The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-31 00:00:00

ment he intended to affirm the proposition that
the Baron was to -constitute himself the judge, not only
of the manner in which the oath should be adminis-
tered, but also of the words of which the oath itself
should consist.—(Hear, bear.) That was a thing
which he could not conscientiously vote for,
according to the view which ho took of the
case; but, said his Honourable and Learned Friend,
you changes- the words our Sovereign Lord King George
for our Sovereign Lady.' the Queen. Now, really,
was that a mode of dealing with the case ?
(Loud cheers.) Might they not just as well say
that they could change the oath because they
did not say A B, but inserted the name of the party
sworn?—(Cheers.) LoOking, then, at this case with the
greatest attention which he was le to give it, he did
say that the House had not the power of dispensing with
any portion of the oath. The oath was imposed
by an Act of Parliament, and having given the best at-
tention he could to the Act, the words "on the true
faith of a Christian " did appear to be part of the oath,
and it was the duty of every Member to take it in full
before he could take his seat in the House.—(Cheers.)
His Hon. and Learned Friend seemed to be a little sur-
prised that the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
should have expresed his opinion without having heard
the arguments. Why, his Honourable and Learned
Friend must know that it was his, as well as the
Noble Lord's duty, to consider and look into
the case well before coming down to the
Howe, and no doubt the Noble Lord had done that.—
(Hear, hear.) At all events he had considered all the
bearings and facts of the case, and he Came to a conclu-
sion which was liable no doubt to be removed
by argument, but he had listened with the 1
greatest attention to the ablest argument he had
ever heard in his life from his Hon. and Learned Friend,
and ho must confess that it had failed to remove from
his mind the difficulty which be felt about altering an
Act of Parliament.—(Cheers.) So long as a statute
required them to take a particular oath the House could
not dispense with any portion of it; he believed then
the words " on the true faith of a Christian" ts be
part of the oath; and, speaking there in his judicial
character, . upon his conscience he did think the
Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothichild had not
taken the oaths in the form prescribed by the Act
of Parliament, or in such a manner as to entitle him to
take his seat in that House.—(Cheers.)
Mr. •ANSTEY asked why his Hon. and Learned
Isr:en-1 the Attorney-General had addressed the House
ou this occasion? He would tell him. It was to give
some sort of colour to the Noble Lord at the head of
toe Government—(Cheers)—some sort of justification
for the Noble Lord for his indiscreet and unseasonable
speech of yesterday.—(Hoar, hear.) His Hon. and
Learned Fnend (the Attorney-General) had reminded
the House that this was a judicial question: If that was
so, why was the question pre:udged ?--(Hear.) If it was
j udicid question, wide was it made a Cabinet question?
Why 'was the law officer of the Crown put forward
to defend the Primo Minister? Heel his Hon. and
Learned Friend (the Attorney-General) ventured to
reply to the unanswerable speech of his Hon. and
L earnei Friend the Metiber for 0.-Jord ? He had
not; he had contented himself with* sic col° sic jeieo reply.
The argument of the Hen. and Learned Gentlemen was
thi,: —Either the House had power to tam Per with the
Acte of Parliament or the oath had expired. Every
fresh Parliament Protestant Members were called upon
to tyke the oath. It was pot put to him, Cr he Would have
claimed his right to he heard at the tar, and have showed
that it was an illegal oath.—(Laughter.) Hon. Members
might laugh, but he would quote a passage from the
statute, which would set the matter at rest for ever.
The arguments of his Hon. and Learned Friend opposite
had bisen greatly perverted. It was allowed that a man
ought to be •sworn according to the form most -bind-
ing on, his conscience, anti the question wan, did the
words "oa the true faith of a Christian "
f tun part of the oath which was held 'binding on
the conscience in certain cases. He said they did.
Whatever opinions-might be formed by lawyers or
courts of justice as to the mode or prescribing the oath,
they could not shrink from doing their duty and
aettng justly to one who, though elected to 'sit in that
ifoeee, was about to be deprived cf that privilege by the
stirting cf an objection which he thought could not be
righteously sustained—

