LETTERS TO THE EDITOR.
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE OATH.
[TO TIN EDITOR. OF THU "SPECTATOR."]
8113,—The illegality of the recent proceedings of the House of 'Commons in the Bradlaugh case is, in the eyes of lawyers not blinded by party spirit, too obvious for discussion. But perhaps some of your readers who are not lawyers may be interested by a short statement of the proceedings in the cele- brated, or, as lawyers would call them, the leading cases, of 'O'Connell and Baron de Rothschild. What was done in these cases (in O'Connell's case, under the advice of some of the most famous lawyers who ever sat in Parliament) puts in the strongest light the gigantic innovation practised by the present House of Commons in the Bradlaugh case.
O'Connell, having been elected for the county of Clare, pre- sented himself at the table of the House of Commons on May 15th, 1829 ("Hansard," New Series, Vol. XXI., p. 1378), and having had tendered to him the oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Abjuration, stated that ho was ready to take the oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration, but not the oath of Supremacy ; and claimed to take the substituted oath provided by the Roman Catholic Relief Act, which had been passed since the date of his election. Being heard (on May 18th) at the Bar of the House in support of this claim, he over and over again avowed himself a Roman Catholic; and, of 'course, in the mouth of a Roman Catholic the old Oath of Supremacy would have been an utter profanation. Of the great lawyers who were in Parliament at . that day—Wetherall, Tindal, Sugden, Scarlett, Doherty, and Brougham—all except Wetherall took part in the debate which followed, and none of them except Brougham maintained that O'Connell was entitled to take the oath provided by the Roman Catholic Relief Act; but they one and all took for granted his right to take the old .oaths, if only lie wore willing to take them. Sir Edward Sugden (afterwards Lord St. Leonard's) expressly discussed the case of a man taking oaths unconscientiously for the purpose of sitting in Parliament ; and while defending tests, admitted that the only security against such an evasion of a test was the reprobation that would follow. " Suppose, for instance," ho said (" Hansard," same volume, pp. 1435-36), "a man to be a Roman Catholic, and under the old law, to come in and take the oaths at their table, was it likely that the experiment would not cost such a person his caste, and that his fellow-Catholics would not instantly expel him, and refuse him the hand of fellowship P Tests, therefore, detected the individual, because he could. not venture to evade them with impunity ; and that was at once their justification, and the reason of their imposi- tion." In entire conformity with these views, the House resolved that O'Connell was not entitled to sit or vote unless ho first took the Oath of Supremacy ; and it was ordered that ho should attend the House, and that the Speaker should " com- municate to him the said resolution, and ask him" (him, an .avowed Roman Catholic, and believer in the spiritual supremacy of the Pope) " whether he will take the Oath of Supremacy."
(" Hansard," same volume, pp. 14.25-1459.) .
O'Connell, as is well known, refused to take this oath, and after being re-elected. for Clare, took the substituted oath
provided by the Roman Catholic Relief Act. Precisely similar in principle were the proceedings in the case of Baron de Rothschild. On July 28th, 1850, the Baron, who had some time previously been elected for the City of London, presented.
himself to be sworn at the table of the House of Commons, and on the oaths being tendered to him, claimed to ho sworn upon the Old Testament. (" Hansard," Third Series, Vol. CXIII., p. 297.) After much debate, proceeding almost entirely on the 'assumption that the Baron was of the Jewish faith, and on the question whether Jews ought to be admitted to sit in Par- liament, it was on July 29th ordered that the Baron should be sworn on the Old Testament, and on the day following he took the oaths of allegiance and supremacy accordingly. The Clerk then proceeded to administer the oath of abjuration, which the Baron repeated as far as the words, " Upon the true faith of Christian," but upon these words being read, be stated that he omitted them, as not binding on his conscience. There- upon the House of Commons did not act as it has done in Mr. Bradlaugh's case, and say to the Baron, " You are a Jew, and it would be a profanation for you to swear, as the law requires you, on the true faith of a Christian, and therefore you shall not be admitted to be sworn at all." No such course was pro- posed, even by the most vehement opponents of the admission of Jews to Parliament. The principle acted on in O'Connell's case was recognised as established beyond question, and it was resolved that the Baron was not entitled to vote or sit in the House until he should "take the oath of abjuration in the form appointed. by law." (" Hansard," Third Series, Vol. CXIII., PP. 770-771-813.) It certainly seems most objectionable that oaths should be tendered. indiscriminately, as now required by law, to all Mem- bers of Parliament, men of every possible variety of religious conviction, and want of conviction. But the remedy for this evil is not to be sought in any capricious usurpation of power by the House of Commons for the time being, but in the passing of an Act of Parliament putting the law on a more reasonable footing.
Meanwhile, it is not surprising that some of the ablest lawyers and most upright men amongst the Conservatives in the present House of Commons hold entirely aloof from the action of their party in the Bradlaugh case.--I am, Sir, &c., A RETIRED BARRISTER.
Previous page
