he may at present take his seat in the course would be one which could not by House; because, if this dubious course any possibility be beneficial in inducing were adopted, that again would justify the House of Lords to agree to a measure the opponents of a Bill to settle the of the description which is suggested, and question in saying that they ought not to that it would be inconsistent with that probe called upon to support such a Bill until per course of proceeding which it is incumthis House should have determined whether bent on this House to pursue, having a or not Baron de Rothschild was entitled to due regard for its dignity, and the necestake his seat under the existing state of sity of its coming to a judicial decision the law. Would they not have a right to upon this subject in a judicial manner. ask—“ Is it not advisable that you should I am satisfied, also, that with respect to first determine whether the law is such as the existing state of the law, it is not to enable persons professing the Jewish re- possible that it should be allowed to ligion to sit in this House, on their taking continue; and I feel persuaded that the the oath of abjuration in the form adopted state of the law as it now stands by Baron de Rothschild, before you call on is the strongest possible argument you us to pass a law which in the event of one could use for the purpose of inducing the mode, at all events, of deciding that point other House to agree to a measure for its would be unnecessary?" It appears to me amendment. It has also been suggested that the course proposed by the hon. Member that if Baron de Rothschild were allowed for Montrose would furnish a strong argu- to sit, a Bill of Indemnity might be passed ment which might be urged by Members of in his favour. But a Bill of Indemnity this House, and of the other House, for the would only be carrying the question in purpose of rejecting such a measure; another form; it would be an attempt to do whereas, on the contrary, if you consider by a side-wind what, I submit, you ought that the law is such as I call on you to de- to do fairly and openly. For my part I clare it to be, a more absurd and prepos- believe it is not desirable that you should terous state of things cannot exist; and it proceed in this matter by any species of subthen becomes incumbent on the Legisla- terfuge, but that you should act openly and ture to reform that state of the law. I manfully. This is, as I conceive, the state have heard it suggested, although I do of the case; and these are shortly the reanot suppose that it enters into the views of sons which have induced me to suggest to any of the hon. Gentlemen who support the the House the propriety of coming to this hon. Member for Montrose, that there conclusion, and agreeing to the two resolumight be this advantage in leaving the tions which I call on you to pass. I cannot matter in suspense that you might hold but say that it appears to me to be such a it as it were something in terrorem over course of proceeding as is not only consisthe other House; and that it would be in tent with the true interpretation of the effect to tell them that if they did not law, and with what is due to the honour pass such a measure as you might propose and dignity of this House; and, beyond all for relieving persons professing the Jewish this, it is such as I have the satisfaction of religion from their disabilities, then you firmly believing is the course which pracwould allow Baron de Rothschild to sit. tically will be found to be most beneficial Now, I submit that such a course would to the hon. Member for the city of Lonbe a very improper mode of proceeding, one don himself, and to other gentlemen of his which this House could never venture to persuasion. I cannot conclude these obadopt consistently with its own honour and servations, which I have endeavoured to dignity, and one which could have no effect make as concise as I could, without expresswhatever with the House of Lords. It ing my sense of the propriety, firmness, and would, in truth, be nothing more than saying moderation, in all respects, of the hon. this "Whatever may be the right and Member for the city of London, in the steps legal decision upon this subject, we wish which he has taken in this difficult and unit to be understood that we will not decide precedented matter. He has, undoubtedly, it according to what we consider the strict acted as he was bound to do-under the interpretation of the law, but make our de- direction of his friends and of his constitucision of that which is a legal question, ents; and in doing so he appears to me to and which we have to dispose of judicially, have demeaned himself in such a manner depend upon the circumstance of whether as to gain the esteem of everybody, and to or not you will pass a Bill to make that justify me in expressing a feeling, in which decision necessary." I think that such a I think the greater part of this House will

law."

