is merely that he requests to be sworn |-namely, why he so desires to be sworn upon the Old Testament, and not because on the Old Testament? It strikes me that it is the mode of swearing binding that it is possible he may then say, I upon his conscience. The notice of Amend- desire so to be sworn, because that is the ment given by the hon. and gallent Mem- form of swearing which is most binding ber for Middlesex ison my conscience. It then may be necessary for us to go further, and ask him "That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members for the city of London, hav-if he be a member of the Jewish pering 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 is ready to declare to be suasion. [Cries of "No, no!"] We are here called upon to determine and decide the right course to pursue in a novel and unprecedented occasion. Do let us, therebinding on his conscience-the clerk be directed fore, proceed carefully and deliberately. to swear him on the Old Testament accordingly." Suppose Baron de Rothschild had come to But I think it is very inexpedient that any the table, and said that he was ready to Member of this House should declare for swear the oath by dashing a saucer to another what is binding upon his consci- the ground, and that that was the form ence. I think we should have a declara- of swearing he held to be most bindtion from himself of what is most binding. ing on his conscience, should we have If the Baron de Rothschild, on presenting been precluded in that case from makhimself at the table, asks for the Old ing any further inquiry on the subject? Testament, and is ready to say that swear- Are we to be bound by any technical ing upon it is the mode of taking an oath rules which would prevent our invesmost binding upon his conscience, I cer-tigating the grounds upon which any tainly think we ought to have that upon record. House. Desirous as I am that we should proceed with care and deliberation, I think it is sufficient at present to say that the form of the question which I have suggested is the proper one to be put to the Baron. Whether that should be followed up by further questions, it is for the House to decide. That is a matter for future consideration; but for the present it is, I submit, sufficient to put the question in the form I have suggested. Member who presents himself to be sworn may choose to adopt a different form of SIR F. THESIGER: We have not yet oath to that which the House has laid had the answer of Baron de Rothschild to down? If that is to be the rule, we the question which I think the House must no longer say that technical reought to put to him. Inasmuch as the strictions exist in courts of justice alone, question is a novel one, and as it is neces- because we, the House of Commons, shall sary that we should proceed with great be precluding ourselves from that incare, I thought that if Baron de Roths-quiry which is necessary to enable us to child came to the table and said, "I desire decide a most important question. I to be sworn on the Old Testament," which throw this out for the consideration of the was, in fact, no answer to the question put to him by the clerk, that, at all events, the House being informed of the desire of the Baron de Rothschild, would have requested to know why he desired to be sworn in that particular form. I do not think the question we should put is that which has been suggested by my right hon. Friend; I do not think that we ought to invite the Baron to declare that that is the form most binding on his concience. But, inasmuch as the Baron has presented himself at the table of the House, and desired to be sworn in a form which is unknown to the House, we are bound to inquire why, and for what reason, he desires to be sworn in that particular mode. It is very possible that the answer which the Baron will give may render it necessary for the House to put a further question; but I will not anticipate that necessity, because it is quite sufficient for us at present to discuss whether he shall be invited to the table, and asked the question in the form I propose MR. B. OSBORNE I quite agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that it is necessary we should proceed with care and deliberation in this business; but though there can be no doubt that the House has the power to put any question which it may seem fit to it to put, yet I think, in justice to the hon. Member for London, who is about to be called to the table, that he should be warned that it is in his discretion to answer any questions that may be put to him or not, as he may think proper. Therefore I hope that the hon. Gentleman, when called to the table, will not answer MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. Gentleman the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild be called in, and that I put the question to him whether, in claiming to be sworn on ths Old Testament, he does so because he considers that form of taking the oath the most binding on his conscience? any second question which will raise a de- | would be bound to stop there, and to go no bate on the oath of abjuration. further, because if they were bound to hear the grounds of objection, they ought, following the precedent in Mr. O'Connell's case, to be stated at the bar, and not at the table. He proposed that Baron de Rothschild should not be called in at all, but that they should proceed to discuss the question adjourned on Friday last-namely, that he be sworn upon the Old Testament; but if he were to be called in, then he thought that all the oaths should be shown him, and that he should be required to state, once for all, what his ob MR. HUME: I apprehend he has already claimed to be sworn; the question now is, does he desire to be