The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-29 00:00:00

THE SUN,

be could claim a scat in the House as a Member entitled
to vote cn all question?, bEcause if that were so, it would
obviate the iicf?ssity of aoy Bill being introduced into
Pa:batnot.—(Cheers and •' Hear.")
117 iv St'E.,iiiEß said, if the House so decided it, it

WOLI ! ; ditty to call him to the table to be sworn
on the o,d ".!.e,c,!ment, but then another question would
arise, whether he could take all the oaths provided by
the Acts of Parliament.

Sir GEORGE GREY was understood to say that the
best way would be to move that Mr. Baron Rothschild
should be called to the table and asked what oath he
considered binding on his conscience.
Mr. HENLEY said his only object was to get some-
thing formal on the records of the House, as it seemed
to him that they were very bald at present.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM thought it would be expedient
that the Honourable Member should declare what oath
he considered binding on his conscience.
Sir F. THESIGER considered the House was
bound to inquire of Baron Rothschild why; he wished
to be sworn in the manner proposed by himself. It was
very possible that the answer of Baron Rothschild might
render it necessary to put a further question to him;
but he would not anticipate that necessity, because he
thought it was quite sufficient for the House to decide at
present whether he should be invited to appcar at the table,
and asked why he wished to be sworn on the Old Testament.
It would be necessary to go further and ask him whether
he was of the Jewish persuasion.—(Hear, hear.) They
had now to determine what was the right course to
pursue on a novel occasion, and it was therefore of im-
portance that they should proceed carefully and delibe-
rately, confining themselves as closely as possible to the
technical rules which govern all our courts of justice.
Mr. B. OSBORNE agreed with the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman that it was quite necessary that
they should proceed with care in this matter.—(Hear.)
But, although there could bo no doubt that the House
had power to put any question it thought fit, he thought
it nothing but justice to the Hon. Gentleman the Member
fur the city of London, who was about to be called to
the table, that he should be warned that it was
in his discretion to answer any of the questions put to
him.—(Hear, hear.) He, therefore, hoped that the
Hon. Gentleman,- when he was called to the table, would
not answer any second question relative to the oath of
abjuration which might give rise to a debate.—(Hear.)
The SPEAKER then asked if it was the pleasure of
the House that the Hon. Gentleman should be called in
and requested to say whether he considered the swear-
ing on the Old Testament was the most binding on,his
conscience?—(Hear, hear.)
Mr.-HENLEY said the object of his question was to
ascertain the reasons why the Hon. Gentleman wished
to he sworn on the Old Testament.

Mr. ANSTEY said they ought to follow the prece-
dent established in the Bradshaw, Archda:l, and O'Con-
nell cases, where all the oaths were set before the Mem-
ber elected, and he was asked to take the oaths. He
examined the oaths altogether, not one by one, and then
he stated his objections to all the oaths, or any of them.
In Mr. O'Connell's case the objection was stated thus—
" I have no objection to the oath of abjuration, or the
oath of allegiance, but I have objections to the oath of su-
premacy." Nov the same course ought to be followed
here, and any reasons for the objections stated at the bar.
Therefore he would propose that Baron Rothschild
should be again called, for the purpose of having all the
oaths exhibited to him, and then he could say whether he
had any objection to any of them, where they ought to
stop and go no further.—(Hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
the course suggested by the Hon. Member for Oxford-
shire was the proper course. The Baron claimed to be
sworn in a particular form. The oaths to be sworn had
nothing to do with the present question. The
Baron claimed to be sworn in a particular
way, and it was quite right that they should know why
he made the claim, bat no other question ought to be put
without the previous assent of the House. He would,
therefore, move that the Hon. Gentleman be caletil in
and asked why he demanded to be sworn in a particular
manner.

