The Sun.
London, England, 1851-07-23 00:00:00

the object of that Act was to further colonization. The oath
inserted in it was to be taken by parties forming settle-
ments in the colonies, and in respect of the Jews it omitted
the words "on the true faith of a Christian," in order that
he might take the oath of allegiance in the same manner
as he did an oath in a court of justice. That statute did
not relate to England at all; it related to the colonies,
but it showed that the oath, in the form they now insisted
it should be taken, was obligatory and binding, else
what would have been the use of passing that statute? In
regard to the Act of the first and second Victoria, that was
merely an Act to regulate the taking of oaths in courts of
justice, but it did not release them from seeing that the sta-
tute which in this case affected their proceedings should be
strictly observed. The ease of Mr. Pease had been often al-
luded to, but the declaration which had been framed to be
taken by Quakers was an act of the Legislature, and a mere
substitution of that declaration for the oath of abjuration.
Here, however, was a different case, for they had in this in-
stance a distinct oath, containing words which formed an es-
sential portion of it, and which the Jews could not take, and
that being the case, they could not do otherwise than in-
sist that the parties refusing to take that oath in the form
it appeared upon the statut!.-books should not be admitted
to a seat in that House. He thought it would be well to
adopt the proposition of the Noble Lord at the head of the
Government, for he believed that the adoption of the sug-
gestion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury
would lead them into additional difficulties.
Mr. JOHN EVANS considered the statement of the Right
Hon. Gentleman the Attorney-General most unsatisfactory.
It was plain, from his interpretation, that the oath was never
intended to apply to Jews, but to professing Christians. All
the substance of the oath was gone through before the words
"OR the true faith of a Christian" were come to. It had been
long since settled by high judicial tribunals that oaths should
be administered in the form most binding on the consciences
of the party who took them. And in this manner the Hon.
Member for Greenwich had taken the oath of abjuration.
Out of the inconsistency in which the House was placed as
regards the Jews they should get in some manner or other,
and for that escape he saw no more fitting opportunity than
the present.
Mr. NAPIER concurred in the view taken by the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government, and so unanswerably
supported by the Hon. and Learned Attorney-General. The
argument of the Noble Lord was plain and right, and bot-
tomed on a sound basis. The words, "on the true faith of a
Chrietain," were, by the'statement of the Legislature itself,
part of the juramenta, and ceald not be omitted from the
oath of abjuration until the entire form of oath underwent
a change. The question before the House was not one of
policy, hut of construction; and if they admitted any inter-
ference with the form now arranged, where was the line of
demarcation to be drawn ?

Mr. AGLIONBY, although a lawyer, would not advance
any legal arguments on the subject, but he wished to state
that he considered the Hon. Member for Greenwich had
taken the oaths according to law, and that he was fully en-
titled to take his seat in the House. As for the arguments
of the Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon, he did not
think they were worth a rush, while he regarded the
statement of the Hon. and Learned Member for Aylesbury
quite unanswerable. He quite concurred with the Noble
Lord, that no gentleman was entitled to sit in that House
until he took the oaths prescribed by law. He went that
length with the Noble Lord; but considering that the Hon.
Member for Greenwich had taken the oaths in the manner
pointed out by the law, he claimed for that Hon. Member
the right to act as a Member of the Legislature. He went
so far as to hold that the House had a right to put a con-
struction upon the Act. The words were matter of form
and not of substance. He did not want them to make a
new law, but not to put their privileges in the power of
another place. If the Noble Lord carried his motion he
would carry into effect his resolution of last session, that
the House would take into consideration the mode of giving
relief to the Jews. Did they think another Parliament
would give up their privileges to judge of matters which re-
lated to their own rights, unless a court of law decided
against the point that the Hon. Member for Greenwich had
taken the oath according to law?