sworn? There is a great difference between claiming and desiring; but I am sure if he were called in and ask-jections were. ed the question, he will answer that he does desire it. MR. HENLEY said, he wished to ascertain the Baron de Rothschild's reason, and he thought the question should be asked why he desired to be sworn on the Old Testament? MR. C. ANSTEY said, if they were to have a discussion upon every suggestion that was made, they would not finish the inquiry before the end of the present Parliament, much less in the present Session. It appeared to him very extraordinary, as they were such sticklers for precedent on Friday last, that they were now prepared to depart so completely from precedent as was proposed. According to the old form which was pursued in Lord Fanshawe's case, in Sir H. Mounson's case, and in Mr. Archdall's and Mr. O'Connell's cases, all the oaths at once were presented before the Member elected, and he was asked to take those oaths. He examined them altogether, not one by one, and then he stated his objections to all the oaths, or to any of them. Mr. O'Connell stated that he had no objection to the oath of abjuration or of allegiance, but to the oath of supremacy. [An Hon. MEMBER: We haven't come to that.] He knew that; but he wanted to show the House that they ought to come to it. He did not wish to lose time in the discussion of this question. He thought that the citizens of London were entitled to have an early decision of the whole matter, and that they had a right to require the House either to admit their Member, or to give them an opportunity of proceeding to a new election. What he should propose, therefore, was, that Baron de Rothschild be again called in for the purpose of having all the oaths exhibited to him. He could then state whether he objected to them, and what his objections were; and he thought that the House The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The course suggested partly by the hon. Member for Oxfordshire, and partly by the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, appears to me to be the correct one. Baron de Rothschild has presented himself at the table of this House, and demanded to be sworn in a particular mode. What he is to swear we have nothing to do with now. The sole question is, as to the form in which he shall be sworn, the mode in which the oath shall be administered. He claims to be sworn in a particular way, and it is right we should know from himself why he prefers that particular way. That I apprehend to be the only question which is now to be put to him, and to that he will give his answer, if called upon. I must say I think it would not be fair to put any other question without the previous assent of the House; and that, I believe, is the view of the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon. I propose, therefore, that the Baron de Rothschild be called in, and that you (Mr. Speaker) ask him why he demands to be sworn in that particular form? SIR J. GRAHAM: I wish to speak to order. There still remains, as it appears to me, an important question of a judicial character, and it is of the last importance that order should be strictly observed in a question of this nature. I would suggest, therefore, for the consideration of the House, as strictly in accordance with order, that no question whatever should be put to Baron de Rothschild except through you, Sir, and that every such question should be in writing, and be moved, seconded, and put from the chair and carried, before it be put by Mr. Speaker to Baron de Rothschild. I have expressed my opinion that we ought not to proceed to debate the Motion of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford, and the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, of which notice has been given. If Baron de Rothschild, having claimed to be sworn on the Old Testament, is ready to declare that that is the mode of swearing which he considers to be most binding upon his conscience, I think we ought to have that declaration from the Baron himself. The question to be put to him from the chair, therefore, should be, "When you desire to be sworn on the Old Testament, is that the mode of swearing you conceive to be most binding upon your conscience?" Whereupon Baron LIONEL NATHAN DE ROTHSCHILD having come to the Table, was asked by Mr. SPEAKER :— 66 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. 66 LORD J. RUSSELL: Whatever the form of question which may be put to SIR F. THESIGER: I think even Baron de Rothschild, I quite agree with the now we are in a difficulty with regard to right hon. Baronet that to have the matter having the proper entry in our records. regularly before us, and in accordance The House will observe that the ordinary with the orders of the House, it would be question having been put by the clerk at right that a Motion should be put and the table, whether the Baron claimed to carried as to the mode in which the ques- take the Protestant or the Roman Catholic tion shall be asked by Mr. Speaker, and oath, no answer whatever was given to that no question should be put except that question. The only answer given, through Mr. Speaker, and by the direction which was no answer at all, was, “I desire of the House. to be sworn on the Old Testament." The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHE-["Oh, oh!"] It is very well to say QUER: I quite agree with the right hon. Oh, oh!" but, with submission, I think Baronet the Member for Ripon, and we I am quite right, and that nobody can are all agreed, I think, that this being a consider that an answer to the question novel case, and one in which we are acting put by the clerk. And that being the quasi judicially, we ought to proceed with ordinary