New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1881-08-06
NENT1RY O4TJTS

PARLIAMENTARY OATHS.
The question of oaths has been an unceas-
ing cause of controversy in the House of Com
mons. The forms prescribed by successive
acts of Parliament involved three separate
declarations on oath, those of allegiance, SUI
premacy and abjuraton. Members who, from
conscientious motives, refused to take these
oaths, were adjudged by the House to be dis
qualified from sitting, and new writs were is
sued to fill their places. Soon after the Revo-
luton of 1858, Sir II. Mounson and Lord
Fanshaw refused to take the oaths, and were
discharged from being members of the House.
Mr. Chomey, who stated that he was UNI
able to take the oath, was committed to the
Tower for contempt. A more recent and re-
markable instance was that of Mr.. O'Connell
who had been returned for Clare County in
May, 1920, before the passing of the Roman
Catholic Relief act. On the oaths being ten
dered to him, he objected to the form of the
oath of supremacy, and claimed the right to
take that set out in the Relief act although it
had not rs yet become law. He was heard on
his claim, but the House resolved that he was
not entitled to sit or vote unless he took the
oath of supremacy. This he declined to do
and new writ for Clare was issued. A ques-
ton very similar to that raised by Mr. Bradlaugh
arose when Baron ROthSchild was first elected
n member OF the House of Commons for the
City of London. In 1850, having been then
elected two years, but not sworn, he came
down to the House, took the oaths of allegi-
ance and supremacy, and was proceeding to
take the oath of abiuration, emitting the
last words, "on the faith of Christian as
not binding on his conscience. The fact was
reported to the Speaker. He was directed to
withdraw, and the House decided that he was
Lot entitled TO sit or vote in any debate until
he had taken the oath in the prescribed form
In 1851, Alderman Salomohs, "A Hebrew
was returned for Greenwich. He took the
oath in the same form as Baron Roths-
child, and was directed by the Speaker
to withdraw. On another day he entered
the House and took his seat within the
bar. Again directed to withdraw, he re-
tanned his seat until expelled by the Sergeant
alarms. The House, however, did not think
fit to issue new writ but refusing to hear
counsel, they passed resolution that Alder
man Salomons was not entitled to sit or vote
The legal validity of this resolution was after
word established by an appeal to the Ex-
chequer Chamber.
In 1888 the terms of the oath were relaxed.
and person protesting the jewish persuasion
was allowed to omit the words on the true faith
of Christian" Several statutes have been
passed from time to time, allowing Quakers,
Moravians and Others to make an affirmation
in lieu of an oath. Later legislation has sub
stituted single oath for all denominations.
1t is as follows: al, -, do swear that
"wll be faithful and bear true allegiance to
" Her Majesty Queen Victoria her heirs and
successors according to law. SO help me
Good" Quakers are allowed to make an af-
IN bp
This is the form of oath Mr.. Bradaugh OBJ
jected to take, on the ground that he had no
belief in Supreme Being, but afterward he
offered to take it if the House would allow
him to do so.
1t is to be observed that in every instance
in which the language of the oath has been
altered the change has always been preceded
by squabble out of which the House
has come with certain loss of dignity.
The Catholic Relief bill was debated for
years before 1t was passed. 1t was fen
years from the time that the City of London
returned Hebrew as its member before the
House would allow the representative of tbe
most wealthy constituency in England to re-
cord his vote. And it must be remembered
that IN these instances, as in the case of Mr.
Bradlaugh, the rebuff given is not to the mam-
Der but to the constituency. NOrthamntop 10
no petty borough. 1t has returned some of the
most eminent men who have sat in the House
OF Commons. The late Mr.. Charles Gilnin SAT
Tor 1t Tor many years, supporter of Golden
and Bright when that support involved some
thing beside praise and popularity. In the at
titude taken by the House, it has put itself in
the wrong. 1t was wrong and obstipatelv
wrong, i'll delaying to pass the Catholic Relief
bill and on the Jewish question So il il no
clearly 10 the wrong in refusing to allow Mr.
Bradlaugh to take his seat. If the member for
northampton offers to make the reouired
oath, the question of his conscience is n matter
beyond the jurisdiction of Parliament If Mr.
Bright, as a Quaker, was admitted without
offending his conscience by taking an oath
why not Mr.. Bradlaugh9 The principle of reli.
gious liberty, that no man should suffer for the
views he holds, is principle much more i'm
portant than anything personal to Mr. Brad
laugh. That gentleman, by his petulant con-
duct, has cut himself off from the sympatbv
of some OF bis most ardent supporters, but the
principle which underles the controversy is
one too important to be sacrificed to the in
temperate conduct of any man. The House of
Commons is bound to retreat from the position