The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-26 00:00:00

THE SUN,

is identical with thxt moved by Sir Robert Peel,
as copied from the journals (..f the House.]—ln
respect to his claim to sit and vote in
Parliament, upon taking the oaths on the Old Testa-
ment—(llear, hear)—l apprehend that is the course
which it would be consistent with the dignity of this

House to observe on the present occasion, and that i

would then appear whit grnunds Baron Rothschild has
to allege—for what he claims as a right—to take the
oaths on the Old Testament, and that after hearing
what is to be alleged on that occasion by himself or his
counsel, it would be fitting that the House should deliberate
and come to a judicial decision on the course proper to
be taken. I shad say nothing at present respecting my
own opinion on this subject. I shall merely state that
these are the identical words of Sir Robert Peel's
motion, which was adopted by the House without any
division, and in conformity with which Mr. O'Connell
was heard at the bar of the House.

Mr. PAGE WOOD said it would be scarcely necessary
for him to follow at any length the somewhat singular
address of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member fur the
University of Oxford in moving his resolution. In start-
ing with an avowed declaration of his Christian principles,
a declaration which he (Mr. Wood) should have thought
extremely unnecessary, because those principles were
common to the whole Heuse—(Hear)—and instead of
taking that view which he apprehended to be the con-
stitutioeal view of the subject, via., whether or not a
gentleman who was twice returned is a Member—
(Cheers)—of the metropolis of our own country—one
among the largest constituencies in the country, con-
sisting of Christians as distinguished—he wished to
make no invidious distinctions—but he would say, as
distinguished as the Right Hon. Baronet himself; but
he said whether the constitutional question be whether or
not a person so returned and so elected is or is not en-
titled to those privileges which it must be admitted were
the common privileges of every British subject until the
law be pointed cut debarring it from them—it the Right
Hon. Baronet had entered into that question the address
which he offered to the House might have been pertinent
to the subject before the Heuse, but as his whole argu-
ment proceeded on a principle with which he entirely
agreed, he held himself excused from saying one word
more on the arguments which be addressed to the
House. The Attorney-General had met that Right
Hon. Baronet's resolution by an amendment which did
seem to him to meet the case before the House.—(Hear,
hear.) He might ob,erve here that there was one im-
portant question which appeared to have been overlooked.
Mr. Baron Rothschild, as in the case of Mr.O'Connetl, had
not been required to be heard by counsel. It would be
recollected that an amendment was proposed by Lord
Duncannon that Mr. O'Connell should be heard
by counsel at the bar; and was acceded
to by the House. In the present case
there were two different branches which had to be con-
sidered ; one arose on the oaths of supremacy and al-
legiance. Now Mr. Baron Rothschild was prepared to
take those oaths in a mode to which he thought no
lawyer in the House could offer the slightest objection.
Indeed, he should- like to see any lawyer in the House
rise in his place and say, that any gentleman taking
those oaths in the ordinary form, "So help me God,"
was acting contrary.to the principles of the New Tes-
tament. A Committee of the House bad deli-
berated on this question, and referring- to their
report, it would be found that Mr. Alderman Salomon!,
in filling the office of Sheriff of London, did take the
oaths of allegiance and supremacy, in that form and
under the same statute, by the provieions of which Mem-
bers in that House took their oaths. But the question
did not rest here. The oaths of allegiance and supre-
macy, and oath of abjuration, were imposed by differ-
ent statutes. The former by the Ist of William and
Mary, the latter by the 30th of Charles 11.
Mr. A HOPE rose to order. The Hon. Baronet had
called the Honourable Gentleman Baron Rothschild.
Now he believed, according to the English Constitution,
no person was allowed to be so addressed, unless he had
been created by her Majesty.—(Great laughter.)
Mr. WOOD would easily cerrect that mistake by
calling him in future the Honourable Member fur the
city of Londou.—(Greet cheering.) If the Honourable
Member for the city of London should take his seat
without taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy,
which he had tendered himself to take, if he was com-
pelled to seat himself in that House without taking
those oaths he would immediately by Act of Parliament
be made a Christ ati—(Great cheering)—a Popish re-
cusant convert.—(Cheers.) The oath of abjuration
was imposed by Act of Parliament, of the 13th William
the Third, and between the first and thirtmith year of
that reign Baron Rothschild could not have been ex-
cluded from Parliament. The Member for the city of
London had tendered himself to take the oath, and he
assented so to do in the way in which persons of his
persuasion have been allowed to take them every-
where.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") Now, in a case be-
fore Lord Hardwicke, where a Jew came forward
to be sworn, and where that Noble Lord was asked to
alter.the commission in that respect, that Noble Lord
held that a Jew might be allowed to swear upon the Old
Testament, on the ground that a man taking au oath
called upon God to punish him if he told an untruth.—
(Hear, hear.) And the Noble and Learned Lord,
in that instance, directed the words " upon the
Evangelists " to be omitted, and the corporeal oath
to be administered, and the principal of the judges de-
cided, upon review of that decision, that it was correct.—
(Hear, hear.) Administering the oath upon the Old
Testament to the Member for the city of London was
not a new mode of procedure, and that had been clearly
laid down by some of the first judges of the land.—
(Hear, hear.) All that was necessary to their
administration of an oath being the appeal of the party
taking that oath to the Sure ewe Being, believing Him
to be the rewarder of truth and the punisher of false-
hood.—(Hear, hear.) He must deny, therefore, the ac-
curacy of the statement of the Hon. Baronet the Mem-
ber for Oxford, that such an oath was never administered
to a person of the Jewish persuasion, although that as-
sertion was made in the good company of Lord Coke.
Sir R. INGLIS had said that such an oath had not
been taken by a Jew in the Legislature.
Mr. PAGE WOOD did not care whether it
was in the Legislature or not.— (Hear, bear.) No
one had acquiesced in that view of Lord Coke; but
the Hen. Baronet, the Member for the University now
says, that this has never been done in the Legislature.
Now he apprehended what they were standing upon was
this. Here was a party who was a British subject, who
had unquestionably the right of a British subject, who
had the property qualification required for a
Member of Parliament, who had been elected
by his fellow-citizens, against whom, moreover, a
petition had been presented but not prosecuted—
and yet this Gentleman, so qualified, and having

