Chapter III: Part 3

177. Mr. WATKIN WILLIAMS: Do you propose to take the Oath in the form given in the Statute of 1868, which I will read to you: "I., A. B., do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me, God?"--I do, that being the form in the Statute.

178. If you are permitted to take that oath, do you intend the Committee to understand and believe that it will be binding upon your conscience as an oath?--Yes.

179. In taking such oath, do you consider yourself as appealing to some Supreme Being as a witness that you are speaking the truth?--I submit that having said that I regard the oath as binding upon my conscience, this Committee has neither the right nor the duty to further interrogate my conscience.

180. Sir RICHARD CROSS: You know of course that in taking the oath in the form prescribed by the Statute, and according to the custom of taking oaths, you will have to kiss the Testament: do you attach the smallest weight to the kissing of that book?--I attach the weight attached by the law to the whole of the formula.

181. Do you attach the smallest weight to the kissing of the book; do you think that the kissing of that book adds in the slightest degree to the weight upon your conscience of the words which you have already spoken without kissing the book?--The law has said that the whole of that is to be complete; I have not the right, therefore, to form an opinion, or to formulate an opinion as to how much of that I would leave out had I any choice in the matter.

182. Then do you attach any further importance to the word "swear" in the oath itself, and to the fact of the kissing of the book than if the word "swear" were written "affirm," and no kissing of the book were required?--I have already said that I attach to the complete affirmation the most complete binding effect on my conscience. If I were allowed a preference, I would and still prefer the affirmation. The law says that the oath is the form, and I shall regard that form as in all its respects binding upon my conscience.

183. Do you look upon the kissing of that particular book as adding any more sanction than the kissing of any other book?--I decline to do that which the law has not done; the law has not split up the formula into parts, and expressed an opinion upon each part separately, and I deny the right of the Committee to ask me to do that which the law has not done.

184. I will ask you one other question; do not answer it unless you like?--I will not.

185. Do you think that the fact of the kissing of that book has any relation to an appeal to a Supreme Being, that you will, before Him, perform the oath which you have taken?--The law has not required me, in any case, to express an opinion as to that by itself. As to the whole Oath I have expressed an opinion.

186. As regards the kissing of that book, would you look upon that, so far as your conscience is concerned, as an idle form?--The law has not required me to look upon it by itself, and I dispute the right of the Committee to divide the Oath into parts, and to take one part by itself without the other. I have already answered that the whole of the Oath when taken by me, and if taken by me, will be binding upon my conscience.

187. But still you consider that a certain part of that Oath, which the Statute imposes upon you the necessity to take, is an idle, and empty, and meaningless form?--I have never said so at any time.

188. But do you consider it so?--Most certainly I do not consider the most considerable portion of it an idle and empty form.

189. Some portion of it, I said?--I consider no portion of the essential Oath an idle and empty form.

190. That is to say, that you would take the Oath because the Statute says you must do so in order to take your seat?--That is not so. I take the Oath because the Statute says that I must do so, intending to be bound in my honor and conscience by the oath I take. Every Member takes the Oath because he must do so in order to take his seat, and he could not take it without it.

191. But you do not think that the forms of the Oath, as settled by law, adds anything to the binding of your conscience further than saying "I solemnly affirm"?--Your question presumes a form of thought which I have not enunciated.

192. Mr. JOHN BRIGHT: Do I understand you aright that you have never said that the oath, as you propose to take it, is less binding upon your conscience than it is supposed to be on the consciences of other men?--I have never said so; and in 1868, when I stood for election, there being then no form of affirmation possible for me, I had gravely considered the question.

193. It is within your knowledge that some men, and not a few men, who do not absolutely refuse to take an oath, still greatly prefer to make an affirmation?--If it would not be impertinent to say it, many Members of the House have told me so since this question has been pending.

194. CHAIRMAN: I think you said, when I informed you that the Committee thought that the letter should be put in, that it was a subject upon which you wished to make an observation?--I wish just to make the slightest observation upon that, and upon one or two points that arose in questions that have been put to me. If the Committee would allow me to think for a moment I believe I can compress it within very slight limits.

195. Sir GABRIEL GOLDNEY: Your statement to Mr. Justice Brett, I understood, you would think over?--No, that my answer did not apply to. If the Committee think that I ought to answer that question in the same way, the question as to the three words, or rather four words, that I answered to Mr. Justice Brett, I am quite in the hands of the Committee, and I should not decline to answer them.

196. Mr. STAVELEY HILL: The reason why I asked you what they were, and where they were to be found if you did not answer the question, was on purpose that one might look for them, because it must be a matter of public notoriety what the words were?--I should think it very possible. I have taken my objection, and if there is even a thought in the Committee that I had better answer the question, I should not object to do so.