be ready to concur a feeling of deep re- | he must take the oath in the form most gret that any system of law so monstrous binding on his conscience, and that having and absurd as this, which I hope we shall done so, the Acts he had quoted, and the repeal in the next Session of Parliament, order which had been made by that House should exclude from a seat among us a on the subject, would insure a verdict in gentleman who, I believe, is calculated to his favour. What he called upon Her add to the estimation in which this House is Majesty's Government to do in the present regarded throughout the country, aud also state of things, which was so truly described materially to assist us in our deliberations. by the hon. and learned Attorney General Motion made, and Question proposed-- as absurd and preposterous, was not to “That the Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild prejudge the question. Admitting that is not entitled to vote in this House, or to sit in doubts upon the question existed, he was this House during any debate, until he shall take willing to postpone it with a view to a Bill, the Oath of Abjuration in the form appointed by till next Session, which he thought the House of Lords would not venture to reject; but he protested against prejudging it, which they would be doing if they passed the resolutions now proposed. One of those resolutions declared that Baron de Rothschild was not entitled to sit and vote in that House. He (Mr. Hume) believed and maintained that he was, and that too without any prejudice. But assuming that there was a doubt about it, he only asked Her Majesty's Ministers not to throw the weight of their influence into the scale which weighed against religious freedom and liberty of conscience. He would prefer seeing them use that influence in favour of the subject, and of removing the monstrous absurdity which the hon. and learned Attorney General had shown to exist. He wished the present state of the law not to be prejudged. If they did not wish to pursue the course taken in the case of Mr. Pease-which they might have, and in his opinion ought to have, taken-let them not postpone the consideration of the question with a declaration that Baron de Rothschild was not entitled to take his seat, seeing that very fair doubts existed on that point. The oaths used to be taken twice, once before the Lord Steward, and in half an hour afterwards again at the table. The late Mr. C. Wynn brought in a Bill to alter that; they were now only taken once, and no one would venture to say that any evil consequence had resulted from the change. He hoped the noble Lord would reconsider the question, and allow it to come before the House next Session without being prejudged. He should, therefore, move the Amendment of which he had given notice.

66

MR. HUME said, he had always been of opinion that the law would allow the Baron de Rothschild to come to the table and take his seat, acting fearless of consequences. After having heard Her Majesty's Attorney General declare that the law, as it stood, was so monstrous and absurd in and out of the House, he thought it lamentable to think that its amendment should have been so long delayed. Where, he should like to know, had been the talents of all the lawyers on both sides of the House for so long a period? The question was, was the Baron de Rothschild entitled to take his seat, he having taken the oaths? The Act said that the oath of abjuration should be taken "on the true faith of a Christian." It was provided by the 13th of Geo. III., chap. 7, that whenever a Jew appeared to take the oath of abjuration, the clause, on the true faith of a Christian," should be omitted in his case. Now, the hon. Member for the city of London had appeared at that table to take the oaths, and the provision ought to extend to his case. But, even if any doubt remained, it had been entirely set at rest by Lord Denman's Act of the 1st and 2nd Victoria, chap. 105, authorising every natural-born subject to swear in the form most binding on his conscience. That Act had so completely removed every doubt from his (Mr. Hume's) mind, and his conviction on the point was so strong, that he had not hesitated to protest against the withdrawal of Baron de Rothschild after he had taken the oath in the form which he declared most binding on his conscience. Nay, more than that, so strongly was he convinced he was right, that had he been in the position of Baron de Rothschild, he would have taken his seat, subject to all the penalties declared to be involved in his doing so, satisfied that if brought before a court of law, the Judges would decide that

Amendment proposed

"To leave out from the words That the' to

the end of the Question, in order to add the words

Clerk of this House, having proceeded as directed

by the House to administer the Oaths to Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, one of the Members

for the City of London, upon the Old Testament, being the form which he 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 Parliament, that a Bill should be introduced to declare the Law with reference to the due administration of that Oath; and further, that this House will then take into its serious consideration the subject of the Oaths now admin

istered to its Members, with reference to the changes which have taken place since they were first imposed by Law'-instead thereof."

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

ment and perplexity. How such a resolution as the first could have proceeded from his hon. and learned Friend, he was at a loss to understand; but, heralded by such a speech as they had heard from him, it hon. and learned Friend say? That the was still more surprising. What did his case was unprecedented, and therefore they must exclude the hon. Member for the city of London. His hon. and learned Friend, however, was not always of opinion that a Jew demanding admission to that House was bound to prove his right to the privilege. On a former occasion the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, who had been always consistent in his opinions on this question, and who, he might observe, was possessed of too much frankness of character ever to be marked out for office, had said, 'Let Baron Rothschild show his right to a seat in this House." What was the answer of his hon. and learned Friend upon that occasion?

66

On the 16th December, 1847, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford said—

