Jews un the oaths Baron VII. The only legal obstacle which, prior to 1858, prevented a Chapter able to take Jew from sitting and voting in Parliament, arose from the until 1858. words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," at the end of the oath of abjuration. In 1850, Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, who during the two previous sessions had been one of the members for the city of London, but had not taken the oaths and his seat, was admitted to be sworn on the Old Testament, being the form most binding on his conscience. Having taken the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, he proceeded to take the oath of abjuration, but omitted the concluding words, "on the true faith of a Christian," "as not binding on his conscience," adding the words, so help me God;" whereupon he was directed to withdraw. After debate, the house resolved that he was "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." No new writ, however, was issued, as it appeared that the statutes by which the oath of abjuration was appointed to be taken did not attach the penalty of disability to the refusal to take that oath, but solely to the offence of sitting and voting without having taken it.2 Mr. Alderman 1 In 1851, Mr. Alderman Salomons, having been returned Salomons. for the borough of Greenwich, pressed his claim even further than Baron Rothschild. He was sworn on the Old Testament, and omitting the words, "upon the true faith of a Christian," in the oath of abjuration, concluded with the words, "so help me God." This omission being reported to the Speaker, he directed Mr. Salomons to withdraw. On a subsequent day, while further proceedings in this case were under discussion, Mr. Alderman Salomons entered the house and took his seat within the bar, which he retained, although ordered by the Speaker and by the house to withdraw, until the Speaker directed the Serjeant to remove him below the bar; and the Serjeant having placed his hand 1 29th and 30th July, 5th Aug. 1850, 105 ib. 584. 590. 612. 2 13 Will. III. c. 6; 6 Anne, c. 7; 6 Geo. III. c. 53; see also Re- VII. Chapter upon Mr. Salomons, he was conducted below the bar. In the mean time, however, he had not only sat during debates in the house, but had voted in three divisions. In this case, as in the last, the house did not think fit to issue a new writ; but, having refused to hear counsel on the matter, agreed to a resolution in the same form, declaring that he was not entitled to sit or vote.1 The legal validity of this resolution was afterwards established, beyond further question, by judgments in the Court of Exchequer 2 and the Court of Exchequer Chamber.3 of the Jews ment. After repeated attempts to remove this disability from Admission the Jews by legislation, an Act was at length passed in to Parlia 1858, by which it was provided, that either house might resolve that henceforth any person professing the Jewish religion may omit the words, "and I make this declaration on the true faith of a Christian."4 And finally, by the 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19, the words, "on the true faith of a Christian," were removed from the form of oath prescribed for the members of the House of Commons. &c. In 1693, John Archdale, a Quaker, having declined to Declarations by take the oaths, "in regard to a principle of his religion," a Quakers, new writ was issued in his room.5 But subsequently to that case, several statutes permitting Quakers to make affirmations instead of oaths were passed;" and upon a general construction of these statutes, in 1833, Mr. Pease, a Quaker, was admitted to sit and vote, upon making affirmation to the effect of the oaths directed to be taken at the table. This privilege was extended by various Acts, not only to Quakers, but also to Moravians and Separatists; 8 1 18th and 21st July, 1851, 106 C. J. 372. 373. 381. 407. 2 Miller v. Salomons, 19th April, 1852, Law Journ. vol. 21, n. s. p. 160; 7 Exch. Reports, 475. Salomons v. Miller, 11th May, 1853, Law Journ. vol. 22, n. s. p. 169; 8 Exch. Rep. 778. A writ of error was lodged in the House of Lords, but the parties did not apply for a hearing, 147 H. D. 3 s. 108. • Proceedings on admission of the Barons de Rothschild, 113 C. J. 345; 5 12 C. J. 386. 388. 6 6 Anne, c. 23; 1 Geo. I. st. 2, c. 6 and c. 13; 8 Geo. I. c. 6; 22 Geo. II. c. 46. 788 C. J. 41. See also report of the committee on his case, 1833 (6). 8 3 & 4 Will. IV. e. 49; 1 & 2 Vict. c. 77; 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 82; 29 & 30 Vict. c. 19; 31 & 32 Vict. c. 72. VII. and now by the Oaths Act, 1888, the right to substitute an Chapter affirmation for an oath is conferred, not only on those who entertain a religious objection to an oath, but also to those who assert that they have no religious belief (see p. 160). On the 3rd May, 1880, Mr. Bradlaugh, member for Northampton, claimed to make the affirmation by virtue of tion, 1880. the Evidence Amendment Acts, 1869 and 1870. A select Mr. Bradlaugh's affirma committee appointed to consider this claim reported that Being now refused either the oath or affirmation, Mr. 1135 C. J. 124. 