The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-30 00:00:00

T Jll

and perhaps too patiently this time. In the mean time,
some facts transpired with reference to an admission of a
gentleman in a much stranger case than this. It trans-
pired that Mr. Pease was admitted to a seat in that House
without taking the prescribed oaths. That circumstance
had only recently transpired owing to the records of the
case having been destroyed by the fire which burnt
down the Hcuses of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.) Upon
that information it struck him and others that this was
a most important feature in the case, and accordingly
he took upon himself the task of moving for a Com-
mittee to consider the subject.—(Hear, hear.) The in-
vestigation of that Committee fully established the
truths of the case, but from a technical
cause the Committee was precluded from
going into the circumstances of the matter in their re-
report. Still, he thought, he should bo able to show,
from the report and the state of the existing law of the
case, that the House was called upon to tske no active
step in this matter after what had taken place, and after,
as he contended, the oaths had been duly administered
and taken.—(Cheers.) The seat was unquestionably not
taken; and, even supposing that the oaths had not been
duly taken, the House would have a difficulty in
determining that the seat was not filled.—(Cheers.)
He had already stated that the electors of London had
exhibited the utmost forbearance in this matter : they
had manifested no desire to bring the House into colli-
sion with the other House, or with the courts of law.
(Cheers.) They were persons who had all along, as a
body of electors, been distinguished in a most remark-
able manner; as much so as any body of electors in the
kingdom ; and they had shown it in this instance.—
(Hear, hear.) But when Hon. Members found at the
close of the session that that Bill which had been
so introduced was about to be withdrawn, it was
impossible that the electors of London could remain
in that position during this third session of Parliament,
without. bringing the case to a decision.—(hear, hear.)
He (Mr. P. Wood) thought he should be able to bring
conviction to the mind of every Hon. Member that the
oaths had been properly taken—even to the mind.of the
Noble Lord himself (Lord John Russell).—(Cheers and
disapprobation.) And even if that were not established
to the satisfaction of every Hon. Member, the House
would see by the statutes that there was no vacancy of
the seat. They must divide the oaths into two distinct
classes with reference to this question. By the 30th
Charles 11. the penalties were enacted which now regu-
lated the oaths of allegiance and supremacy. That sta-
tute directed those oaths to be solemnly talsen at the
table of the House; and the statute Ist of William and
Mary, cap. 1, repeated in words tie Act of Charles, but
re-enacted that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance
should be taken under t te penalties of the statute Charles 11.
Now if those oaths had not been taken in this case it
Was perfectly clear the seat would have been meant.
—(Hear. hear, and cheers.) If those oaths had not been
taken the penalty would have bean that the party not
taking them would be deemed a Popish recusant to
begin with, and would be disabled to sit and vote in
the House of Common!, and without further conviction
or proceeding his election would be declared void. So
clear uid the Legislature speak when it was intended to
move for a new writ. He came now to the oath of abju-
ration, and with regard to that the cese was most re-
markably different. The 13th William 111.. c. 6, first
imposed penalties with respect to that oath, and the
penalties inflicted by it were, that if the oath of abjura-
tion were not taken as therein prescribed, every person
not taking it should be considered a Popish recusant
convict, and be disabled from executing any office or place
of profit, civil or military, and should be disabled also from
thenceforth to sit or vote in either House of Parliament.
The 17th section of the Act of George I. had all the
same penalties as the Act of William, except deeming a
man a Popish recusant, and disabling him from holding
an office of trust, civil or military ; and it also excepted
and passed over the disabling to sit and vote in Parlia-
ment, which was most remarkable.—(Cheers.) When,
therefore, the Legislature insisted that a Member
should not sit or vote in Parliament, it said so in plain
and distinct words—that was to say, if he did not take
the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, his seat was to
be void, and a new . writ was to be issued.
