The Sun.
London, England, 1850-08-05 00:00:00

THE SUN,

the substance is to be expressed; and, thirdly, the man-
ner in which the oath is to be taken. He had already
told the House that they had decided wisely in allowing
the Baron to take the oaths in the manner which he de-
clisred to be most binding upon his conscience, but that
they could not vary or sanction any omission in the
words of the oath. Now the Ist of Geo. 1., chap. 13,
sect. 16, provided that unless the oaths were taken in the
form prescribed by law, a Member should not
be entitled to sit and vote in the House.
It appeared to him, therefore, if he was right in saying
that Baron Rothschild had not already taken the oath of
abjuration, it followed as a necessary consequence, from
the 16th section, that he could not be entitled to vote in
that House, or sit in it during any debate, until he
should take that oath of abiuration in the form in which
it was proposed to him. It then remained to be consi-
dered whether any further or ulterior proceedings should
be taken in consequence of his not having taken that
oath. He (the Attorney-General) was of opinion that
no such further proceeding should be taken. In looking
into the subject more carefully than he had been able to
do previous to the last debate, he still retained the opi-
nion he then expressed with respect to the repeal of the
statutes, yet he had come to the conclusion that the seat
was by no means vacant in consequence of his not
taking the oath—(Hear, hear)—and that there was
no power legally in that House to order a new writ
to be issued.—(Hear, hear.) A question was raised with
respect to the statute 13 and 14 William 111. being in
farce on this subject. His (the Attorney-General's)
disposition undoubtedly was to consider that the penal-
ties under that Act were only cumulative, and that
those penalties under that Act were still in force. On
referring, however, to that Act, ho fund that the
penalties which disabled any Member from sitting in
the House arose from the circumstance of voting
in the House—that was to say, that the penalties of dis-
ability to sit and vote in that House arose solely from a
Member presuming to vote, in consequence of his not
having taken the oath. Baron Rothschild had taken an
oath, but not the oath, a course which the Honourable
Gentleman's friends thought was sufficient, but he (the
Attorney-General) thought it was not. It was well
observed by the Hon. and Learned Member for Ox-
ford, that there was no Act of Parliacaent which made
the seat of a Member of Parliament vacant by reason
of his not taking the oath of abjuration, though there
was with respect to the oaths of supremacy and allegi-
ance. By the law, therefore, as it at present stood, we-
had come to this singular state of things as a necessary
consequence of the existing state of the law—that a
gentleman possessing the Jewish persuasion being elected
a Member to serve in Parliament, could not sit or vote in
that House until he Should'take the oath of abjuration in
a form in which no conscientious Jew could take that
oath, yet that nevertheless the seat was not vacant. He
did not find any case on the journals of the House ana-
logous to that of Baron Rothschild. There was no
example cf any Member refusing to take the oath of
abjuration. The state of the law which arose on this
case was of a moat monstrous description.—(Hear, hear.)
They bad a Member returned by the free choice of
his constituents to serve them in Parliament, and yet
by that 'most idle form of oath—(Hear)—he was not
permitted to take his seat in that House. He was thus
prevented from sitting in. Parliament, and his constitu-
ents were prevented from having the benefit of his ser-
vices. It was, therefore, incumbent on the Government
to pledge that House that it would, at the very earliest
possible opportunity, pass a law for the pur-
pose of altering that state of the law which
was so monstrous in itself, and of which the results land
ffects• were so absurd. It appeared to him that it was
for the benefit of both Baron Rothschild and his friends
and supporters that the conclusion which he (the Attor-
ney-General) asked the House to come to was not
only consistent with law, .but most prudent for the
House to adept; for if they came to an
opposite decision the strongest possible argument would
be given to the House of Lords to object to any Bill
' which the House of Commons might pass for the pur-
pose of remedying that evil. No lawyer in that House
or out of it, earning 5001. a year by his profession,
would advise that Baron Rothschild could take his seat
without incurring the penalties under the Act of Geo. 1.
One among others of the monstrous evils which might
arise from the exiting state of the law was this—in the
event of an action for penalties being brought against a
Member for venturing to take his seat in the
House, the defendant in that action might bring
the question before the House of Lords in its judicial
capacity, and it would have to decide whether or not
this House had come to a fit and proper conclusion in
point of law in permitting a Member to take his seat
under such circumstrnces. Ho was, therefore, satisfied
that nothing would be more injudicious on the
part of the Baron himself, and those who pro-
fessed the same religion, than to press for the
decision of the House, for the purpose tie enabling him
to take his seat, because in that case a strong and over-
powering argument might be offered by his opponent:,
via., that it was not necessary to pass any Bill to remove
an anomalous state of the law which the House had by its
decision declared did not exist. (Hear.) The Hon.
Member for Montrose had suggested a resolution
which in substance did not differ materially from those
he intended to propose, with the exception
that it proposed to postpone the decision of
the House. Now that appeared only oee step less
injurious to Baron Rothschild than the absolute vote of
the House that he should take his seat. The disadvan-
tage of leaving the decision of the matter in suspense was
this, that it would hold something in terrorum over
another House of the Legisla•ure, a course which he
submitted would be very undignified end improper on the
part of this House, while it could have no effect on the
House of Lords.—(Hear.) It had been suggested that
a Bill of Indemnity should be passed to suit this
particular case, but that would only be accom-
plishing an evd by a side wind which he
thought ought to be done openly and fairly. The Hon.
end Learned Gentleman said he could not conclude his
observatienis without expressing his sense of the propriety
and firmness, and moderation of the conduct of
Baran Rothschild in all the steps which he
had taken in this difficult and peculiarly
unprecedented matter.—(Loud cheers.) He had acted
au as to gain the esteem of all persons, and in a way
which induced him to express that in which the whole
House would concur that he felt great re-
gret that any system of law so monstrous
and absurd as tho existing law, which he hoped would
be repealed next session, should exclude from among
them a gentleman whom he believed so calculated to
add to the estimation with which this House was regarded
by the people, and also materially to assist them
in their future deliberations.—(Cheers.) The Hon. and
Learned Gentleman concluded by moving the following
re solutions :