“ Fiat justitia, Teat ccelinn.”
The Hon. Member concluded by expressing a hope that
the question would not be allowed to rest Until Baron
R,thschild was permitted to enjoy his right of sitting
and actieg as a Member of the House.
Mr. HUME said it would be quite impossible for him
to attempt t) enter into the Nal arguments of the case,
after the very, masterly- and very able epeech.of his
Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Oxford; but
he wished ' to. observe that one argument had been
used which had not been answered by the Honour-
able Member fir Abingdon (Sir •F, Tbesiger).
That Hon. and Learned Member called upon the House
to agree to a motion to the effect that the Hon. Member
for the city f London had virtually vacated his seat, be-
cause he had not taken the oats of abjuration in the pre-
scribed farm ; and he wished to ask him by what statute
or by what law he considered the Honourable
Member had rendered his seat vacant 7—(lean)
Now no one, he apprehended, would doubt that the
B.tron ROthschild had taken the Laths of allegiance and
supremacy, and having taken those two oaths he (Mr.
(Hanle) contended that he could not be expelled.
The last oath, the oath of abjuration, was one of pains
and penalties, but the Baron would not be sub-
ject to those pains and penalties unless he had
sat and voted. Perhaps it might be better,
as the Attorney-General had come into the House, that
be should put the question to him. He wished to know
from that Learned Gentleman by what law the Hon.
Member. for the city of London had vacated his
seat; he had taken the oaths of supremacy and alle-
giance, but it was said he bad not taken the oath of eh-
juration.—(Hear, hear.) In his (Mr. Hume's) opinion
he had.---(Hear.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that it appeared
to him that the seat had become vacant, assuming that
Baron Rothschild had refused to take the oath
of abjuration.—(Hear, hear.) By the 6th of George
111. persons who refused to take the oath of
abjuration were • subject, to the same penalties and
disabilities, as by the laws and statutes already enacted
were provided, and by that statute they referred to the
statute of William 111., which direeted that the party re-
fusing. to take the oath should be unable to sit in
Parliament.
Mr. BERNAL—What became then of the statute of
George 111. ?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL considered that the
statute of William 111. overrode it.
Mr. WOOD assented that the statute of George lIL
repealed the statute of William HI.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL could not agree in
that opinion.
Mr. V. SMITH was not prepared , to assume
that Baron Rothschild had refused to • take the
oath (Hear, hear,) —yet that was the proposal
of the Honorable and Learned Member foi Abingdon,
The Hon. and Learned Member then proposed further
to issue a new writ for the city of London. He could
not assent to the adoption of such a course, when they
had the first legal authority in that House disputing upon
whether Baron Rothschild wan entitled to his seat or not.
He could neither vote for the original motion nor the
amendment, end he would thert fore suggest that a Com-
mittee should be ftppointed to consider what was the state
of the law on this subject.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY fdt a diffienhy in the matter. The
terms of the motion of the Honourable and Learned
Mtenber for Abingdon were that the ,Baron de Roths-
child had refused to take the oaths prescribed by lan ;
but the Baron de Rothschild did not do that; he merely
omitted certain words from one oath, because he did not
think them binding upon his conscience.—(Hear,
heir.) Now he was prepared to vote against the
amendment of the Hon. and Learned Member for Ox-
ford, declaring that the seat was full, and ho must say
that be thought they ought to proceed with great caution
and deliberation before they agreed to the motion for
the issue of a new writ.—(Hear. hear.) They must
look at this as a precedent for all future time,
and what would the minutes of the House disclose? It
would appear that a Member came to the bar—he took
the two first oaths prescribed by law; he took the last
oath prescribed by law,. with the omission of certain
words, stating that he did not refuse to take them, but that
he did not use them because they were not binding upon
his consci,ence.—(Hear, heir.) Ho thought 'with his
Honourable and Learned Friend the Attorney-
General. that these words formed part of the oath
prescribed by ' law, and the House had not the
power to dispense with them; but still they
ought to have something more to proceed upon
than the statement of the Hon. Member • himself before
they prowded to declare the seat vacant. There was
another question, however, to be decided. Was the
refusal of the Honourable Member final and com-
plete, and the seat thereby vacant ? For his
part he believed the Act of William 111., which made
the refills/ to take this oath vacate the seat, was still in

force, notwithstanding what had been said to tho
con-
trary by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman the

bei for Oxford.—(Hear. hear.) At the same time
they were now, acting judicially, and he did think

in the present state of conflicting opinion on the law they
would be acting unwisely if they now decided that the
seat was absolutely vacant without taking more time to
look into the point —(Cheers.)
Sir F. THESIGER was anxious to proceed with
all proper caution and duo deliberation, and
undoubtedly when he proposed his resolution in the
terms which he had submitted to the House, be thought
he was pursuing the course of precedent, because there
was no doubt whatever that there were a variety of
instances upon which parties had come to the table
and refused to take the oaths, and upon that
refusal there had been immediately made a
motion for the issue of a
Now, Baron Rothschild tooktwoneowf the rioaths
C writ.—(Cheers)
rtsh.e)
table; but on coming to the words in the third, " on the
true faith of a Christian," he closed the book and said
binding on his conscienceecau
(Sir F. Thees.
He
he considered them not
he omitted those words' b
then kissed the book.
underkand, when the Baron said he (Hear, hear.) He
for the reason which he gave,
loyal to swear to those words.
F. Thesiger) was wrong in sups
amounted to a refusal to take a substantial p esi na gr. )
certainly did not
If he (Sir
thate omitted these words,
words.—(Hear,
hear.)
was a re-
fusal
that
the oath, he wished to know in what mode the Zi Right
Hen: Gentleman (Sir G. Grey) proposed that the House
should ascertain clearly and distinctly whether it was the
intention of Baron Rothschild to take the
oaths pre-
scribed by Act of Parliament or not.
. Mr. PAGE WOOD said, en gee part of Baron Roths-
child, hat without consulting him, he would say, that
Barer' Rstbsehill had not the /east hesitation in saying,
Olat the omission to !tree those worth should be taken as

4 ,c,...3a: to takr., thea). .
i
ucortav:d why hi 4 Hun. and
'Sir .FREDaIiICIi." TIIESIGER ssiLl, :lien if that
tre se, lie COl2hi hardlyd
ed?old Friend the' Member for .o'sford (Ur: P. Wood)
wished to claim what his Hon. and Learned Friend