197. CHAIRMAN: What are the observations which you wish to offer in consequence of your examination?--As the House will now have before it the statement, I ask the Committee in examining it to take it complete, not to separate one or two words in it and to take those without the countervailing words, and to remember that in this letter I declare that the oath, if I take it, would bind me, and I now repeat that in the most distinct and formal manner; that the Oath of Allegiance, viz.: "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors, according to law," will, when I take it, be most fully, completely, and unreservedly binding upon my honor and conscience; and I crave leave to refer to the unanimous judgment of the full Court of the Exchequer Chamber, in the case of Miller _v._ Salomons, 17th Jurist, page 463, and to the case of the Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company _v._ Heaton, 4th Jurist, new series, page 708, for the distinguishment between the words of asseveration and the essential words of an oath. But I also desire to add, and I do this most solemnly and unreservedly, that the taking and subscribing, or repeating of those words of asseveration, will in no degree weaken the binding effect of the oath on my conscience. I should like, finally, simply to submit to the Committee, and especially to the honorable and learned gentleman on the left of the Chairman, that there has not been from the beginning to the end of this matter, any declaration, either distinct or implied, that the Oath if taken by me would be less binding upon me than upon him; and I do submit to this Committee that this House has never sought to inquire or to distinguish in any fashion as to the religious views of its Members, except so far as any of them have found themselves obliged by their conscience to refuse to comply with some form that the House has put before them. On the contrary, in the Lords' protest on the discussion of the Promissory Oaths Municipal Bill, Lord Holland and other Lords put it in the most distinct fashion that no sort of inquisition and no sort of inquiry ought to be tolerated involving any examination of a man's theological views. Lord Holland added, in words better than I can command: "That there is no tribunal which he knows competent to make that examination, and that the purely secular and political duties called upon to be performed were not such as to entitle that examination to be made." I thank the Committee for having listened to me, and I submit myself to their decision.

198. CHAIRMAN: You mentioned some precedents which you thought might usefully be added to the list of precedents which we have already had: could you conveniently add those cases?--Yes, I will do so.

_Monday, 7th June 1880._

MEMBERS PRESENT:

Mr. Attorney General.
Mr. John Bright.
Mr. Secretary Childers.
Mr. Chaplin.
Sir Richard Cross.
Mr. Gibson.
Mr. Grantham.
Mr. Staveley Hill.
Sir John Holker.
Mr. Beresford Hope.
Mr. Hopwood.
Lord Henry Lennox.
Sir Henry Jackson.
Mr. Massey.
Major Nolan.
Mr. Pemberton.
Mr. Serjeant Simon.
Mr. Solicitor General.
Mr. Trevelyan.
Mr. Walpole.

The Right Honorable SPENCER HORATIO WALPOLE, in the Chair.

Mr. CHARLES BRADLAUGH, a member of the House; further Examined.

199. CHAIRMAN: There was some reference, I think, made to you by Mr. Whitbread, with regard to which you desire to make some observations?--There was a point urged by Mr. Whitbread upon the first Committee. I do not know whether I should be in order in referring to it. I thought it had been sufficiently covered by what I had said, until I reflected upon it, and then I thought it had not. I wish to submit to this Committee that it ought not to consider that I claimed to affirm because I regarded the oath as not binding upon my conscience, under the spirit of the Evidence Further Amendment Act, 1869, for that Statute runs: "If any one shall object to take an oath, or be objected to as incompetent to take an oath;" and that it is quite possible (perhaps wrongly, and undoubtedly wrongly, as the Committee have so decided) that I might claim to affirm, objecting to take the oath, and that the Committee have not on the evidence here either the right or the duty to assume anything more as against me in dealing with it now. That is all I wish to put before the Committee.

APPENDIX.

Appendix No. 1.

PRECEDENTS RELATIVE TO PARLIAMENTARY OATHS.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER disabled for having sat in the House without
taking the Oath.

Sir JOHN LEEDES hath been in the House and not taken the Oath.

Sir John Leedes not to come into the House till further Order.

Sir E. COKE: That by the law Sir J. Leedes is disabled to serve this Parliament, and therefore ought to be discharged, and a new Writ.

Mr. PAWLETT, accordant.

Sir J. STRANGWAYS: Can pretend no ignorance, for a Member of the House last Parliament.

Mr. CREW, for Sir J. Leedes: No question but he is incapable. 2. He is to be punished.

_Resolved_, Sir J. Leedes incapable of being a Member of this House, as if never returned.

Mr. HACKWYLL: To have him removed; a Writ for a new choice; and to punish him, by sending him to the Tower.

Sir G. MOORE: To have no question made, but where it is questioned.

Mr. SECRETARY: The fault great, especially because of last Parliament. To order, he shall be discharged now, and to serve no more this Parliament.

Sir J. Leedes, brought to the Bar, confesseth he was of the House last meeting in Parliament; and that he hath sit this Parliament in the House, and hath not taken his Oath.

Mr. T. FANSHAW: That he must be punished as one that hath come into the House, not being chosen.

Sir E. SANDES: To pay the Serjeant his fees, and no further punishment; because, but negligence, no presumption, and is willing to take the Oath.

Mr. CHIDLEY: To have an order to disable him for this Parliament.

