty of observing upon the important principle which it
involved, and ho promised that an opportunity should be
afforded in this stage for a full discussion. That period
bad been long delayed, but not by his fault, for the house
would remember that he, over and over again, pressed the
noble lord to fix a day for proceeding with it so much so
as to provoke the mirth of the house, which was always
so easily disposed to be amused amidst its graver occupa-
tion. The noble lord on one occasion, with a gravity which
was remarkable, appealed to his (Sir F. Thesiger's) know-
le ,ge of his great anxiety to take a debate on this ques-
tion, and the noble lord appeared to rather expect him to
give an assenting reply. If ho might be allowed to ex-
press his own thoughts, they would not be in favour of
that which the noble lord chose to take for granted ; for
he could not get rid of an idea, which might be erroneous,
that the noble lord had no disposition to facilitate the bill
to its present stage, but rather manifested a reluct :nee to
do so, which was to his (Sir F. Thesiger's) mind indi-
cative of misgivings of the prudence of the measure.
If the noble lord was influenced by the state of public
feeling, he was not astonished at the mistrust which
he manifested, for so far as petitions to that house
could be considered as au index of the public mind,
the result was remarkable. They bad no doubt
that day bad, with the usual ceremony, a petition
from the city of Lou lon in favour of the bill. That was to
be anticipated. But up to that day the returns of the peti-
tions presented were interesting and important. The peti-
tions in favour of the bill up to yesterday were three, with
166 signatures; for an alteration in parliamentary oaths, but
not in favour of this bill, one petition with 69 signatures ;
whereas the petitions against the bill a ere 481, with
60,171 signatures. (Hear, hear.) The more he reflected
on the course which the noble lord had adopted on the
present occasion, the more he was astonished at his depar-
ture from all those professions he had recently made in
favour of the Protestant cause and the noble lord's violation
of those measures which he had so strenuously maintained,
and it was only to him a proof of the determination of the
noble lord to allow Teething to stand in the way of the
accomplishment of a favourite object. Before he proceeded
to consider the reasons used by the noble lord for this ex-
traordinary measure he must anticipate an argument which
might be urged in favour of the second reading, and against
which he was anxious to warn hon. members who were
opposed to the principle of the bill. One of the grounds
on which the noble lord rested his case for an alteration of
parliamentary oaths was, that a portion of them was
obsolete, there being no person in existence to whom they
could apply. The noble lord adverted to the oath of
abjuration, and pointed out that we were called on to
abjure the right and title of the descendants of the
Pretender to the crown of these realms, and that no
one was now in existence to whom that oath extended
There might be some members who regarded with in-
difference an alteration in the oath of abjuration, and
in this particular would be induced to agree with the
noble lord, anti it might be insisted on that, as they who
opposed the bill yet admitted that some alteration in the
oaths was necessary, that was a reason for going into com-
mittee on the bill, and then that those who were opposed
to it on other grounds would have an opportunity of alter-
ing and modifying it in other respects. He hoped there
was no hon. member opposed to this bill who would be so
incautious as to be caught by that specious argument.
They were at this stage of the measure confessedly d scus-
sing the principle of the bill. If they consented to go into
committee, they admitted that they were prepared to
legislate on the principle of there being only one oath,
which necessarily involved the abandonment, or at least a
softening, if he might use the expression, of the sure ennacy,
and the relinquishment of those securities of the Protestant
religion which were established at the time of the passing
of the Roman Catholic Id lief Bill. And do not let any
hon. member flatter himself that if he abandoned this high
ground, and followed the enemy into a field which they
had chosen, that he would ever be able to recover his posi-
tion, or that he would have any other course to pursue
than to surrender all his principles at discretion. (Hear,
hear.) The measure which had been proposed by the noble
lord on this occasion manifested his determination to allow
nothing to stand in the way between him and any favourite
object of his wishes ; and it would be useful for them to
considee what it was that led the noble lord originally to
the consideration of the oaths that were taken by members
of Parliament. It was in the recollection of the house that
the noble lord some years ago was returned as the repre-
sentative of the city of Loudon with Baron Rothschild, a
gentleman of the Jewish persuasion. On that occasion
the noble lord made one of those inconsiderate pledges with
which he was oceasionally apt to embarrass himself. He
promised that he would use his earnest and most strenuous
endeavours to remove the impediments which existed by
law to a Jew being a member of the Legislature.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The year before.