The statute altered the oath, and altered also the penal-
ties, and omitted the penalty of disability to sit and
vote. Therefore he said, that if this oath of abjuration
had not been taken by the Hon. Member, he has still
not disqualified himself, and though he may be liable to
penalties for sitting and votirg, still he is not disqueli-
tied from sitting and voting. He would now turn to the
amendment, that the seat was now full, and he would say,
with regard to thet, that the question arose in this
.manner—bad the Hon. Member taken the oath of abju-
ration or not ? That would turn mainly on this,
whether the words en the true faith of a
Christian were a portion of the invocation of
the oath, or were a declaration of the Christian
faith contained in the oath. He had read to the House
yesterday, and would not trouble them again to-day with
the universal concurrence of all jurists, that it did not
matter how a man was sworn, but whether he was sworn
or not. The question now to be considered was whether
the oath had been taken. Let the House remark the
case of Quakers, and he thought that that would show
them that these words were a portion of the oath which
was sworn by, and not a portion of that which was sworn
to. The case of the Quakers was this:—There was first
the general statute of the 7th and Bth William and
Mary, c. 34, by which it was enacted that the solemn
affirmation and declaration of the people called Quakers
should be accepted in the place of the usual form
of the oath. Let the House pause at this
point ; by this statute they had indulged the
peculiarities of these people, and made a solemn affir-
mation in lieu of an oath. This statute freed them from
the things by which they were to swear, but not from
the things to which they swore; and though it justified
him in omitting thti form of oath, it did not justify him
from anything contained in the oath. Then they came
next to the 6th Anne, c. 23, which was a special statute,
and enacted that the oath of abjuration should be taken
with regard to certain matters in Scotland, with penal-
, ties against those who refused to-j take the cads, and
against those who, being Quakers, should refuse to de-
clare and affirm the substance of the oath. How
did the case now stand? Here the Quakers
were in precisely the same position. as Baron ..Itoths-
child—there was the oath of abjuration to be taken—
there was the statute of William and Mary, which said
that quakers should make affirmation instead cf oath,
and there was the Act of Anne, which said that Quakers
should declare the effect of the oath of ahjuration. It
was remarkable that in this oath the words" on the true
faith of a Chriatien" occurred, and also the words" I
swear" in the middle; and when the 1 Geo. I. cap 6
was passed, which recited these statutes, and provided
for the form of abjuration to be taken by Quakers, as
directed by the 6th Anne, they found that wherever
they were obliged by that statute to take the oath they
were allowed to declare the effect of it, leaving
out the very words "on the true faith of
a Christian." Here there was Legislative declaration
or the points which he contended for, that the whole
substance of the oath was embodied without the words
"on the true faith of a Christian." The Legislature
plainly said that these words were no part cf the things
sworn to, but simply part of the oath to which they
swore. The Legislature had split the oath into two
parts —the thing sworn to, and the thing sworn by—be-
cause the Quaker would not swear to anything, and
would only affirm the substance and efict of the
oath.—(Hear, hear.) The Honourable Gentleman then
alluded to the case of Mr. Pease, and observed
that in the reign of George I. a statute was passed to
relieve Quakers of some of the particular chfficulti,-s
under which they laboured. That Act was the Bth
George 1., c. 16 ; but the abjuration oath which was
taken by Mr. Pease was not the one which was pre-
scribed by its provisions, but was an oath similar to the
one imposed on Quakers by the 6th of Geo. 111. When
Mr. Pease came to take his seat in the House, he could
not refer to any statute which prescribed a
declaration that would be binding on his con-
science ; and according to the evidence of that
gentleman it appeared that a new form of declara-
tion was prepared for him.—(Hear, hear.) Now this
was most important, especielly when they came to con-
sider the form of oath which had been taken by Air.
Baron Rothschild at the table cf the Reuse. Vu the
occasion of Mr. Pease corning to take his seat the House
did not resolve on the adoption of any special form of
declaration, but it came to the following resolution:—
" That it appears to this flouee that John Pease is enti-
tled to take his seat on making a solemn affirmation and
declaration to the effect of the oaths which are
directed to be taken by the House."—(Cheers.)
Now, there was no law whatever that allowed an oath
to be taken in that form.—(Hear.) This, therefore,
involved the whole question before the House.—(Hear.)
Had Baron Rothschild sworn to the oath ? Mr.
Pease was allowed to escape from affitnaing, and thus
to avoid the words "in the true faith of a Christian."
Baron Rothschild said he wished to be sworn in the
mode most binding on his conscience, and the [Louie
had said he had a right to be so sworn, viz., on the
Old Testament. Baron Rothschild said the words
on the true faith of a Christian" were not binding
eo:nohereehepitm, but
authoritiesi
tohnanhe had taken the whole oath wi:h the
f tghhuoeas Quaker
hadr words,w out 101
tdeadnhdat
hv
ee had,octohntehereeni
day
consented
elt,aoiddodnoi et.
down that all the questions they had to ask were, had
the party sworn upon an oath which he believed ;vould
subject him to the penalty of the i)eity if he told an
e b
futureontr u
t h --(
rewards untruth-(sc a-)—and
an
a state of
anvd in
he did that
and"—dpunishmentsda-
he
; i;e
was enough. As to the declaratory statute of
Victoria that 'had been 'so much relied
it, only provided, that in any c
as e in which
the oath had been lawfully adminiatered, the person
taking the oath was bound by it, provided it was admi-
nistered in a manner which the party declared to be
binding on his conscience.—(Hear, hear.) The Baron
Rothschild had taken the oath in the manner in which
he had declared it seas binding upon him.7(lleur, hear.)
It was idle to talk of the danger of incurring these ques-
tions, for they would always arise, and the House
must take upon itse fto decide them without any con-
sideration as to the course that ought to be adopted in
the courts of law, it might be as well fur the House to
keep Within the course prescribed by the courts of law,
but it was not bound to pay a slavish adhesion to the
construction that might be put upon questions by courts
()flew. It was necessary on swearing a Jew that he should
not be sworn upon the true faith of a Christian, and
Lord llardwieke, on the question that came before him,
dashed out with the stroke of his peen the words " upon
the Hely Gospel," and permitted the party to take the
oath upon the Old Testament.—(ilear, near.) Formerly
an Act was passed ruling that a legacy ltft to a party
who was a witness to the will, which will had relation to
real property, was null sod void, because as the
law then stood the fact cf the legacy bring kit
to the witness would preclude the will beirg proved. But
a doubt afterwards arose us to wills relating only to per-
sonal property; and in a case where one of the witnesses
was a legatee, it was sought to deprive him of hie
legacy. At that time, however, witnesses were not re-
quired to such a will, and the courts held therefore that
he reason for the deprivation did not exist in this case,