A Warrant for a new Writ in his room.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER Admitted to sit without taking the OATHS of
ALLEGIANCE and SUPREMACY.

_Ordered_, That WILLIAM AYRES, Esquire, being legally elected and returned a Member of this House, his election being returned and remitted of Record, shall be admitted to sit in this House, without taking the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance.

_Ordered_, That an Ordinance be brought in by Mr. Lisle, to-morrow morning, for repealing that clause in the Act of * * That no person be admitted to sit as a Member of this House, before he hath taken the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy.

_Ordered_, That all and every the Sheriffs of the respective counties in England and Wales do henceforth execute their several places and offices of Sheriffs of their several and respective counties, according to the duty of their said office, without taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER Discharged for declining to take the OATHS.

The House being informed, that Sir HENRY MOUNSON attended, according to the Order on Saturday last;

_Resolved_, That he be called in, and tendered the Oaths and Declaration directed to be taken, made, repeated, and subscribed by the Members of the House.

He was called in accordingly; and came up to the table: And Mr. Speaker acquainted him, That the House had taken notice that he had been about the town a considerable time; but yet did not attend the service of the House: And that he had directions to tender him the Oaths and the Declarations.

Whereupon, Sir Henry Mounson said: That he was sorry that for some reasons he could not comply to qualify himself to sit in the House: But that those reasons would no way incline him to disturb the Government; and that he submitted himself to the House.

And then withdrew.

_Resolved_, That Sir Henry Mounson be discharged from being a Member of the House.

New Writ Ordered.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER Discharged for declining to take the OATHS.

The House being informed, That the Lord FANSHAW attended at the door, according to the order of Saturday last.

_Resolved_, That he be called in, and tendered the Oaths and Declaration, directed to be taken, made, repeated, and subscribed by the Members of the House.

He was called in accordingly; and came up to the table: And Mr. Speaker acquainted him, That the House had taken notice that he had been about the town a considerable time; but yet did not attend the Service of the House; and that he had direction to tender him the Oaths and Declaration.

Whereupon the Lord Fanshaw said, that it was true, he had been about town a great while indeed; but had been in the country, if his health would have permitted him; but that he had been in a strict course of physick, and was in the same condition still of physick and diet; but, however, that since he was absent there was an Act of Parliament passed for taking the Oaths; and he was not qualified to sit in the House, in regard he was not satisfied to take the Oaths; and therefore he could not appear.

And then withdrew.

_Resolved_, That the Lord Fanshaw be discharged from being a Member of the House.

And there being a Petition in, touching the Election, the granting a new Writ was respited.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER Committed to the TOWER for declining to take the
OATHS.

The House being acquainted, that Mr. CHOLMLY attended according to their order of Tuesday last;

He was called in, and came up to the table: And Mr Speaker, by the direction of the House, acquainted him to this effect, viz., That the House had taken notice of his being absent from their service a considerable time, and that now he was come he was to tender him, and accordingly did tender him, the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy appointed to be taken by the Members of the House, according to an Act of this present Parliament.

To which Mr. Cholmly replied, That as to his absence, both when he was in the country and since he came to town, he had been infirm and lame, and had been under the doctor's hands, and could not as yet recover himself. And that he had endeavored to qualify himself to be a sitting Member of the House, by taking the Oaths, as the House expects, but that he could not as yet do it: And therefore humbly submitted himself to the House; and that he did it not out of any wilful humor.

Upon which he was commanded to withdraw.

And being withdrawn accordingly;

_Resolved_, That Francis Cholmly, Esquire, a Member of this House, for his contempt in refusing to take the Oaths, * *, be committed Prisoner to the Tower of London.

_Ordered_, That the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House do take into his custody the said Mr. Cholmly, and convey him to the Tower: And that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant for that purpose.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER, being a QUAKER, refusing to take the OATH.

House called over,

And the name of John Archdale, Esquire, a burgess for the borough of Chipping Wicomb, in the county of Bucks, being called over a second time:

Mr. Speaker acquainted the House that Mr. Archdale had been with him this morning, and delivered him a letter sealed, which Mr. Speaker presented to the House.

And the same was opened and read, and is as followeth, viz.:--

"London, the 3rd of the 11th month, called January 1698-9.

"Sir.

"Upon the call of the House it will appear that I am duly
chosen and returned to serve in Parliament for the borough of
Chipping Wycomb, in the county of Bucks; and, therefore, I
request of thee to acquaint the honorable House of Commons the
reason I have not as yet appeared, which is, that the burgesses
being voluntarily inclined to elect me, I did not oppose their
inclinations, believing that my declarations of fidelity, etc.,
might, in this case, as in others, where the law requires an
oath, be accepted, I am, therefore, ready to execute my trust
if the House think fit to admit of me thereupon; which I do
humbly submit to their wisdom and justice; and shall acquiesce
with what they will be pleased to determine therein: This being
all at present, I remain,

"Thy real and obliged friend,

"JOHN ARCHDALE."