" Diet the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not
entitled to vote in this [louse, or to sit in this House
during any debate, until he shall take the oath of abju-
ration in the form appointed by law.
That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in
the next session of Parliament, take into its serious con-
sideration the form of the oath of abjuration, with a
view to relieve her Majesty's subjects professing the
Jewish religion."

Mr. HUME was glad to find at least that one diffi-
culty had been removed in regard to the decision of this
question. He always considered that the law as it stood
gave the Baron the right to take the oaths in the Man-
ner most binding on his conscience, and having done so,
he (ler. Hume) if he had been in the position
of the Baron, would have taken his seat in
the Howe, fearless and regardless et all penalties.
There was, therefore, a proviso that any individnal pro-
fessing the Jewish persuasion should leave out that part
of the oath; and it was further provided in the same sta-
tute that the words " on the true faith of a Christian"
not only might in such a case, but should be left out. He
elt bound, therefore, to consider that under that Act
the Baron Rothschild had done all that was required by
the Legislature.—(Hear, hear.) But if any doubt was
entertained upon the subject, that doubt had been set at
rest by the Ist and 2d Victoria, by which it was declared
that it was not necessary for any party to take
an oath which they considered against their conscience.
Had he (Mr. Hume), been in the place of the Baron
Rothschild he would have taken his seat, and tried the
question in a court of law whether he was subject to the
penalties or nut. He came now to that part of the case
which the Honourable and Learned Gentleman the
Attorney•lieneral called the monstrous state of
the law. The city of London bad sent a cer-
tain gentleman to that House as one of its ,
Members, it had returned him no less than twice, and the
House had refused to receive him unless he took a cer-
tain oath. Such was the preposterous state of things
in which they at present were, acd such being the case,
all he asked was that the question should not be pre-
judged.—(llear, hear.) He thought that the Attorney-
General ought to have ventured to brieg forward a Bill
on the subject, and be bad no doubt that if he had done
ao, the House of Lords would not have prevented the Bill
becoming law. He deprecated the course that had been
. taken by the G overameu t ; they ought, instead of throwing
the weight of their authority against the public, to have
put their weight in their scale.—(Hear.) He wished
that the state of the law, monstrous as it was, had
not be prejudged . in, that House.—(Hear, hear.).
It was nut for that House to interfere,
t
but the
when the necessity of taking those oaths
courts of law. lie was quite sure that the time
be
Parliamentrenaoved, to
put
tt
&int,
end'was
must
of
was anxious that the House should rigthhi
tiuletym.
itself with the public, and for that purpose be would
move the amendment of which he had given notice. The
Lioneldire
Honourable Member concluded by moving-a" That the
directed u byh the
clerk of this House, ha
oaths
ving
to Baron as
proceeded
Huse to administer the
Rothschild, one of the Members for the city of It.onald odne
upon the Old Testament, being the form which he
declared to be most binding upon his conscience; and
the Baron having so sworn. to the oath of abjuration,
with the omission cf the words upon the true faith of
a Chrisiian,' and doubts having arisen as to the legal
effect of his so taking thu oath, it is expedient,
at the 'commencement of the next session of Par-
liament, that a Bill should be introduced to de-
clare the law with reference to the due administra-
tion of that oath ; and further, that this House
will then take into its serious consideration the subject
of the oaths now administered to its Members with re-
ference to the changes which have taken place since they
were first imposed by law."
Mr. C. ANSTEY had a communication to make to
tile House on the subiect of the amendment he had
given notice of en Friday, " That the Baron Lionel
Nathan de Rothschild, a Member duly elected for the
city of London, be heard by himself, his counsel or
agents, in support of his 'claim to sit and vote in
this House." He had had that morning a conversation
with Baron Rothschild, and he bad to inform the House
that it was not his intention or wish to be heard at the
bar by counsel. if the Hon. Member for Montrose
pressed his amendment to a division he should support it.
He should have wished that before the end of the
session a declaratory Act should he passed, and the
Baron admitted to his seat in the mean time. Mr.