Sir .JAMES GRAHAM rose to order. They were
now disposing of a most important judicial question,
and it was of the last importance that order should be
strictly observed. He suggested, therefore, for the
consideration of the Hour that no question whatever
should be put to the Honourable Gentleman without
being put through the Speaker, after it had been duly
proposed, seconded, and carried.—(Hear, hear.) He
had already expressed his opinion as to the way they
ought to proceed. The amendment of the Hon. Gentle-
man the Member for Middlesex affirmed that swearing
on the Old Testament would be the most binding on the
Baron's conscience; but, in his opinion, they ought to
have that information from the Baron's own lips.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL quite agreed with the
Right Hon. Baronet—in order to have the matter regu-
larly before the House, it would be right that the mo-
tion should be put and carried as to the question which
the Speaker was to put.—(Hear, hear.)
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER en-
tirely agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir James
Graham). He thought the House ought to proceed
with extreme regularity in this case. He should,
therefore propose that this be the motion—That Baron
Lionel de Rothschild having demanded to be sworn on
the Old Testament, he be called to the table of the
House, and asked by Mr. Speaker why he demanded
to be sworn in that form ?—(Loud cheers.)
Lord HARRY VANE seconded the motion.
Mr. H 112.1111 suggested that the worais " Member for
the City of London" be inserted after the name of Baron
Rothschild.

That being done, the SPEAKER read the motion.
Sir THOMES DYKE ACLAND suggested that the
question which should iia asked was, did Baron Roths-
child really desire to take the oaths required of every
other:Member on taking his scat in that House.—(Dis-
approbation, in the midst of which the Hon. Baronet
resumed his seat.)
The SPEAKER then put the question, which was
carried without a division.
Baron Rothschild was then summoned to the table,
and as he advanced he was greeted with loud cheers from
the Ministerial side of the House.

The SPEAKER, addressing him, asked why he had
demanded to be sworn on the Old Testament?

Baron ROTHSCHILD, in a clear and audible voice,
replied—Because that is the form of sweariug, which I
declare to be most binding on my conscience.—(Loud
cheers.)
The SPEAKER then ordered Baron Rothschild to
withdraw, and as the Hon. Member did so he was again
cheered.

Sir F. THESIGER thought the House was in another
difficulty with regard to having a proper entry on its
records in this novel case. The House would observe
the ordinary question having been put to Baron Roths-
child, whether he claimed to take the Roman Catholic or
tha Protestant form of oath, no answer bad been given
to the question.—(Hear, hear.) The only answer
given, was that he desired to be sworn on the
Old Testament.—(Disapprobation and counter cheers.)
He (Sir F. Thesiger) apprehended that ques-
tion was not put without requiring an
answer; and he should propose that the question be now
put to the Baron Rothschild, whether he claimed to talu
the Roman Catholic or the Protestant oath?—(Loud
cries of " No, no," and " Hear, hoar.")
.ktr. HUME—I apprehend, Sir—(Loud cries of
" Order," and the Hon. Member resumed his seat.)

Thy SPEAKER having put Sir F. Thesiger's emend-
men t,
Mr. P.*WOOD said there was really nothing what-
ever in the point raised by the Hon. Member for Abing-
don. There was no precedent to be found in the
journals of the House of such a question as that sug-
gented by the Hon. Member. The clerk at the table
usually put the question solely out of courtesy, in order
to give the Member about to be sworn his option.
If he did not ask fur the Catholic oath, the Protestant
oath was tendered to him as a matter of course. The
question was merely a proper caution to be given to
Catholic gentlemen when they came to the table to in-
form them there was an Act for their belief, and it was
never found entered on the journals of the House. No
Hon. Gentleman were obliged to answer the question.
and if he did nog, the Protestant oath would be tendered
to him. _

- -----
Mr. C. ANSTEY stated in confirmation that when
he was sworn twu such questions were put to him, and
that he was obliged to demand the Roman Catholic oath,
and he appealed to every Roman Catholic Member
whether such was not the case with them.
Mr. HENLEY reminded the House that the question
was already printed on the votes, from which the journals
were made up as part of the proceedings.
Mr. HUME said that it did not follow that because
the question was on record that it was a proper question.
Sir G. GREY said that this was a question put by the
clerk of the House simply for his own convenience and
for his Own information. Is was a question entirely un-
necessary, and not put by order of the House or by
Stat Ute.