Day appointed for considering the contents of the said letter.

Mr. Archdale ordered to attend.

The House being informed, that Mr. Archdale attended according to order;

His letter to Mr. Speaker was again read;

And the several statutes qualifying persons to come into and sit and vote in this House were read, viz., of the 30 Car. II., 1 Will. and Mariae, and 7 and 8 Will. and Mariae.

And then the said Mr. Archdale was called in,

And he came into the middle of the House, almost to the table;

And Mr. Speaker, by direction of the House, asked him whether he had taken the Oaths or would take the Oaths, appointed to qualify himself to be a member of this House; To which he answered, That in regard to a principle of his religion he had not taken the Oaths, nor could take them.

And then he withdrew.

A new Writ ordered.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER expelled for absconding, and not taking the
OATHS.

The House was called over according to order.

And the names of such as made default to appear were taken down.

_Ordered_, That the names of such as made default be now called over.

And they were called over accordingly.

And several of them appeared, and others were excused upon account of their being ill, some in the country, some in town; and others upon account of their being in the country upon extraordinary occasions; and some as being upon the road.

Upon calling over the names of * * LEWIS PRICE, Esquire, * * they were not excused.

Several Members sent for.

_Ordered_, That Lewis Price, Esquire, be sent for, in custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House.

The Serjeant-at-Arms being called upon to give the House an account of what he had done in relation to Lewis Pryse, Esquire, who was, the 8th of August last, ordered to be sent for in custody, for not attending the Service of the House; he acquainted the House, That the messenger he sent to bring up Mr. Pryse, had been at his house at Gargathen, but that he was not there; nor could the messenger have any intelligence where he was.

_Ordered_, That Lewis Pryse, Esquire, do surrender himself into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, by this day month at the farthest, upon pain of occurring the farther displeasure of this House, and of being proceeded against with the utmost severity.

The order of the 2nd of February last being read requiring Lewis Pryse, Esquire, to surrender himself into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House by that day month at farthest;

The Serjeant was called upon to know whether he had heard from the said Mr. Pryse, and he acquainted the House, That he had not heard from him.

Mr. Speaker acquainted the House, that he had received a letter from the said Mr. Pryse, and he delivered the same to the Clerk to be read; and the same was read accordingly, and is as follows, viz.:

"Sir,

"'Tis with pleasure that I embrace every opportunity of
returning you my acknowledgments for the good offices you have
done me, as often as the case of my unavoidable absence has
come under debate in the House. The repeated experience I have
had of your friendship in this point, encourages me to hope for
the continuance of them, which I shall not offer to desire
longer than the reasonableness of my case shall appear to
deserve them.

"I beg leave once more to represent it to you; and through your
assistance to the honorable House; whose displeasure as it is a
very sensible affliction to me, I should be glad by any means
in my power to remove. That as it is impracticable for me to
attend by the time appointed, because of a very severe fit of
the gout which I am now afflicted with, and thereby give
satisfaction to the House in the method they have insisted on;
I hope they will accept of such as is in my power, and give me
a favorable hearing when I represent to them, that I was chose
knight of the shire of Cardigan when I was at 100 miles distant
from it, and had been absent thence for ten months before the
time of my election; which I was so far from seeking, that I
never asked a vote for it, and was chose even against my
inclinations.

"I know not how far a man is obliged to stand to the choice a
county makes of him. Sure I am that I have reason to complain
of a force that has administered the occasion of my disobliging
the honorable House, by an absence caused by infirmities, under
which I labored at the time of my choice, and which have
continued upon me ever since with the greatest severity, and
with little or no intermission.

"In these circumstances I would fain hope that the honorable
House will rather blame the country's choice than him who has
been unwillingly forced into a post, and lies under the
misfortune (for I flatter myself 'twill not be thought a crime)
of not being able to attend the business of it; and will
therefore lay aside their displeasure, and remit the sentence
ordered against me.

"And I am the rather encouraged to hope this, because Mr.
Prynne, in his comment on the fourth book of Sir Edward Coke's
Institutes, shows, from various records, that incurable
distempers have been constantly allowed by the House for a just
excuse of non-attendance; and upon debates in such cases, no
other punishment has been inflicted than excusing the service
of the Member, and ordering a new writ for electing a person
duly qualified, and capable of attending the business of the
House. This being the course of Parliamentary proceedings in
such cases as mine, which I have now truly represented to you,
and can produce hundreds of witnesses to confirm, I hope that
the unhappy incapacity I am under of attending the service of
the House, will be thought to deserve no severer treatment than
has been usual in the like cases; and that my ready submission
to the honorable House's pleasure in this point, will be a
means to restore me to their favorable opinion, and engage you
to promote the request of

"Your most obliged and obedient humble servant,

"LE PRYSE.

"Aberllefenny, 18th February, 1715.

