The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-31 00:00:00

ROUSE OF COMMONS, July 30.

BARON ROTHSCHILD—ADJOURNED DEBATE.
(Continued fronaour Afternoon Edition of yesterday.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he -was
desirous of expressing as distinctly as he could the
view which he had formed upon this subject. He
could say that in coming to a conclusion he had en-
deavoured to divest himself of every personal feeling.
Upon every previous occasion upon which this question
had been brought before the House he had voted
for the admission of Jews into Parliament, and upon
a farmer occasion he had expressed his opinion
upon the propriety of that measure. At the same time
he considered that, on looking at this question, he had
two things to consider with respect to the wishes which
he himself might have upon the subject. He earnestly
wished. that Baron Rothschild should be admitted a
Member of that House, and that all persons of the
same persuasion should sit and vote there like-
wise. But he was bound to discard every
feeling of that description the functions which
the House had to perform were purely judicial,
not quasi-judicial, but purely judicial, and it was de-
sirable to express this more strongly, because it was
impossible not to perceive that very strong personal feel-
ings had been excited as to whether Baron Rothschild
could sit in that House.—(Hear, hear.) He con-
fessed that on looking at this question it was
important to look at the position in which it now
stood. The Hon. and Learned Member for Abingdon
had moved for a new writ for the city of London, and
the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford had moved
as an amendment that the seat was tilted. He could not
think that the course which the lion. and Learned
Member for Abingdon had taken was the one best to
be pursued, even if his view of the case were correct.
H.. would now refer to what took place in the case of Mr.
O'Connell. He was quite ready to admit that there was
seine difference between the two cases. As it appeared
from, the journals, Mr. O'Connell was called upon on
Friday and flaked if he would take the oaths, and he
stated ho was content to take the oaths of allegiance and
abjuration but not the oath of supremacy; therefore the
debate was adjourned, and on the Monday following he
was heard at the bar. On the following day he was
called again to the bar, and Mr. Speaker asked him if
he refused to take the oaths, and on his replying
that he did refuse, the House came to a resolution
that he was not entitled to a seat in the House. I
Bat there was some distinction between that case and
the present ; the Hon. Member for the city of London
bad not refused to take the oath of abjuration.—
(Cheers.) The House had, however, come to the con-
clusion that he had not taken the oath in the form
prescribed ; and, perhaps, out of respect to the forms
of the House, it might be proper to call him again to
the table, and ask him if he refused to take the oath in
any other form than that in which he had taken it.—
(Cries of " No.") If he refused, then the view taken
by the Hon and Learned Member for Abingdon might
be the most correct one under the circumstances.
But with respect to the- real question itself,
he confessed he had considerable difficulty in com-
ing to the conclusion which appeared to him to be
the right and proper conclusion, but which he admitted
he had arrived at with considerable pain. If he were
sitting as a judge on this case, and had to decide ac-
cording to the obligation of the oath, and was anxious to
do justice between the parties, he could not say in
his owe mind that the Hon. Member for the city of
London had taken the oath of abjuration in the form
prescribed by the Act of Parliament.—(Cheers from
the Opposition.) He confessed he came to that con-
clusion with very great regret, but still it was
his duty to communicate it to the House.
(Continued cheering.) He had listened with
very great pleasure'and interest to the extremely able
arguments of his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member
for Oxford (Mr. Page Wood)—(Hear)--but though he
knew him to be actuated by the sincerest of motives, he
regretted that he had cot produced the same effect
on his mind as he had done on that of
his own, and that he (Mr. Attorney-General)
was obliged to come to a different conclusion. He was
not able to get over what appeared to him to be the
plain and common sense meaning of the Act which im-
posed the oath. He could not, however, doubt that if
the question had been raised before the affirmation had
been made on the oath of abjuration, that it was neces-
sary that he should affirm that he was a Christian.
Mr. Pease would have had no objection to have made
such affirmation.—(Hear, hear.) It was Clear that
affirmation by statute was to be taken us equivalent to
an oath in the case of Quakers. With respect to the
observations that had been made by his Honourable and
Learned Friend the Member for Oxford; upon the Sd
and 4th William IV., passed subsequent to the casaof Mr.
Pease, they appeared to him to have a contrary tendency
to that which he contended fur, as by that statute Par-
liament appeared determined to put an end to all doubt,
and if such an Act had been passed in the case:of Baron
Rothschild, all doubt would have been cured. But then,
supposing it to be clear that Parliament meant in the 1
case of Mr. Pease to put an end to all doubt, the ques-
tion then would come round, would it be right for Par-
liament to pass an Act for a similar purpose in the case
[of the Baron Rothschild. Another statute had been
pressed on the attention of the Houie'as the mainstay of
the question; he alluded to the declaratory statute
of the Ist and 2d of the Queen. Now there was
nothing in that statute that 'required thee•oftth to be
administered in a particular form, but the Act
liable
e lorn
provided that when " the party had taken the
(
the aparticularfes)rmas mthuech paas irtlit should
dtakebne
in the regular way. But his Hon, Friend .
had said that
the oath was no oath, or that if it
was. it was of no use
at all. If such was the case tb
to remove the atatate Varlet: rop7' course would be
statue-book ; but if tbat required it from the
the House would be, 'in esrs,,rsvi vwias adopted
oath was useless, and ought to he• si"
ng
that the
and that it had not the power to dO exceptdisilsed with,
Parliament. He admitted.what had been b-
an Act of
Hon. and Learned Friend, with respectto
sj3aeted by his
law and the steps which they take in cleeidihg :elites 'of
ing of Acts of Parliament, but he could-not say taettr
thought the rule of courts of law ought always to prevail in
that House. It was not at all uncommon for courts of law
virtually to repeal Acts of Parliament—(Cheers.) The
statute of uses and the statute of frauds had been vir-
tually repealed by them.—(Cheers.) Well now, be bad
always considered that it was not a wise course for a
court of justice to pursue. Courts of justice, how-
ever, hal been much stricter in modern times.
At no time was it a wise thing even for a court of justice
to dispense with an Act of Parliament, or to argue itself
out of it; but it appeared to . him to be still more incum-
bent upon the House to keep Acts of Parliament strictly
inviolable, and not to alter or change them in any way
without the sanction of the other branches of the Legis-
lature. If it did the most dangerous results would
ffrllow. Observe what was to be done in this case. The
House was to strike out of the oath the words
"on the true faith of a Christian," because
the Baron Lionel de Rothschild did not think
them binding upon his conscience. Well, 'but
was not it jest possible if they agreed to that proposiOon,
that hereafter some othei persons might for the same
reason demand that some other part of the oath should
be omitted?—(Cheers.) In voting that the Banes de
Rothchild should be woes upon! the Old l'ita-