these Privileges and these duties imposed upon him, was
excluded from his seat, although there was nothing to
justify that exclusion, if he took the oath prescribed by
the Act of Parliament.—(Cheers.) The Act of Parlia-
ment prescribed no definite oath, but if it did, he calltd

upon the Hon. Member for the University to prove it;
oaths were prescribed either by the common law or the
statute law. Now, the authorities which he had cited
clearly established that tho common law prescribed no
specific form of oath, nor did the statute law, except in the
case of Quakers, who took no oaths at 11. The Jew
in all acts was left to take the oath in the manner which
he considered the most hinding and the most solemn.
Nor did the matter rest bete, for in order to prevent all
disputes about it there hai been a declaratory Act of
Parliament passed to settle the question. Now the Act Ist
and 2d Vice, chap. 105 e provides as follows:—" And be
it enacted, that in all cases in Which' an oath shall be
lawful or shall be administered to any person, either as
juryman or witness, or deponent in any proceedings
civil or criminal, in any court of law or equity in the
United Kingdom, or on any appointment to any office, or
on any occasion whatsoever (did not this apply to oaths
when taken in that House?) such parties shall be bound
by the oath administered; provided the same shall have
been administered in such form and with such ceremo-
nies as such person may declare to be binding." Now he
maintained that this Act applied\ to Parliamentary oaths,
and this gentleman had a right to be sworn in the
manner which he thinks beat.- The Hon. Member had
a right to come there and demand to be sworn in the
manner which be considered the most solemn and bind-
ing, and it the Honorable and Learned Attorney-Gene-
ral had not moved his amendment, he should have
moved another, which would have authorised the clerk
at the table to administer the oath in the manner pro-
posed by the Hon. Member himself.—(Cheers.) Now
that was what he thought this gentle-
man was entitled to. He quite admitted that
they were proceeding gravely. For his part he wished
it not to be taken as a party question, but racily he did
not think that it was for the credit of the House or the
law officers of the Crown that a point so clear as this
should be treated as a disputed poinh—(Hear, hear.)
He therefore found himself in the position of being
obliged to vote both against the original motion and the
amendment.—(Cheers )
Mr. S. WOR LLEY said, considering the nature of
this question as affecting theprivileges of this House, and
consideringh the position of the Honourable Member
whoimpossaidbleoffered e
overrate
eseltfh atthe
the
importancetabletoofbe thissworn,h suie
it was
(Hear, hear.)
eGneeer to
sitt;e that
opinion
He ceuld nut too strongly give his con
e
at th is 0 the Hon. and Learned Attor-
ney-General, 'proceeding must assume a judi-
cial character, arid it was th ret essenti
althe shouldfor the
d i g•
nity and character of the House h
pro-
ceed with due deliberation.—( ear, hear.) And further,
he thought it would be wiie on this occasion to follow in
the steps of those who had preceded them, and to take
the course which they hail done under circum-
in
reo a
erringextent
great
circum-
stances. He was, therefore, prepared
to vote for the amendment; but,
instance which the Honourable and Learned Atotttohre-
ney-General had called attention to, he
must
allude to one important step taken on that occasion,
which he thought on this occasion was even more neces-
sary than then.—(Hear, hear.) It was well known that
Mr. O'Connell was about to tender himself at the table
of the House, that he was about to take an objection to a
Particular form of oath; but he (Mr. Worthy) believed
that until 12 o'clock last night the vast majority of this
House was ignorant of the step abort to be taken by the
Honourable Member for the city of London.—(Hear.)
For his own part he ventured to say that oatil a few
hours ago he had not the sme.lie et notion that the House
would be culled upon to come to a decision, at least at
that hour of the day, upon that question. lie had not
had the honour of being a Member of that Committee
of which the Honourable Member for Oxford had
spoken, and therefore he had not the advantage which
he possessessed over the rest of the House in being per-
cognizant with the subject. He bad, however,
read the retibit'e but when the Noble Lord at the head of
the Government introduced a Bill, he bad thought that
that report had been abandoned. When the Honourable
and Learned Gentleman drew the distinction between
the oath taken on the faith of a Christian and the simple
oath of allegiance, and claimed that the only question
before the House whether the Honourable Individual
was entitled to be sworn upon the Old Testament, he
thought it was impossible to consider the question with-
out reference to the full difficulties even of that mode of