"I know not how far the House in their last order about me,
might be influenced by any report of the messenger who came
down to my house; but to prevent misrepresentation I think it
proper to assure you, that within three days after a very
dangerous fit of the gout suffered me to come downstairs, I
came from thence hither to my father-in-law's, eighteen miles
in my way to London. But the motion of even so small a journey
brought another fit upon me immediately, with which I have been
laid up here ever since, and not having been yet so much as
able to return to my own house."

Then the journal of the * day of May, 1689, in the case of Mr. Cholmondley was read.

(House interrupted--Conference.)

The House resumed the consideration of the matter relating to Mr. Pryse.

_Resolved_, That Lewis Pryse, Esquire, a Member of this House, having been sent for in custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, the 8th day of August last, for not attending the service of this House, and having never qualified himself as a Member of this House, by taking the oaths at the table, be forthwith brought up in custody.

The Messenger gives the House an account of what he had done pursuant to the order of the House.

_Resolved_, That Lewis Pryse, Esquire, a Member of this House, having been sent for in custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms attending this House, the 8th day of August last, for not attending the service of this House, and having never qualified himself as a Member of this House by taking the Oaths at the table; and having been on the 2nd of February last summoned to surrender himself into custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, upon pain of being proceeded against with the utmost severity, and he having absconded, and peremptorily refused to surrender himself into custody, be, for the same contempt, expelled this House.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER refusing to take the OATH of SUPREMACY.

DANIEL O'CONNELL, Esq., professing the Roman Catholic religion, returned Knight of the Shire for the County of Clare, being introduced in the usual manner, for the purpose of taking his seat, produced at the table a certificate of his having been sworn before two of the deputies appointed by the Lord Steward, whereupon the clerk tendered to him the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration; upon which Mr. O'Connell stated, that he was ready to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration, but that he could not take the Oath of Supremacy, and claimed the privilege of being allowed to take the Oath set forth in the Act passed in the present Session of Parliament "for the Relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects;" whereupon the Clerk having stated the matter to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker informed Mr. O'Connell that, according to his interpretation of the law, it was incumbent on Mr. O'Connell to take the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, and that the provisions of the new Act applied only to Members returned after the commencement of the said Act, except in so far as regarded the repeal of the Declaration against transubstantiation; and that Mr. O'Connell must withdraw unless he were prepared to take the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration.

Whereupon Mr. O'Connell withdrew.

Motion, That Mr. O'Connell be called back and heard at the table. Debate arising.

A Member stated that he was requested by Mr. O'Connell to desire that he might be heard.

Debate adjourned.

_Resolved_, That Mr. O'Connell, the Member for Clare, be heard at the Bar, by himself, his counsel or agents, in respect of his claim to sit and vote in Parliament without taking the Oath of Supremacy.

Mr. O'Connell was called in, and heard accordingly: And being withdrawn;

_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this House, that Mr. O'Connell having been returned a Member of this House before the commencement of the Act passed in this Session of Parliament "for the Relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects," is not entitled to sit or vote in this House unless he first take the Oath of Supremacy.

_Ordered_, That Mr. O'Connell do attend the House this day, and that Mr. Speaker do then communicate to him the said resolution, and ask him whether he will take the Oath of Supremacy.

And the House being informed that Mr. O'Connell attended at the door, he was called to the Bar, and Mr. Speaker communicated to him the resolution of the House of yesterday, and the order thereupon, as followeth:--

_Resolved_, That it is the opinion of this House, that Mr. O'Connell having been returned a Member of this House before the commencement of the Act passed in this Session of Parliament, "for the Relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects," is not entitled to sit or vote in this House unless he first take the Oath of Supremacy.

_Ordered_, That Mr. O'Connell do attend the House this day, and that Mr. Speaker do then communicate to him the said resolution, and ask him whether he will take the Oath of Supremacy.

And then Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the said order, asked Mr. O'Connell whether he would take the said Oath of Supremacy? Whereupon Mr. O'Connell requested to see the said Oath, which being shown to him accordingly, Mr. O'Connell stated that the said Oath contained one proposition which he knew to be false, and another proposition which he believed to be untrue; and that he therefore refused to take the said Oath of Supremacy.

And then Mr. O'Connell was directed to withdraw; and he withdrew accordingly.

_Ordered_, That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Ireland to make out (subject to the provisions of an Act passed in this Session of Parliament, intituled, "An Act to amend certain Acts of the Parliament of Ireland relative to the election of Members to serve in Parliament, and to regulate the qualification of persons to vote at the election of Knights of the Shire of Ireland") a new writ for the electing of a Knight of the Shire to serve in this present Parliament for the County of Clare, in the room of Daniel O'Connell, Esq., who, having been returned a Member of this House before the commencement of an Act passed in this Session of Parliament "for the Relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic Subjects," has refused to qualify himself to sit and vote as a Member of this House, by taking the Oath of Supremacy.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER being a QUAKER, claiming to make an AFFIRMATION.