question put to every hon. Memextreme deliberation, and that no step ber on presenting himself to take the should be taken without the assent of the oaths, I apprehend that it is not put withHouse, come to after the fullest considera- out an answer being required to it; and tion. I should propose, subject to any there having been no answer in this case, amendment that may be suggested, that I shall propose that the question be again the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, put to the Baron de Rothschild, and that having demanded to be sworn on the Old he be asked whether he claims to take the Testament, he be called to the table, and Roman Catholic or Protestant oath. that Mr. Speaker do ask him why he has demanded to be sworn in that form? LORD H. VANE seconded the Motion. MR. HUME suggested the insertion of the words "Member for the City of London" after the name of the Baron de Rothschild, as this was to be a formal record of the proceedings. SIR T. D. ACLAND: The question I wish to ask, Sir, is, "Does the Baron de Rothschild really desire to take the oaths required of every other Member of this House? It seems to me that his previous declarations implied the contrary. It was then 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." MR. W. P. WOOD: With great submission, it does not appear to me that there is anything in the objection. LORD J. RUSSELL: I rise to order. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to have the question put, he had better put the question in writing. SIR F. THESIGER then submitted the Motion in writing. Motion made, and Question proposed "That Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild be called to the Table, and that Mr. Speaker do ask for an answer to the question already put to him by the Officer of the House, what Oath he claims to take, the Roman Catholic or the Protestant Oath." MR. NEWDEGATE seconded the Motion. MR. W. P. WOOD said, there was really nothing in the point thus raised by The Members, it is not absolutely necessary that the question should be put; but if the Catholic oath is demanded, it must be administered. In this case, however, with the desire to be clear in detailing the facts, it has been inserted in the record that that question was put; but in ordinary cases, there being no neceesity for putting the question, it is never inserted in the record. It appears that the question was put for the information of the clerk, and the case being a novel one, the fact was entered on the jonrnals, in order to complete the narrative, but in ordinary cases no record is made, inasmuch as the question is not put either by order of the House or by statute, but simply for the information of the clerk. the hon. and learned Gentleman. question put by the clerk of the House when a Member came to be sworn, whether he wished to take the Roman Catholic or the Protestant oath, was no matter of record at all. It would not be found upon the journals. It happened to be accidentally mentioned that the clerk of the House had asked the question, and hence this point; but the clerk asked it solely out of courtesy to hon. Members who presented themselves to be sworn, in order that they might be informed they had an option. The statute said, that Members professing the Roman Catholic religion should have a right to demand the Roman Catholic oath; but if they did not ask for it, the other would be administered as a matter of course. The two forms were presented separately, but it was never said in the journals that the clerk asked any such question as to which they would take. It was only done as a proper act of courtesy towards gentlemen who professed the Roman Catholic religion under an Act passed for their relief; and no hon. Member was obliged to answer the question at all; but if he did not answer, of course he would not have the benefit of taking the Roman Catholic oath. MR. ANSTEY, in confirmation of what his hon. and learned Friend had stated, would add that when he took the Roman Catholic oath he was obliged to demand it. He claimed the Roman Catholic oath, and it was tendered to him in due form. He appealed to every Roman Catholic Member in the House whether the same form had not been observed in their cases respectively. MR. HENLEY said, the difficulty was, that in this case there was a record upon the journals of a question that had been put. The hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford said such questions did not appear upon the journals; but there it was, in this case, actually printed in the records from which the journals were made up the Votes. The question appearing there without an answer being given, made all the difference. MR. HUME said, that if Baron de Rothschild were again called in, it did not follow that the question would be answered. No answer would be given to an improper question; and certainly this appeared to him one of that character. SIR G. GREY: As I understand it, the question was put by the clerk, for his own information, and not by the direction of the House. In the case of Roman Catholic MR. J. A. SMITH wished to know under what statute the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon termed the one oath, the Protestant oath? SIR F. THESIGER: Under no statute. I apprehend it is quite immaterial whether it is a question authorised by the statute to be put or not; but I take the question as I find it in the journals, and as I understand it on the authority of Mr. Speaker, that it is a question put to every hon. Member. ["No, no!"] With great submission, I understood Mr. Speaker to say that the question is one which is put by the clerk to every Member; and the question now is, whether on my Motion the House thinks it expedient that the Baron de