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

elVeninA

LONDON, TUESDAY, JULY 30, 1850.

The House of Commons has pronounced its deci-
sion on the first of the preliminary points that have
been raised with respect to the claim of Baron
ROTHSCHILD to take his seat in the Commons House
of Parliament, as one of the chosen representatives of
the city of London, the metropolis of the British domi-
nions. The judicious and reasonable amendment of
the veteran Member for Montrose has been affirmed
by a majority of 54, and it is thereby deter-
mined that in Parliament, as well as be-
fore every tribunal in the country, every
British citizen shall be entitled to take the
oaths that may be prescribed in the form which he
may declare to be most binding on his conscience, and
that whether the oaths be of a juridical or of a promis-
sory character.
This decision is so clearly in accordance with the
law of the land and the constitution, that we can only
express our astonishment that any Honourable Gen-
tleman at all acquainted with the course of legal
proceedings, and the ordinary rules for the interpre-
tation, of the written and unwritten law, should have
hazarded an opposite view, and contended that,
because no person professing the Jewish re-
ligion had previously put forward his claim
to be sworn on the Old Teeament, that it should be
assumed that all such persons were now disqualified,
and that a penal and disabling law should be passed
without any distinct or express words. The Right

THE

Honourable Gentleman the Member for Abingdon
argued, that because it was the practice that the oaths
should be taken on the New Testament, that " the
onus should be thrown upon those who desired to de-
part from the practice to show that it could
be lawfully done." Now, with all respect for
the acknowledged learning of Sir FREDERICK
THESIGER, we must express our unqualified
dissent to this proposition. Baron ROTHSCHILD was
asserting not only his own rights as a natural-born
subject of Great Britain, but the rights and privi-
leges of the numerous and influential constituency by
which he was elected as a representative. It was not
on his side that the onus lay of showing why he should
not be deemed disqualified on account of the religious
principles which he conscientiously entertained, or
why the city of London should not be partially
disfranchised, but for his opponents, who en-
deavoured to resist the just demand and to
exclude the Honourable Gentleman from the
Legislative Councils of the nation of which he was a
free citizen. They should have shown that there was
some express enactment on the subject, or at least
some previous decision of the House itself on the
point that would constitute a precedent sufficient to
warrant a decision contrary to the judgment of every
judicial tribunal of the country for the last century
and a half, since the leading case of OMMICHIN v.
BARKER was determined by the Lord Chancellor
(Lord HARDWICKE) and the three Chiefs of
the Common Law Courts, Chief Justice
WILLIS, Chief Justice LEE, and Chief Baron
PARKER. In that important case, the princi-
ple of which has never since been impeached or con-
troverted, Lord HARDWICKE declared that "all that
is necessary to an oath is an appeal to the SUPREME
BraNG, as thinking him the rewarder of truth and
avenger of falsehood." The Noble and Learned
Lord added—" This is not contradicted by any
writer that I know of but Lord COKE, who has taken
upon himself to insert the word Christian, and is
the only writer that has grafted this word into the
oet'o ."