Several Members attended at the table to take the Oaths; and Joseph Pease, Esquire, returned for the Southern Division of the County of Durham, having stated that, being one of the people called Quakers, he claimed the privilege of making an Affirmation, instead of taking the Oaths; whereupon he was desired by Mr. Speaker to retire until the sense of the House could be taken upon his claim; and he retired accordingly.

_Ordered_, That a Select Committee be appointed to search the Journals of the House, and to report to the House such precedents, and such Acts or parts of Acts of Parliament as relate to the right of the people called Quakers to take their seats in Parliament, and to the privilege conferred upon them to make their solemn Affirmation in Courts of Justice, and other places where by law an Oath is allowed, authorised, or required to be taken.

Report:--

_Resolved_, That it appears to this House, that Joseph Pease is entitled to take his seat upon making his solemn Affirmation and Declaration to the effect of the Oaths directed to be taken at the table of this House.

* * * * *

The Counsel and Agents in the case of the Coleraine Election, being returned to the bar, the Clerk appointed to attend the said Committee delivered into the House a reduced List; and the same was called over, and is as follows:--

* * * * *

And the Members of the Committee being as usual, come to the Table to be sworn, and Joseph Pease, Esquire, a Quaker, being one of the said Members, Mr. Speaker submitted to the House whether Mr. Pease was capable of serving on the said Election Committee without having been sworn.

* * * * *

And the House being unanimously of opinion, That Mr. Pease was capable of serving on the said Committee;

The rest of the Committee were sworn, and Mr. Pease made his solemn Affirmation, as follows:

* * * * *

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER omitting the words in the OATH of ABJURATION "On
the true Faith of a Christian."

The Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD, returned as one of the members for the City of London, came to the table to be sworn; and being asked by the Clerk what Oath he wished to take, the Protestant or the Roman Catholic Oath, he replied, "I desire to be sworn upon the Old Testament."

Whereupon the Clerk having stated the matter to Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker directed Baron Rothschild to withdraw.

[Debate on Question relative to the matter adjourned.]

_Ordered_, That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for the City of London, having demanded to be sworn on the Old Testament, be called to the table, and that Mr. Speaker do ask him why he has demanded to be sworn in that form.

Whereupon Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, having come to the Table, was asked by Mr. Speaker--

"Baron de Rothschild, you have demanded to be sworn on the Old Testament, and I am directed by the House to ask you why you have demanded to be sworn in that form?"

To which Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild replied:

"Because that is the form of swearing that I declare to be most binding on my conscience."

And then Mr. Speaker directed him to withdraw.

_Ordered_, That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for the City of London, having presented himself at the table of the House, and having previously to taking the Oaths, requested to be sworn on the Old Testament (being the form which he has declared at the table to be most binding on his conscience), the Clerk be directed to swear him on the Old Testament accordingly.

The Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, having come to the table, Mr. Speaker acquainted him that the House had made the following Order:

"That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for the City of London, having presented himself at the table of the House, and having previously to taking the Oaths, requested to be sworn on the Old Testament (being the form which he has declared at the table to be most binding on his conscience), the Clerk be directed to swear him on the Old Testament accordingly."

Whereupon the Clerk handed to him the Old Testament, and tendered him the Oaths; and he accordingly took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, repeating the same after the Clerk; the Clerk then proceeded to administer the Oath of Abjuration, which the Baron de Rothschild repeated after the Clerk so far as the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," but upon the Clerk reading those words, the Baron de Rothschild said, "I omit those words as not binding on my conscience;" he then concluded with the words "So help me, God" (the Clerk not having read those words to him), and kissed the said Testament:--Whereupon he was directed to withdraw.

Question for a new writ negatived.

_Resolved_, 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 he shall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by law.

_Resolved_, That this House will, at the earliest opportunity in the next Session of Parliament, take into its serious consideration the form of the Oath of Abjuration, with a view to relieve her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish religion.

[The House refuses to hear Petitioners by Counsel in favour of a resolution admitting Baron Lionel de Rothschild.]

[_See_ case of David Salomons, Esq., July, 1851, _infra._]

Bill to provide for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish Religion. Brought from the Lords, 13th July. Royal assent, 23rd July, 1858.

[Oaths Bill Passed: By the Lords with Amendments; Lords' Amendments disagreed to; Lords insist, and assign reasons.]

_Resolved_, That this House does not consider it necessary to examine the reasons offered by the Lords for insisting upon the exclusion of Jews from Parliament, as by a Bill of the present Session, intituled, "An Act to provide for the relief of her Majesty's subjects professing the Jewish Religion," their Lordships have provided means for the admission of persons professing the Jewish Religion to seats in the Legislature.

_Resolved_, That this House doth not insist upon its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments to the said Bill.

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, returned as one of the Members for the City of London, came to the table to be sworn; and stated that, being a person professing the Jewish religion, he entertained a conscientious objection to take the Oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required. Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who desired Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly.

_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the oath which, by an Act passed in the present Session of Parliament, has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required.

_Resolved_, That any person professing the Jewish religion may henceforth, in taking the oath prescribed in an Act of the present Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words "and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian."