Mr. HENRY DRUMMOND said they had heard a great
deal upon this subject from lawyers.; but he could not be-
lieve it to be law when they were told that it rested with
every person who took a statutary oath to omit as many of
the words of the oath as he pleased.—(Hear.) They had all
heard of the old saying—
" As, by the rule that makes the horse tail bare,
You pluck it year by year, and hair by hair."
' —(Laughter.) But nobody ever dreamed that that was a
receipt for preserving the horse's tail, though it might bid
fair for making it a ragged one.—(A laugh.) Now, what
sort of an oath would they have on their statute-book at the
end of ten years if everybody in every court of justice might
omit from it as many words as he pleased?—(Hear, and a
laugh.) He had endeavoured to take the question out of the
legal phraseology, in order to make it intelligible to the
House, and he hoped he had succeeded.—(A. laugh.) What-
ever difference might exist among them as to the principle
of this question, or as to the proper mode of acting,
he thought there was one result upon which they must
all be unanimolis, and that was that it was impossible
to leave it as it was.—(Hear.) He had ever objected to the
Jews sitting in that House. He had objected upon principle,
and he continued to do so still ; but he would not take advan-
tage of a state of the law which never was intended to affect
them to carry into effect a principle which he could not do
fairly otherwise.—(Hear.) He should like to have this
question fairly brought to issue; but it could not be. He
very much doubted the force of the argument which said
they could not interfere in this matter themselves. If there
was any force in that argument, it could only increase their
embarrassment, and would not at all help them; for how
came it that they had suffered that oath to be taken on the
Old Testament ?—(Hear, hear.) Whether they liked it or
disliked it—whether they did it unintentionally or from
malice aforethought, he did not know, but they had sold the
pass.— (Hear, hear.) When a Christian came up to this
table and swore on the Bible at large, he acted on the well-
known principle—
" Novo testamento veterum patet ;
" Veteri testamento novum latet."
(Hear, hear.) But when a Jew asked for the Bible it was in
order to reject the New Testament.—(Hear, hear.) And
that rejection this House had allowed.—(Hear.) Now, how
they were to get out of this difficulty he did not know. He
did not understand how they could now contend that that
House could not alter the essential part of the oath.—(Heat,
hear.) It was admitted on all hands that the words of this
oath were never intended to apply to the Jews. It was cons
tained in a series of acts against the Jacobites; and it was no
fault of the Jews that James 11. turned Papist. As things
had turned out, however, the Jews had to pay the piper.
(A laugh.) Nobody suffered but them; and if he believed
that those doctrines to which the Attorney-General had
alluded were less rife at this moment than they were at the
time of the State trial to which he had referred—if he did not
know that they were ten times more prevalent now than
they were then, he would repeal this oath altogether.—
(Hear, hear.) But, since they could not do this, he wished
some one would fairly propose a motion to exclude Jews from
Parliament. For that he would vote; but he did not like to
be compelled to be firing in ambush against the Jews from
behind a tlYke, that was intended to exclude a Sardinian
Prince.—( ):hear, hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY referred to several Acts to show that
Quakers could give evidence on affirmation. The 6th of
Anne, cap 23, referred to the Abjuration Act, and enabled
electors to vote for the election of Peers for Scotland. That
was an Act for the relief of Quakers; and a subsequent Act,
which was declaratory of the Act of Anne, provided that the
words " on the faith of a Christian" should be omitted,which
showed this form was a mare solemnity. This was a Parlia-
mentary distinction between the form and the substance.
The case of the Jew is in some particulars as strong as that
of the Quaker. If Parliament were to interfere at all, it
ought to act in the same manner as it did with Quakers, for
Parliament can dispense with a portion of that solemnity
which the oath of abjuration as offered to the Jew implies.
Was it not as just to remove what was obnoxious in that
oath with respect to the religious feelings of the Jew as it
was to adopt an affirmation instead of an oath for the Quaker!