Wienes, C.J., assented to this reasoning, and used
these remarkable words—" The nature of an oath is
not at all altered by Christianity, but only made more
solemn from the sanction of rewards and punishments
being more openly declared. The form of the oath
•eari ea in countries according to diffrrent laws and
constitutions, but the substance is the same in all:'
These opioione wound eppear to be conclusive on the
question, although no enactment had subAquently
passed the Legislature. If the substance of the adju-
ration was complied with, the form signified
tittle, providing it were really looked upon as
binding on the conscience as an appeal to a SUPREME
BEING, "the rewarder of truth and avenger of falsehood,"
to wieness the ceremony. Tee religious principles
acknowledged by every creed and sect would con-
sider such en appeal of the most formidable character,
if male falsely. But the Ist and 21 Vic., c. 105,
added temporal to the eternal punishments that
might he inflicted for its violation. It was thereby
enacted, that in all casrs in which an oath " shall
have been administered in due fern, and with such
ceremonies as such person mey declare to be binding,
every such person, in case of wilful false swearing,
rosy be convicted of the crime of perjury in the same
manner as if the oath had been administered in the
form and with the ceremonies most commonly
adopted." There is thus every sanction, spi-
ritual or temporal, that could possibly he
desired to give full validity to the oath or oaths
that may be taken by Berea E,OTHSCHILD on the
Old Testament, and it would indeed have been
strange if any body cf educated gentlemen had come
to a different decision in the present day.
Having thus determined that it was the substance,
and not the form, of the oath that was essential, the
second point arises, which is under discussion even
while we are writing. Are the concluding words of
the oath of 'abjuration, "on the true faith of a Chris-
tian," matters of substance or of form ? Do they
constitute. any portion of what is to be faithfully
observed by the person taking the oath, or are they
merely ports of the religious ceremony, which are mere
matter of form, and which may dispensed with when
repugnant to the feeling and not binding on the
conscience of the juror ? Oa this point we entertain
as little doubt as on the other. And had it nut been
for the strange, ill-timed, and unfortunate declaration
of Lord Jonre RUSSELL, that "it was not in the
power of the House to dispense with these worde,"
and that he should feel himself compelled to vote
against their omission from the oath, we should have
considered that the second point was necessarily
governed by the decision in the first. It is unneces-
sary to enter into the consideration of the reasons by
which the Legislature was actuated in framing that
oath, and requiring all Members to take it before
entering upon their Parliamentary duties. It is well
known that there was at that time a claimant to the
crown of Great Britain, who asserted himself to be
the King de jure, and against whose pretensions it
was desired to pledge every person of weight and in-
fluence in the country. It was not the object to ex-
clude Jews, or the members of any other religious
persuasion, and the words " on the true faith of a
Christian" were added merely for the purpose of
giving additional solemnity, and were as clearly a
portion of the "form as the swearing on the New
Testament, and could therefore be dispensed with in
like manner ;" and this we trust will be the decision
of the British HMSO of Commons, although the head
of a quasi-Liberal Ministry has adopted a course and
made a declaration so deeply to be deplored by every
true friend of civil and religious liberty.
It is true that Baron ROTHSCHILD might, if so
disposed, take the form of oath framed far Roman
Catholics, in which the words " on the true faith of a
Christian" are not contained ; and that he might get
into the House by an evasion of the true intent of the
Roman Catholicßelief Act, in the very same manner
that it is attempted to exclude him by an undue ex-
tension of the Act which provided for the taking of
the oath of abjuration. But such a course would be
unworthy of the sacred cause cf which Baron Roems-
cane is the champion. He, at least, will not shrink
from a fair decision on the merits, or shirk the
true question at issue—a question which
we fully concur with the Hon. and Gallant Gentle-
man the Member for Middlesex is considering "the
greatest party question of the age, the question of
prejudice against progress, of intolerance and bigotry
against the principles of civil and religious liberty."
Although we have argued it merely as a judicial
question in the preceding part of this article, we are
fully alive to its deep and vital importance, and we
only desire. that the feelings of the citizens of London.
should be taken thereon by Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S
again coming forward to solicit their franchises.

We have frequently, during the present session of
Parliament, called the attention of the Legislature to
the present unsettled and anomalous condition of the
landlords and tenants of Ireland. We look upon the
Land Question as one of the paramount evils of that
country, and would deem its settlement almost a pana-
cea for its social and political disorders. We enter-
tained hopes that this urgent and important question
would have received the due attention of Parliament,
and would have been legislated upon in a manner
satHactory to'owner and occupier ; but, alas ! in this
as in many other matters of deep importance to the
peace and well-being of the commonweal, we have
been sadly disappointed, for it would seem the session
of eighteen hundred and fifty will close its labours—
as the Ministerial phrase is—and leave Ireland, and its
land-question grievance, as they found it in eighteen
hundred and forty-nine.

Ireland is indeed an unfortunate country ! Hard
and awful are the proofs she must place before the
British Parliament, ere she can claim the attention of
the Mids'er of the day, and now the cumulative
evidence cf another winter of crime and blood will
perchance, be added to the dark catalogue of agrarian
crime which has so long and so fearfully proclaimed
the necessity of the adjustment of the relations be-
tween the occupiers and owners of land in that unfor-
tunate portion of the empire.
'Though we cannot hope that any legislation
can take place on this subject during the pre-
sent sittings, yet we cannot allow the session to
close without calling attention to the sub-
ject, in the hope that the Government will be pre-
pared at the next meeting of Parliament to introduce
a measure based upon principles calculated to give
satisfaction to all parties corcernecl. The Bill of Sir
IVILLram SOMERVILLE, though, we believe, well in- '
tended, was not based upon sound principles. The
only true grounds upon which this subject can be