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild having again come to the table, desired to be sworn on the Old Testament, as being binding on his conscience.

Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who then desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament.

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was sworn accordingly, and subscribed the Oath at the table.

[_See_ case of Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, 15th Feb., 1859, _infra._]

Parliament dissolved, 23rd April, 1859; met, 31st May, 1859.

Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, Member for the City of London, came to the table to be sworn, and stated that being a person professing the Jewish religion, he had a conscientious objection to take the oath in the form required by the Act 22 Vict. c. 48. The Clerk having reported the circumstance to Mr. Speaker, Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild was directed to withdraw, and he withdrew accordingly.

_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the oath, which by an Act passed in the 22nd year of her Majesty has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration in the form therein required.

_Resolved_, That any person professing the Jewish religion may henceforth in taking the oath prescribed in an Act passed in the twenty-second year of her Majesty to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words "and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian."

Whereupon Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, Alderman David Salomons, and Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, being Members professing the Jewish religion, having come to the table, were sworn upon the Old Testament, and took the oath, omitting the words "and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian," and subscribed the same.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER omitting the words in the OATH OF ABJURATION, "on
the true faith of a Christian."

DAVID SALOMONS, Esq., returned as one of the Members for the borough of Greenwich, came to the table to be sworn; and being tendered the New Testament by the Clerk, stated that he desired to be sworn on the Old Testament: Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, and Mr. Speaker asked him why he desired to be sworn on the Old Testament; he answered, because he considered it binding on his conscience; Mr. Speaker then desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament; the Clerk handed to him the Old Testament, and tendered him the oaths; and he took the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, repeating the same after the Clerk. The Clerk then proceeded to administer the Oath of Abjuration, which Mr. Salomons read as far as the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," which he omitted, concluding with the words "So help me, God". And the Clerk having reported to Mr. Speaker that Mr. Salomons had omitted to repeat the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," Mr. Speaker desired Mr. Salomons to withdraw. He thereupon retired from the table and sat down upon one of the lower benches, upon which Mr. Speaker informed him that, not having taken the Oath of Abjuration in the form prescribed by the Act of Parliament, and in the form in which the House had upon a former occasion expressed its opinion that it ought to be taken, he could not be allowed to remain in the House, but must withdraw. And he withdrew accordingly.

Motion for new writ withdrawn.

The House resumed the further proceedings.

Mr. Alderman Salomons entered the House, and took his seat within the Bar: Whereupon Mr. Speaker said that he saw that a Member had taken his seat without having taken the Oaths required by law; and that he must therefore desire that the honorable Member do withdraw.

Mr. Alderman Salomons continued in the seat within the Bar.

_Ordered_ (after Debate), That Mr. Alderman Salomons do now withdraw.

Whereupon Mr. Speaker stated that the honorable Member for Greenwich had heard the decision of the House, and hoped that the honorable Member was prepared to obey it.

Mr. Alderman Salomons continuing to sit in his seat, Mr. Speaker directed the Serjeant-at-Arms to remove him below the Bar.

Whereupon Mr. Serjeant-at-Arms having placed his hand on Mr. Alderman Salomons, he was conducted below the Bar.

[The House refuses to hear Petitioners by Counsel at the Bar of the House in defence of their right to elect their own Representative.]

_Resolved_ (after Debate), That David Salomons, Esq., is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in this House, during any debate, until he shall take the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by law.

PRECEDENT of a MEMBER stating that he had a conscientious objection to
take the OATH.

Baron MAYER AMSCHEL DE ROTHSCHILD, returned for the town and port of Hythe, came to the table to be sworn, and stated that, being a person professing the Jewish religion, he entertained a conscientious objection to take the oath, which by an Act passed in the last Session has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, in the form therein required. Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who desired Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild to withdraw; and he withdrew accordingly.

_Resolved_, That it appears to this House that Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, a person professing the Jewish religion, being otherwise entitled to sit and vote in this House, is prevented from so sitting and voting by his conscientious objection to take the oath, which by an Act passed in the last Session of Parliament has been substituted for the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration in the form therein required.

_Resolved_, That any person professing the Jewish religion may henceforth, in taking the oath prescribed in an Act of the last Session of Parliament to entitle him to sit and vote in this House, omit the words "and I make this declaration upon the true faith of a Christian."

Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild, being again come to the table, desired to be sworn on the Old Testament as binding on his conscience.

Whereupon the Clerk reported the matter to Mr. Speaker, who then desired the Clerk to swear him upon the Old Testament.

Baron Mayer Amschel de Rothschild was sworn accordingly, and subscribed the oath at the table.

Appendix No. 2.

PAPER handed in by Mr. Bradlaugh, 2nd June, 1880.

PRECEDENTS RELATING TO PARLIAMENTARY OATHS.

CASE of Attorney General Sir FRANCIS BACON, Commons Journals, Vol. 1,
page 459, 11th April, 1614, continued from page 456, 8th April.