He then argued that the common laws was recognised in
most cases, by the first legal authorities, as far superior to
any Act of Parliament. He should say to the Attorney-
General that he considered that that learned functionary
had not read the 2d Victoria with more attention than he
had the 9th George 111., with respect to those oaths, for the
Act is not an enacting Aet, it is a declaratory Act, and he was
prepared to prove from that Act that the oath was to be
administered, not only to a juror or a witness, but to any
person anywhere. He argued that the 2d and 3d Victoria
settled the question, and on this Act the Honourable Mem-
ber, for Greenwich solely depended, and he therefore hoped
that the House would not rush precipitately to a decision t):
a resolution which, though similar to the one of last r year
against Baron Rothschild, was based on a far different
ground.
Sir R. H. INGLIS was astonished that the
give the Honourable
Member for Youghal (Mr. Anstey)should
legal opinion that that House could altearctuhegit as his
enmight oath.
be, How-
ever great and discriminating his legal acumen
he should undertake to differ from him, because he believed
that the Upper House and the Sovereign should also agree
to a resolution of this House before any alteration in the oath
could be effected, and he hoped that no branch of the Legis-
lature would sanction such an alteration. He believed that
the Hon. Member for Greenwich has, by his recent conduct,
involved himself in difficulties that would for ever preclude
him, in the event of any alteration, from taking his seat in
that House. He hoped that the opinion of the House would
be taken at some future day, to decide whether he did not
for ever forfeit his seat in that House.
The House then divided, when there appeared....
For Mr. Bethell's amendment 71
Against it 118
-

Majority against the amendment
On our return to the gallery we found —4l
Mr. BRIGHT stating, that although the amendment was
Honourable lost, they had not as yet heard that the Mem-
ber for Greenwich would be heard by counsel at the bar of
that House. The amendment had been lost by not a very
large majority, and they had now to decide
upon the mom
tion of the Noble Lord at the head of the Government; but
although he had no authority to make the request, he
had to ask the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
not to come to a decision on that motion at present, but to
allow the Honourable Member for Greenwich to take the
course he considered best in that respect. There could be
no question, from the opinions they had heard expressed by
eminent lawyers in that House, that much doubt prevailed
on the case, and that being 80, ho thought that
the suggestion of the Honourable and Learned Mem-
ber for Aylesbury that another Committee should
be appointed on the subject, might with propriety be
adopted. By adopting that course they could not be in a
worse position than they were in at present. If the Com-
mittee should report that the Hon. Member for Greenwich
ought to be admitted, as in the case of Mr. Pease then no
wrong would be done to either party. The Noble, Lord had
placed himself in great difficulty on this subject, by allow-
ing both the lion. Member. o
fora Greenwich and the lion.
Member for London to take theoaths on the Old Testament,
and at the same time refusing to allow them to omit the
words "on the true faith of a Christian." He believed the
lion. Hember for Abingdon was right when he said, that if
these words were persisted in, the parties so desired to
take them should have been sworn on the New Testament,
and considering all the circumstances of the case, and in
oroleto give time for consideration, he should move that the
debate be now adjourned.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the Hon. Member had put
to him two questions. The first was, whether he would allow
the Hon. Member who had been returned for Greenwich,
to be heard by counsel at the bar of the House? and the
second was, whether another Committee should not be ap-
pointed? In answer to the first, he had stated last evening
that he had no objection to his pursuing the same course as
was done by Mr. O'Connell, while he thought that the better
plan would have been for the Hon. Member to have stated
his case at the bar of the House himself. But as the motion
which he had that evening submitted to the House had been
given notice of last night, and as the Hon. Member for
Greenwich had given no intimation that he wished to be
heard at the bar of the House, either by himself or by coun-
sel, he did not see why the debate should be adjourned in
that respect. They were not without preparation, and he
thought it evident from the fact, that the Learned Gentle-
men who had taken part in the debate, more especially the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman the Member for Aylesbury,
did not adduce any precedents or facts which were not previ-
ously known to those who paid attention to the Bullied. On the