137; Report (159, sess. 2). 2 Report (226, sess. 2). 135 C. J. 228. 234. This resolu tion was, by order of the house VII. Chapter and directed him to withdraw, Mr. Bradlaugh insisted upon his right, as a duly-elected member, to take the oath and his seat, and refused to withdraw. The house ordered his withdrawal, but he refused to obey the order; and upon a direction given by the Speaker, the Serjeant placing his hand upon Mr. Bradlaugh, conducted him below the bar. Mr. Bradlaugh, however, again advanced within the bar, asserting his determination to resist the order of the house, and he was committed to the custody of the Serjeant.1 On the following day Mr. Bradlaugh was discharged. Appendix I. On the 1st July, a standing order was passed, which S. 0.85, allows a member claiming to be a person, for the time being, permitted to make an affirmation, to make it without question, subject to any liability by statute, and under this order, on the 2nd July, Mr. Bradlaugh took his seat: but Mr. Brad laugh's upon an action for penalties, the High Court of Justice oath, 1881. adjudged that Mr. Bradlaugh had not qualified himself to sit by taking the affirmation, and this judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeal. Having already sat and voted, his seat was vacant, unless the judgment should be reversed by the House of Lords; and, without awaiting further steps in the suit, he agreed to the issue of a new writ, because by his action he had vacated his seat.3 Being returned a second time, he came to the table, on the 26th April, to take the oath; and henceforward, until the close of the Parliament, November, 1885, the house enforced the decisions expressed by the two select committees who had considered Mr. Bradlaugh's claim first to take an affirmation, and then to take the oath (see p. 164); and whenever Mr. Bradlaugh came to the table, time after time, to assert his right to take his seat, the house determined, by repeated resolutions, that he be not permitted to take either the oath or an affirmation.4 135 C. J. 235. 27 Q. B. D. 39-61; 50 Law Journ. 342. 136 C. J. 171. Upon appeal to the Lords, he obtained judgment, 9th April, 1883, that, under the statute creating the penalty, the for its recovery. Law Reports, 26th April, 10th May, 4th July, VII. Mr. Bradlaugh, on the other hand, sought by every means Chapter in his power to resist the action taken by the house. He insisted on his right to take the oath and his seat, by presenting himself at the table for that purpose, though not called up by the Speaker,1 by refusing to obey the directions given from the chair, and the orders of the house, that he should withdraw below the bar, pursuant to the resolutions of the house. He thus asserted his determination to refuse obedience to the orders of the house, and to resist by force the methods used to maintain those orders. The house, in consequence, ordered the Serjeant to remove Mr. Bradlaugh from the house until he undertook to create no further disturbance.2 On one occasion, by the direction of the Speaker, with the subsequent approval of the house, Mr. Bradlaugh was conducted by the Serjeant beyond the precincts of the house; and Mr. Bradlaugh was subsequently expelled (see p. 55). Mr. Bradlaugh also sought to test the validity of his exclusion from a seat in the house, by bringing an action against the deputy Serjeant for an assault, and another action against the Serjeant (see p. 145). And on two occasions, Mr. Bradlaugh suddenly advanced to the table, and read from a paper in his hand the words of the oath, and, having kissed a copy of the New Testament which he had brought with him, signed the paper, leaving the paper and the copy of the New Testament on the table. The legal result of Mr. Bradlaugh's conduct was not, on the first Feb., 6th March, 1882, 137 C. J. 3. 87; 4th May, 9th July, 1883, 138 ib. 184. 332; 11th and 21st Feb. 1884; 139 ib. 40. 63; 6th July, 1885, 140 ib. 289. Mr. Bradlaugh was heard at the bar, on the 26th April, 1881, 7th Feb. 1882, and 4th May, 1883. 1 267 H. D. 3 s. 390. 2 10th May, 1881, 136 C. J. 227. Under this order for exclusion, Mr. Bradlaugh was not permitted to enter the door of the house, but had access to all other parts of the 3 136 C. J. 426; 264 H. D. 3 s. 21st Feb. 1882, 137 C. J. 59. 61; 11th Feb. 1884, 139 ib. 40. On 7th March, 1882, the Speaker stated that, having regard to the resolution of the house, if an attempt was made to introduce Mr. Bradlaugh, he was bound not to call upon him to come to the table, 267 H. D. 3 s. 390. |