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

THE

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 allow ing
the Baron to take the oaths in the manner which he de-
clared 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. I. 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 be could not be entitled to vote in
that House, or sit in it during any debate, until he
should take that oath of abjuration 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
so 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
force 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, he found 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. Baren 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 Parliament 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. Be
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 most 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)—be 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 ahering that state of the law which
was so monstrovs in itself, and of which the results land
effects were ao 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 adtp.; 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 Commune 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. I.
One among others of the monstrous evils which might
I arise from the existing 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 nut
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. He 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 of enabling him
to take his seat, because in that case a strong and over-
powering argument might be offered by his opponents,
vis., 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 one 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 terrorism over
another House of the Legislature, p course which he
submitted would bo very undignified and 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 end by a side wind which be
thought ought to be done openly and fairly. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman said he could not conclude his
observations without expressing his sense of the propriety
and firmness, and moderation of the conduct of
Baron Rothschild in all the steps which he
bad taken in this difficult and peculiarly
unprecedented matter.—(Loud cheers.) He had acted
so 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 the 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
resolutions:—

" That the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild is not
entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House
during any debate, until ho shall take the oath of abju-
ration in the form appointed by law.
"That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in
the next ses.ion 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 (Mr. Hume) if he had been in the position
of the Baron, would 'have taken his seat in
the House, fearless and regardless of all penalties.
There was, therefore, a proviso that any individual pro-
fessing the Jewish persuasion shculd leave out that part
of the oath; and it was further provided in the same sta-
tute that the words "on the true faith cf 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 not. He came now to that part of the case
which the 'Honourable and Learned Gentleman the
Attorney-General called the monstrous state of
the law. The city of London had 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, and such being the case,
all he asked was that the question should not be pre-
judged.—(Hear, hear.) He thought that the Attorney-
General ought to have ventured to bring forward a Bill
on the subject, and he had no doubt that if he had done,
so, the House of Lords would not have prevented the Bill
becoming law. He deprecated the course that had been
taken by the Government; 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, bad
not be
wa s prejudged in that House.—(Hear, hear.)
It not for that House to interfere,
but the courts of law. He was quite sure that the time
had come when the
lln,ecessiti
th
of taking those oaths
mustthem Ho wasa
be
pas removed
to put
tt
ut was
en the
dto
duty of
andatnhfaotr ththeatHpounrspeossehohnledwroigulhdt
moveitstlf wthiethth
public,amendmenta of which he had given notice. The
rt:sing—"
Honourable Member concluded b
Lionel
by the
That the
clerk of this House, having proceeyde
House to administer the oaths to Baron L
Rothschild, one of the Members for the city of all:I:nanon
d de
y
upon the Old Testament, being the form which be
declared to be most binding upon his conscience; and
the Baron having so sworn to the oath of abjuration,
with the omission of the words upon the true faith of
a Christian,' and doubts having arisen as to the legal
effect of his so taking the oath, it is expedient,
at the ',commencement of the next session of Pars
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 plaee since they
were first imposed by law."
Mr. C. ANSTEY had a communication to make to
"the House on the subject of the amendment he had
"given notice of on Friday, "That the Baron Lionel
Nathan der Rothschild, a Member duly elected for the
city cf London, be heard by himself, his counsel or
agents, in support of his claim to sit and Tote in
this House." , He had bad that morning a conversation
with Baroti Rothschild, and he had 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 nishcd that before the end of the
session a declaratory Act should be passed, and the
Baron admitted to his seat in the paean time. Mr.