Mr. J. A. SMITH wished to inquire from the Hon.
and Learned Member for Abingdon under what statute
this question was put?
Sir F. THESIGER said that he did not know that
it was established under
ques-
tion as it stood upon the any
statute. He took the Ties-
ut
to vetes, and he understood that
p
it was a question every Member en being sworn.
He apprehended that it wa
the real point was whether thee He opuut by the clerk; but
quite immaterial whether it
siled ttat that
was a question authorised t
question should be put to the Hon. Gentleman
Sir JOHN TYRELL reminded the H o u s e notwha.t
present the Hon. Gentleman had notat
refuted any oath,
but tEe question was whether he
particular manner.
Mr. STUART WORTLEY said that the question had
assumed a form and shape upon the votes of the House,
whence it must necessarily be transferred to the jour:
Eats, where it would appesr that a distinct question had
beers put, to which no distinct answer had been given,
He could not help thinking that the friends of
Baron Rothschild were taking a very injudicious
courr.e. This was mere special pleading.—(Cries
of " Oh, ch.") What the House wanted to
know, and which it had a right to know, was
this, whether the Member for London was pre-
pared to take the necessary oaths which were requisite
by Act of Parliament for him to take before taking his
seat. If he war, he for one was quite ready to enter
caad:dly into the examination of what form of oath was
necessary.
Mr. R. D. MANGLES said, as the Hon. Member bad
chsrged the friends of Baron Rothschild wish using
special pleading, he would ask him caadid4 who it wad
that had raised this preliminary question as to what
bock of the Bible the Hon. Gentleman was to be sworn,
upon.
Mr. NBWDEGATE suggested that Baron Roths-
child, if he c,rue to be sworn, would have the two oaths
tendered to him. ard would have to choose one of them.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that Ibis maim which the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man wished to make was a simple
,interruption.

He thought the question of the Hon. Gentleman should
be raised after the form of oath should be decided on.

Sir F. THESIGER said that it appeared to him the
'question would have a very important bearing nn what
had been clad on the other side cf the UOU2C the pre-
liminary qus-.stiGn.
Mr. V. S:dITEI thought the House ought not to call
upon Baron Rothschild to state what oath he would take
until it had been decided whether he should take it or
not in the way he desired.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL observed that in the present
instance a preliminary objection had been made by the
•Baron Rothschild to being sworn on the New Testament
and not on the Old. He thought the preliminary ques-
tion should be decided first.

Mr. HUME considered that tl:e proper course would
be for the ion. and Learned Gentleman t withdraw
his motion, and then the question could be properly dis-
cusEei.

Sir F. THESIGER said his only object was to have
the proceedings of the House correct. He would with-
draw his motion.

The motion was consequently withdrawn.
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY then moved that Baron Roths-
child be called to the bar, and the Speaker be desired to
ask—" Are you ready to be sworn to the eaths required
from a Member by Act of Parliament before he takes
his seat."—(Cries of "-Oh, oh," and " Hear, hear.")
Mr. HUME as.erted that such a question had never
been put before to any Member, land he thought it a
most invidious proceeding, and going out of the practice
of the House altogether.—(Hear.)
Mr. GOULBURN said the same question bad been
put in Mr. O'Connell's case.—(Hear.)

Sir GEORGE GREY obierved- that the case of
Mr. O'Connell was very different to the present; in that
case it was necessary to put the question. He thought
the proper course would be to consider in the first in-
stance whether the House would allow the Baron
Rothschild to take the oath on the Old Testament.
Mr. SEIEIL would move as an amendment that
Baron Rothschild should be called and sworn on the
Old Testament. The House had received an answer
from the Baron of the reasons why he had refused to be
sworn on the New Testament.

Mr. BERNAL—That is the amendment, the notice of
which they had already given,
Mr. SHELL regretted, if he had taken this amend-
ment out of the hands of other Members, and would not
persevere.