Sir F. THESIGER continued. The noble lord had cer-
tainly been as good as his word. Session after session had
that house been called upon to discuss this question. With
the exception of the session 0f1852, not a session had passed
withoet the question having been agitated by the noble
lord in some shape or other. In February of that year the
noble lord introduced one of his finality reform bills, in
ehich he introduced one common form of oath to be taken
by all the members of the house, and which resembled in
many particulars the oath now under the consideration of
the house. In 1853 the noble lord returned to his original
course, and introduced what was familiarly called a Jew
bill. The measure was carried by decreasing majorities in
that hcuse, and defeated by increasing majorities iu the
House of Lords ; and the noble lord, not discostraged, but
rather inflamed by the successful opposition, had now
come forward with this particular measure. The noble
lord had shown the resolution which he maintained upon
this subject by most extraordinary threats which he hid
held out. At the time he introduced this measure he in-
timated pretty plainly that if the law were not altered
according to his wishes, it might be for the house to con-
sider whether it would not adopt the course which was
taken upon a previous occasion, and seat Baron Roths-
child by means of a resolution. Now, the noble gird
must wholly have forgotten, or supposed the house had
no recollection of all that had passed previously upon
this subject. In 1850, when the present Vice Chancellor
Wood made a motion on behalf of Baron Rothschild, •
that the seat was full, although he had omitted the
words " on the true faith of a Christian," the present
Master of the Rolls, then the Attorney-General of the
noble lord said he was clearly of opinion that the words
were of the substance of the oath, and that no resolution of
the house could enable them to dispense with an act of par-
liament; and that motion was negatived by a majority of
105. In 1851, the noble lord, adverting to the argument of
his Attorney-General, said it was evidently the intention
of parliament that the words "on the true faith of a
Christian" should not be emitted; and in the year 1851,
in the month of July Mr. Alderman Salomons having
taken, or attempted to take, his seat without having taken
the oath with those words, the noble lord himself moved
" that David Salomons. Esq., 'is not entitled to sit in this
house during a debate until he shall take the oath of abju-
ration in the form prescribed by law." And the Attorney-
General upon that occasion said no one who looked at the
history of the period could doubt that the legislature in-
tended that those words should be a substantial part of
the oath. What had induced the noble lord to depart
from the opinions and declarations he on previous occasions
expressed on this subject? Had anything occurred to
shake the noble lord's views on the subject? Why, since
that perio 1, there had been two solemn decisions of the
s °arts of justice; orb of the Court of Exchequer, in which
three beret's to one were of opinion that these words
were an essential and substantial part of the oath, and no
part of the ceremony of administering the oath ; and that
judgment was conrirniecl by the unanimous decision of the
Court of Exchequer Chamber, delivered by Lord Camp-
bell. And set the noble lord was determined to show
that nothing should interfere with the object he had at
heart. [The hon. and learned gentleman quoted a declara-
tion cf Lord Ly netturses, that the supremacy of the crown
in ecclesiastical matters was part of the common law of the
land.] Iu the reign of Elizabeth, however, when the seal
was set to our happy Reformation, it was considered ad-
visable that there should be a strong legislative declara-
tion of the authority of the Crown, for the purpose of
binding up the Protest ut religious establishment by law
into one compact, independent body, with the sovereign at
its head, and therefore it was that there being for the first
time in the fii st year of the reign of Elizabeth this legal
recognition of the supremacy, writers hail invariably
treated that statute as being one of the main links of the
temporal institution of theAngican Church, and as the
key-stone of the arch of the Protestant reformed religion
established by law. That being the charter of their
liberties, and the oath of supremacy which the Protestant
members now took of being framed on the model of that
which was contained in that Act of Parliament, he thought
they ought to look with great jealousy and suspicion on
any attempt to tamper with that oath. They had, in
feet, consecrated it by introducing the principle which it
contained into the oath which was taken by the sovereign
at her coronation. What did the noble lord prow's° by
this now fangled form of oath? He proposed that the
oath of the sovereign should be the only one that recognised
the Protestant constitution in its integrity. But had the
noble lord assigned no reason for this measure? Yes, he had
favoured them with certain of his views at the time he in-
troduced it, and pointed out particular parts of the oath
which lie considered to be highly objectionable. In
the first place, the noble lord said it was desirable
to get rid of this portion of the oath —" I do re-
nounce, reject, and abjure the opinions that princes excom-
municated by the Pope of Rome may be lawfully deposed
or murdered by their subjects, or by any other person what
ever." The noble lord said, " This was the doctrine of a
party at the time of the Reformation and immediately fol-
lowing it, but he did not believe that there were any per-
sons who held such a tenet at the present day, and ho held
that it was wrong to call on persons to swear that they ab-
jured such a doctrine, when it was, in fact, an unwarrant-
able assumption that there were any person liable to such
a suspicion." And the noble lord stated that those words
were introduced into the supremacy oath in consequence of
a passage in the work of a Jesuit, approving of the murder
of Henry 111. of France. [Lord J. Russell here made an
observation across the table, which was inaudible in the
gallery.]
co
od
nTu
tchaeei
cni rnt fish
nac
slt
eliquous fee
nisentei pre
of
ertnsitlaeicy ogn
u.waso
hiwnedolesarstphBl: wh
ich
hs
not an oath of supremacy at all—it was in 1698 that the
oath of supremacy was framed as it at present stood.
The noble lord said it Was an insult to the Roman Catho-
lics to require them to take an oath of this kind. Why,
the very same objection was taken in 1.829, when the
oath, as it was now taken by Roman Catholics, was
carefully framed as one of the securities taken on the ad-
mission of Roman Catholic members. Twenty-five years
had elapsed, and there had been no complaint on the
part of Roman Catholic members of insult. Of course one
must speak with great forbearance on a subject of this
kind, and he did not believe that any high-minded Roman
catholic of the present day entertained any such principle
as that which this oath was framed to guard against, but
he was sum e he might appeal to every high-minded catho-
lic whether this was not, formerly, at least, a tenet of the
Roman Catholic Church. (Hear.) Had that opinion
ever been disavowed? and if not, let that part of the oath
be retained as it wag when they passed the Relief Bill.
(Hear.) But the noble lord suggested that the oath of su-
premacy was useless, because it was contained in the oath
of allegiance ; and he cited the authority of Lord Eldon.
Now Lord Ellen certainly had held that doctrine, but
since 1829 he was afraid that the argument could not pre-
vail. If the oath of allegiance referred to the spiritual
supremacy of the crown, the Roman Catholics had been
deceived ; but that such was not the case ho thought was
proved by the fact, that a particular form of oath was pro-
vided for thee), is which they were only required to ro.