that proposition. It was utterly futile to attempt

rights. He (Mr. Romilly) entirely dissented from

MR. C. ANSTEY said, he had a communication to make to the House with reference to the Amendment of which he gave notice on Friday. He had had a conference with Baron de Rothschild that morning; and, as he found that it was not the wish of the hon. Member to go through what he must call the solemn mockery of calling counsel to the bar to argue against a decision which had already been arrived at by those who thought they could comEvery person born in this country possessed mand a majority in that House, he would all the rights of a fellow-citizen. The hon. Banow withdraw his Amendment that counsel ronet stated that it would be requisite for him be heard in the case. Upon the Govern- first to have the qualification which made it nement, therefore, would rest the responsi-cessary to give him the means of obtaining those bility of coming to that conclusion to which they invited the House to come. But to to hold that any one born within these realms was that conclusion he trusted the House would not entitled to all the rights and privileges of a never come. Much rather would he see the citizen. The burden of the proof that any parAmendment of the hon. Member for Mon- ticular class or individual was not so entitled lay trose carried, though, he must say for him- It was for them to make out that those persons upon those who denied this right to citizenship. self, that he did not concur in the doubts- who were born in this country, in exactly the MR. HUME: No more do I; but, never- same situation in all other respects with the rest theless, doubts exist in the minds of others. of their fellow-subjects, were not entitled to those MR. C. ANSTEY: With that under-rights and privileges, and to participate in those honours which belonged to and were participated standing, he accepted the Amendment of in by the rest of their fellow-subjects." the hon. Member for Montrose, although he did not see why they could not follow the course pursued in Mr. Pease's case. Mr. Pease was admitted by Resolution, and an Act afterwards passed declaring not what the law was, but what it should be. That course ought to have been pursued here. The Baron de Rothschild should have been seated, and afterwards a declaratory Act passed and tendered to the other House, to enable them to confirm the decision. However, he was prepared to take his hon. Friend's Amendment as it stood, and he should certainly vote for it. But, with regard to his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, he must confess that he was more than ever deeply involved in the mazes of astonish

That was the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend before he had the misfortune to become Attorney General. That was the opinion which he (Mr. Anstey) entertained; and, however little his hon. and learned Friend might think of the opinion of a poor barrister-and knowing, as he did, by the Income Tax Commissioners' returns, that his (Mr. Anstey's) income from his profession never yet amounted to 500l. a year-and much as his opinion might be undervalued, because of the res angusta domi under which he laboured-he had the satisfaction to think that it was at least an honest opinion, arising from mature deliberation, and that it was once held by his hon. and learned

would venture to inflict any penalties upon Baron de Rothschild when they were told that he took his seat, not only under the sanction of the House, but in obedience to an order of the House. No court of justice would for a moment dream of questioning that decision; but, if there was any such danger, why should the House be more conderate for Baron de Rothschild than he was for himself, for Baron de Rothschild said he was willing to take the risk? Did the hon. and learned Attorney General mean to say that his mind was perfectly clear that the oath of abjuration could not be tendered to any Member of that House with an alteration in the terms of it by the decision of that House? That was one of the points which he had to determine. The hon. and learned Gentleman quoted statutes which had no force-statutes of William III. and George I.; but what did he say of the statute of George III., under which alone the oaths taken at the table could be administered to any Member?

Friend when he had not, as now, if report spoke truly, his foot already on the first step of the judgment seat. He (Mr. Anstey) believed that no one would assert that the opinion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the city of Oxford had not been maturely considered. Well, the Attorney General voted against his resolution, declaring that the seat of Baron de Rothschild in that House was full, and now he tells the House that he believes the seat is not full! Of what value was the opinion of an Attorney General who changed in that way? Of what worth was the opinion of a man who, as he himself remarked, was sitting judicially, if he rushed thus recklessly to conclusions, and in the eleventh hour, without taking counsel with himself, much less with his professional brethren, made the humiliating avowal that his previous opinions were erroneous? What did he say? "This is a new case, and you must take the law, not from precedents, but from my exposition of it; and I confess that the law so Two important events had hapexpounded by me is monstrous and ab- pened since the oath of abjuration had surd." That was precisely the position in passed, which materially altered the case; which the House was placed by the extra- the princely Stuarts were no more, and ordinary speech of the hon. and learned George III. had long been gathered to his Attorney General; and they had to choose fathers. The Act, therefore, had ceased to between the law laid down by him and that be applicable; and the oath it prescribed laid down by those who were called the ought not to be administered at the prefriends of Baron de Rothschild. And what sent day. In a celebrated case in Charles did they say? They said there was no pre- the First's reign-Sir Edward Coke's cedent, and that, therefore, the House had case-he refused to qualify himself for the no right to make one. They said that there office of sheriff by taking a certain oath, was no statute imposing the disabilities now on the ground that it contained a clause urged by the hon. and learned Attorney by which sheriffs were bound to pursue General, and therefore the House had no Lollards and other heretics. That, he right to impose them. They said that said, was an oath in a statute passed in the Baron de Rothschild was already free, and Popish times of Henry the Fifth, and was therefore the House had no right to dis- abrogated with the religion which it was franchise him. They said that it was at intended to support. The case was brought best a doubtful case, and that therefore before a court of justice, and the court dethe House ought to let their Member have cided that it was illegal, because appointed the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that by an Act which was no longer in force. both opinions were wrong or both right, That was the case with the oath of abjurawhich, he would ask, would be the more tion. It was accordingly recited in the reasonable to affirm? Clearly the latter. preamble of the 1st and 2nd Victoria, The friends of Baron de Rothschild would chap. 105, that the oath, if presented, was not tell the House that the course they to be the new oath, and taken in lieu of invited the House to adopt was monstrous that appointed by the statute of 6 George and absurd. No; they stood upon the III. Circumstances had changed, and the common law-the law of Parliament-and oath was no longer applicable. Baron de they challenged their opponents to shake Rothschild claimed to take his seat, astheir position. But, said the hon. and learn-suming that Parliament had a right to ed Attorney General, if you pursue that course, you will lay the Baron de Rothschild open to heavy penalties. He (Mr. Anstey) believed that no court of justice