ELIGIBILITY of the Attorney General to sit in Parliament. By 46 Edward III., 1372, no practising barrister could be Knight of the Shire.

Page 459.--"The precedents to disable him ought to be showed on the other side."

Page 460.--"Their Oath their own consciences to look unto, not we to examine it."

At that date each Member had to make Oath that he was duly qualified.

1. Question whether he shall for this Parliament remain of the House or not:--_Resolved_, He shall.

2. Question.--Whether any Attorney General shall after this Parliament serve as a Member of this House:--_Resolved_, No.

CASE of JOHN WILKES, Esquire, Commons Journal, 38, page 977, 3rd May,
1782.

THE House was moved, that the entry in the Journal of the House, of the 17th day of February, 1769, of the Resolution, "That John Wilkes, Esquire, having been in this Session of Parliament expelled this House, was and is incapable of being elected a Member to serve in this present Parliament," might be read, and the same being read accordingly;

A motion was made, and the question being put, That the said resolution be expunged from the Journals of this House, as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this Kingdom.

The House divided.

The Yeas went forth.

Tellers for the Yeas, Sir Philip Jennings Clarke and Mr. Byng, 115.

Tellers for the Noes, Mr. John St. John and Sir William Augustus Cunynghame, 47,

So it was resolved in the affirmative.

And the same was expunged by the Clerk at the table, accordingly.

_Ordered_, That all Declarations, Orders, and Resolutions of this House, respecting the election of John Wilkes, Esquire, for the county of Middlesex, as a void election, the true and legal election of Henry Lawes Luttrell, Esquire, into Parliament for the said county, and the incapacity of John Wilkes, Esquire, to be elected a Member to serve in the said Parliament, be expunged from the Journals of this House as being subversive of the rights of the whole body of electors of this Kingdom.

By Cavendish's Parliamentary Debates, Vol. I., page 73, 24th November, 1768, it appears that _inter alia_ were used to justify the original and subsequently expunged Resolutions--first, "the copy of the record of the proceedings, on an information in the Court of King's Bench, against John Wilkes, Esquire, for blasphemy"--page 123; "three obscene and impious libels"; "an impious libel with intent to blaspheme the Almighty God."

CASE of Mr. JOHN HORNE TOOKE, Parliamentary History, Vol. 35, page 956,
16th February, 1801.

Mr. John Horne Tooke took the Oaths and his seat for Old Sarum. He was introduced by Sir Francis Burdett and Mr. Wilson. This being done, Earl Temple rose and said, he had observed a gentleman who had just retired from the table, after having taken the Oaths, whom he conceived to be incapable of a seat in that House, in consequence of his having taken priest's orders and been inducted into a living. He would wait the allotted time of fourteen days to see whether there was any petition presented against his return; if not he should then move that the return for Old Sarum be taken into consideration.

Page 1323, 10th March, 1801.--Earl Temple moved that Mr. Boucher, Deputy Registrar of Salisbury, be called in to prove that Mr. Horne Tooke, being a priest in orders, was not eligible to a seat in that House. After debate, in which Mr. John Horne Tooke spoke--Amendment and Division--Motion agreed to (page 1342),--Select Committee appointed (page 1343). Two reports given, pages 1343 to 1349, were made, giving all the cases of "any of the clergy" returned to Parliament.

4th May, 1801.--Earl Temple moved (pages 1349 to 1374), "That Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the clerk of the Crown in Great Britain, to make out a new writ for the election of a burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Old Sarum, in the county of Wilts, in the room of the Rev. John Horne Tooke, who being at the time of his election in priest's orders, was and is incapable of sitting in this House." A debate took place in which Mr. John Horne Tooke spoke (pp. 1350 to 1402), division, and the motion negatived.

Jurist, Vol. 17, Page 463.--Exchequer Chamber; Error from the Court of Exchequer: Coram, Lord Campbell, Chief Justice, and Coleridge, Cresswell, Wightman, Williams, and Crompton, J.

One judgment by Lord Chief Justice Campbell for the whole Court.

Lord Campbell (page 464).--The words "so help me, God," are words of asseveration, and of the manner of taking the oath; but the words preceding them are, it appears to me, an essential part of the oath.

Fisher's Digest, Vol. 3, page 6179.--By a private Act, no person appointed to act as tithe valuer shall be capable of acting until he shall have taken and subscribed an oath in the words following: "I, A. B., do swear that I will faithfully, etc., execute, etc.; so help me, God." Held, that the oath had nevertheless been properly administered according to the Statute, for the words omitted were no part of the oath, but only an indication of the manner of administering it. Lancaster and Carlisle Railway Company _v._ Heaton, 8 El. & Bl., 952; 4 Jur., N. S., 707; 27 L. J., Q. B., 195.

Appendix No. 3.

PAPER handed in by Mr. BRADLAUGH, 2nd June, 1880.

STATEMENT on the OATH QUESTION by Mr. BRADLAUGH.

20, Circus Road, St. John's Wood, London, N.W., 20th May, 1880.