Rothschild should have this question put to him, and of course that the House will decide for themselves. SIR J. TYRELL: I quite agree in the importance of proceeding with deliberation and circumspection; but I submit that, in point of fact, the Baron de Rothschild has not refused to take any oath whatever. He has simply asked to be sworn in a particular way, and it is for the House to deliberate and decide upon the question, whether he shall be sworn in that way or not? MR. J. S. WORTLEY: There is something, I think, Sir, in the distinction which has been drawn by the hon. and learned Member for the city of Oxford; for although I believe it has been the usual practice, for the convenience of Members coming to the table to be sworn, to put the question as to which oath they proposed to take that question has not hitherto appeared on our journals. But we are here in this position, that in consequence of the surprise and hurry in which the question was brought forward, it does assume a formal shape on the journals. We are, therefore, in this difficulty, that in the journals it will appear that a question has been put to the Baron de Rothschild, which has received no distinct answer. I confess that I do not place so much reliance and importance upon this point, as some of my hon. Friends appear to do; but I cannot help thinking that the friends of the Baron de Rothschild are taking a most injudicious course. I think they are special pleading. I think they are trifling with a grave and important subject. What the House wants to know, and what it is entitled to know, is, does the hon. Member for London come to the table with the bona fide intention of taking the three necessary oaths which are required by the Act of Parliament to entitle him to take his seat? If he does, then I for one should be prepared to enter in the most candid manner into the examination of the form of oath he may desire to take; and I will add that in that case I shall not be less desirous of taking a liberal view of the question than others. take, but the question last raised by the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon is, whether the hon. Gentleman desires to subscribe to the Roman Catholic or the Protestant oath. Now I submit that preliminary to that is the form in which he shall be sworn. The hon. Baronet the Member for North Essex put the question clearly and distinctly, that what we have now to consider is the manner in which the oath shall be administered; and the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon agreed in the first instance that that was the first question to be raised and decided. Supposing for a moment that the question now proposed to be put to the Baron de Rothschild were put and answered, still you would have to decide on the preliminary question of the form of putting the oath. Suppose the Baron should say I will take the Roman Catholic oath, or I will take the Protestant oath, that would be as to the substance not as to the form. first question is, the form in which he shall be sworn, and, that decided, then the question which has been raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon may be put. With regard to the fact appearing recorded in our journals that the question was put by the clerk, The accident, arising from the novelty of the case; and the desire that the circumstances should be correctly entered. MR. MANGLES: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says, that the friends of Baron de Rothschild are special plead-that, I apprehend, was the result of mere ing, and trifling with the subject. Now, I ask him candidly to say, whether it is the friends or the opponents of Baron de Rothschild who have raised this preliminary question as to the particular book of the Bible upon which the Baron is to be sworn? Is it the friends of Baron de Rothschild, or those who are opposed to him? MR. NEWDEGATE said: I think that pursuing the course indicated as that already adopted by the House in putting the question in the first instance, is the most convenient mode of proceeding, because if that course be not taken, the two oaths must be tendered to the Baron de Rothschild, and he will then have to choose between them, so that nothing will be gained by rejecting the proposition to put the question in the first instance. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: The hon. and learned Member for Abingdon will allow me, with all respect, to suggest to him, that the course he now suggests would be simply an interruption to that course which he previously said he was prepared to adopt. The question now is as stated by the hon. Member for North Essex as to the form of oath, not which of the two oaths the Baron de Rothschild will SIR F. THESIGER: I rise to say a word in explanation. The question I wish to have put to the Baron de Rothschild will, I think, have an important bearing, if answered one way or the other, on what is called the preliminary question, though I confess I am not able to distinguish between what is called the preliminary and the main question in the case. I think it is important in the argument that we should ascertain, in the first instance, which of the forms of oath the Baron de Rothschild proposes to take, and that, I say, has an important bearing on what Gentleman on the other side are pleased to call the preliminary question. MR. V. SMITH: The first question has not, as it appears to me, been stated in the record. The case arises in this manner. The Baron de Rothschild appeared at the table to take the oaths, when the New Testament was tendered to him by the clerk, and he answered, I demand to be sworn on the Old Testament. The answer of the Baron de Rothschild applied to the tender of the New Testament, and it is |