alter this absurd and effete oath. The noble Lord at the head of the Government interposed, and said-no, these words of abjuration are part of the substance of the

oath. But the noble Lord, in March last, | clared that he should not take his seat unsaid that if the House was justified in ad- less he were a Christian. That was the mitting Mr. Pease on his affirmation, there was no necessity for an Act of Parliament. He did not question the right of the House to admit Mr. Pease; but he did the necessity of passing an Act after admitting him. But did the noble Lord really consider in this case that the words "on the true faith of a Christian" belonged to the oath, or only to the solemnity of taking it? When the noble Lord first introduced the Jews' Bill he used these remarkable words:"It is an entire mistake to suppose that the words of an Act of Parliament, that the fag-end of a declaration, can ensure religious motives in legislators, or religious legislation in Parliament. You are merely required to make the declaration on the true faith of a Christian.' There are no direct words of exclusion, but you

leave exclusion to be inferred."

position which the hon. and learned Attorney General proposed to take, and he said the reason for it was, that the House of Lords would be so struck with the difficulty in which this House was placed that they would legislate. He (Mr. Anstey) did not think they would, and if they would it would not relieve the House of Commons from the humiliation of having subjected their undoubted privileges to the arbitrary decision of the House of Lords. They refused also to Baron de Rothschild the right to take his seat, and by refusing to declare the seat void, they disfranchised the city of London. In either case their position was indefensible. He should give his vote against the resolutions now proposed by Her Majesty's Government in their new character of disqualificators.

Then, as it was the postscript of the oath, the fag-end of the declaration, it was not MR. DISRAELI: Sir, in the previous the oath itself nor the declaration itself, discussions which have taken place upon but it was that which any court of justice, this subject, the deliberations were of so much more Parliament, had a right to dis- strictly legal a character that I have repense with. The hon. and learned Gen-frained from presuming to intrude myself tleman the Attorney General had given upon the attention of the House. But one reason for the monstrous course which the resolutions now upon the table have he proposed the House to take. It was, departed from that limited character that when they had passed that resolution, which has hitherto characterised the proBaron de Rothschild would not be able to positions submitted to our consideration. take his seat in that House unless they The resolutions, indeed, which the hon. went to the House of Lords. That was and learned Attorney General has brought the very reason that induced him to vote forward, comprehend one of law and one against the Motion. They were not in the of policy. I have, therefore, thought that same posision that they were in in 1847. perhaps the House would excuse me if, Then they chose to assume, contrary to under the particular circumstances, I venthe advice of himself and a few others, tured to make a few observations on the that the Jew had no right of citizenship, position in which the hon. Member for the and they went to the House of Lords to city of London now finds himself, and— give the right of citizenship. But they relative to his position-on that now occuhad since appointed a Committee on the pied by the House itself. The course, subject of taking oaths, and, acting on the Sir, which has been pursued by the hon. report of that Committee, they had recog- Gentleman the Member for the city of nised the rights of Jews by allowing the London-which has been pursued by the Member for the city of London to take electors of the city of London, and by two oaths according to Jewish solemnity. those Englishmen professing the Jewish Having done that they had no right to de- religion, in their attempts to obtain an clare that Baron de Rothschild had no alleviation of their grievances, and a right to take his seat until he had taken removal of their disabilities-that course, his oath on the true faith of a Christian. Sir, during the present year, differs If they referred this matter to the other from the one which they have hitherto House of Legislature, in conjunction with adopted. The change arises from the them, they in point of fact submitted their impatience the very natural impatience, privileges to the other House of Parlia- I admit which the electors of the ment. At the same time, with singular city of London, and Englishmen proinconsistency, they refused to give to the fessing the Jewish religion, feel at the electors of the city of London the opportu- position in which they are now placed. nity of electing Baron de Rothschild again, It does not appear to me, Sir, that anyor of electing any one else, and they de- thing has occurred in the constitutional