Mr. NEWDEGATE thought the whole prcceedings
would be designated as a farce, unless something more
tangible was effected.
Mr. HUME apprehended that the time had now ar-
rived when the motion of which he had given notice
should be proposed, and if the House saw no objection,
he would move it at once.—(Cries of "No.")
Lord J. RUSSELL suggested that the House should
first dispose of the preliminary resolution. If the House
did not agree to the motion of the Hon. Member for
Bute (Mr. S. Wortley), then they might properly re-
sume the adjourned debate, and the motion of the Hon.
Member for the University (,f Oxford might then be put.
The House then divided, when there appeared—
For Mr. S. Wortley's motion 104
Against it ... ... 113
Majority .. _ •.. ... —l4

The motion was consequently lost.
Mr. HUME then rose to resume the adjourned debate.
He commenced by stating that he was really sorry, at
this age, to witness such a contest as this. It was melan-
choly to think that England, which was considered
in advance of other nations in intelligence and toleration,
should be so far backward in its civil code as to exclude a
man from a seat in the legislature of his country on account
of his religious convictions. The Continent and the
United States of America recognized no such law in
distinction, and it was discreditable in that House that
such a state of things was allowed to exist in this coun-
try. The question for them to decide was whether
the clerk should be directed to swear Baron Rothschild
upon the Old Testament, which was the mode the Baron
thought was the most binding on his conscience, and he
was really at a loss to understand upon what ground
such a reasonable request could be objected to. The
House had no right to suppose that the introduction of
a few Dissenters could be the means of endangering,
the doctrines of the Church of England. The Ho-
nourable Member for the University said the English
House of Commons had always 1 een remarkable
for its Christian character. Well, he for one hoped the
House would always continue to act upon Christian
principles; but let the House remember that the chief of
these principles was "to do unto others as they would
that others should do unto them."—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Member for the city of London contributed towards
the expense,' of the State, and was, therefore, entitled to
enjoy all the privileges of citizenship. Too long had
the Dissenters been persecuted, but it was a source of
pleasure to him to find that since he had been in Parlia-
ment many other disabilities had been removed. Tole.
ration was formerly the rule, but religions liberty
in its fullest sense was what they ought to leok fornow.
—(Hear, hear.) It was on that ground that he trusted
the House would allow the Hon. Member for the city of
London to take the oaths in the same manner that they
were taken in the courts of justice and the House of
Lords. When he came to the table and refused to take
any of the oaths prescribed, it would be time enough to
raise the question consequent upon that refusal, but the
only point they had to decide now was, whether, agn e-
ably to the ordinary customs of his persuasion, the Mem-
ber ,for the city of London shall be permitted to take
the oath on the Old
.Testament. He begged, therefore,
to move as an amendment to the original motion—
That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the
Members for the city of London, having presented him-
self at tho table of the House, and having previously to
taking the oaths requested to be sworn on the Old Tes-
tament (being the form which he has declared at the table
to be binding on his conscience), the clerk be directed to
swear him on the Old Testament accordingly." .
Mr. WILLCOX seconded the amendment.

