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.