Sir F. THESIGER regretted that the Honourable
Gentleman the Member fur Montrose had introduced
the subject of religions liberty into this discussion, be-
cause they were not considering whether it was ex
pedient that Baron Rothschild should be allowed to take
his seat, but all they were called upon to decide at the
present moment was whether, in the particular mode
proposed, a person who came to the table of the House
for the purpose of being sworn, and proposes to be
sworn upon the Old Testament as the form most
binding upon his conscience, could be permitted
to take the oaths, and having so taken them,
whether he can take his seat accordingly.
Now that was the question, and the only question which
the House had to decide. It had very properly been
called a question rather of a quasi-judicial character,
and he did really trust the House would argue it in the
spirit of such a question—(Hear, hear) —that they
should not introduce into the subject any passion or feel-
ing, but calmly and dispassionately consider whether, ac-
cording to the existing law, what was now proposed to be
done could be done. He confessed it appeared to him
that, it being of course desirable they should discuss
that question with most convenient form, what had bean
• proposed by his Hon. Friend the Member fur the Uni-
versity of Oxford (Sir R. Inglis) was altogether objec-
tionable, and he (Sir F. Thesiger) would suggest that
his lion. Friend should withdraw his motion, and that
the amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for
Montrose should be substituted as a substantive
motion. (Cries of " No, no.") According to
what had fallen from the Speaker from the
earliest times Members had been sworn on the
New Testament. He (Sir F. Thesiger) appre-
hended, therefore, where it was disposed to depart trona
that practice on the present occasion, that those who in-
sisted on departing from the practice had the onus
thrown upon them to show that it was lawful to do so.
There wee two distinct questions to be decided, but in
reality they resolved themselves into one; and the first
was a preliminary question, whether Baron Roths-
child could be admitted to take the oaths on the
Old Testament, and the next question was whether
a person could take the oath of abjuration on the Old
Testament, professing that that was the form of oath most
binding on his conscience. He believed it would be
quite iinpessible to separate those two questions; they
were involved and blended together; and if a Member
coming to the table could not take the oath of abjure-
tiou in the Jewish ;erre he (Sir F. Thesiger)
thought the Home would find, on careful deit:
beraiiun of the subject, that, he could have
no right whatever, according to established
law, to take any of the oaths in that particular form.
Although, it might be perfectly true that the question
which was put by the clerk at the table was an unautho-
rised question, and that rio Member coming to the table
was bound to answer that question, yet that question had
been put—(llear)—and answered, and the question and
answer appeared on the votes, and would in due time be
transferred to the journals of the House. It was quite
clear from his answer, that Baron Rothschild did not
de-ire to take the Roman Catholic oath. lie (Sir F.
The*iger) was ttereforo entitled to assume that. Baron
Rothschild did not profess to be a Roman Catholic, and
did not desire to take the Roman Catholic oath. If he
did nut desire to take the Roman Catholic oath, and
did not profess the Roman Catholic religion, all that
remained was that he must take the other three
oaths, which all persons who did not pro-
fess the Roman Catholic religion were required
to take, namely, the oaths of allegiance, supremacy,
and abjuration. It was impossible to separate one oath
trom the other, and until be could take all the oaths he
could not be regularly sworn.—(Hear, hear.) The
amendment of the Hon. Member for Montrose assumed
that. It was quite clear that what were called the Pro-
testant oaths were distinguished from the Roman Ca-
tholic oath, for there was only one oath to be
taken by the Roman Catholic, namely, the
oath under the 10th Geo. IV. Baron Rothschild
must therefore have all the oaths tendered to him, and
desiring to be sworn on the Old Testament, the question
was whether be could be admitted to be swells in that
firm,
oath
the faith
rse i
be
being perfectly clear that one of those oaths,
namely, the a
Jewish
abjuration,
w oi
sfh a
fo
r r
o c.
Christian" n
Ta ihni
s n
g wouldc o ut the
wordy
noto he
w
be an important consideration which the House
in arriving
would please to bear in mind
conclusion as to whether Baron Rothschild, having de-
t
the l
true off
de-
sired to be sworn upon the Old Testament, had not e o
taken
a h
con-
cluded the question against himself, and prevented the
House from ever altering any more the form of the
oaths; that having been called to the table ho had de-
clined to take the oaths in a manner which showed that
he entirely dissented from the oath of abjuration. Fie
hoped to be able to prove to the House that this was not
questien depending upon the law and wage of
Parliament, but upon the law of the laud. He should bs
able to show the House that according to statute it
was impossible for any Member to bo sworn at that
table upon the Old Testament. In order to clear the
way for discussion, he would concede to these who were
desirous to have Baron Rothschild sworn in the form
which he himself had proposed, that from the
very earliest period in our courts of justice Jews
had been sworn both as witnesses and jurors.
Before the banishment cf the Jews, in the reign of