§
David Salomons, esquire, returned as one of the Members for the Borough of Grenwich, 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
980
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:"—
[Mr. SALOMONS then read the following declaration from a paper which he held in his hand, and then pushed over to the Clerk at the Table:—"I have now taken the oaths in the form and with the ceremonies that I declare to be binding on my conscience, in accordance with the statute 1 and 2 Victoria, cap. 105. I now demand to subscribe the oath of abjuration, and to declare to my property qualification."]
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.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLthen rose and said: Mr. Speaker, I am requested by the hon. Member for Greenwich, who has presented himself at the table for the purpose of taking the Oath prescribed by the Act of Parliament, and by the forms of this House, and who has proposed to take that oath in the manner most binding on his conscience, to declare to you and the House that he withdraws from the seat which he has lately occupied in deference to your high authority as pronouncing the orders of this House. But I am also requested by the hon. Member to state—
§ SIR FREDERIC THESIGERSir, I rise to order. I apprehend that the worthy Alderman has not obeyed the orders of this House. He has not withdrawn, but is at present standing within the House, and it is ray duty to call attention to that circumstance.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must withdraw.
§ [To explain Sir F. Thesiger's interposition, it is necessary to state that the hon. Member for Greenwich, apparently not aware of the invisible line of demarcation which separates the space below the bar from the body of the House, had, during Sir B. Hall's address, gradually advanced on the floor towards the chair till he passed this imaginary barrier. On receiving Mr. Speaker's order to withdraw a second time, however, he immediately retired.]
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLagain rose and said: At the time the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon interrupted me—I do not say that he did so improperly—I was about to proceed to state that I have been requested by the hon. Member for Greenwich to declare to the House that his only object in taking the course which he has adopted was to try his legal right to sit as a representative of the people in this assembly. It is not the intention—it is far from the desire of the hon. Member to take any course which may be either displeasing or inconvenient to this assembly; and I have now only to ask a question to which I should be glad to receive an answer from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the absence of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. That question is to this effect:—The hon. Member for Greenwich, as I stated before, is only anxious to try his right; he is anxious to put himself ill a position in which that right may be fully tried by the legal tribunals of this realm; and I have to ask my right hon. Friend, whether, if the proceeding which has now been taken, is not sufficient to allow of the institution of a prosecution, and if the hon. Member will come into this House as he is prepared to do immediately, and lay himself open to the penalties of the law—if such penalties may attach to him—whether, in that case, my right hon. Friend will take the course which I think he ought to take upon the present occasion, and instruct the hon. and learned Attorney General to prosecute the hon. Member, in order that this question may be fully and fairly tried.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI am sorry to say, in the unavoidable absence of my noble Friend at the head of the Government, I hope I may be permitted to state the course which I think it most advisable that the House should pursue upon the present occasion. I must first, however, observe that I am sure that whatever may be the opinion of the House 982 as to the ultimate issue of this question, they will do justice to the anxiety which the hon. Member (Mr. Alderman Salomons) naturally entertains to vindicate that which in his opinion is his legal right, as well as to the course which he has taken in deferring to the wish of the House, with a manifestation of respect for the right hon. Gentleman the Speaker, which I think ought ever to be shown by every person sitting, or claiming to sit, in this House. There are two questions raised by this proceeding—one is the right to sit in this House, and the other is the liability of the hon. Member to certain penalties if he should improperly take his seat. The object of the hon. Gentleman is to have that latter question decided in a Court of Law. Now it seems to me to be a matter of very grave and serious deliberation what course we should pursue in this matter. I certainly am not prepared, on the instant, to answer the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone; and with respect to that portion upon which it is for this House to decide, namely, the right of the hon. Member to sit among us, I think that we ought to adopt no immediate proceeding, but that we should have time to consult the Acts of Parliament on the subject, and gravely to consider the course which we should pursue. I think that no proceeding should be taken by us without full consideration. After all, we are to pronounce our opinion upon the point, not perhaps altogether as we should wish, but as we may feel ourselves bound to do under the Statute and the constitution of Parliament. I propose, with a view to our taking up this subject in that grave and deliberate manner in which alone I think it can be advantageously discussed, that no further proceeding should take place in the matter at present, but that when my noble Friend at the head of the Government shall be present on Monday, and after hon. Gentlemen shall have had time carefully to consider the subject, we should resume the proceedings precisely where they stand at this moment, so that no advantage may be gained or lost to any party or to any view which any hon. Gentleman may entertain, whilst we shall have had time to make up our minds as to the course which should be pursued in reference to this important subject.
§ SIR BENJAMIN HALLI entirely concur, as far as I am concerned, in the proposal of my right hon. Friend, and I wish to give notice that I shall repeat my question on Monday next; or if it should not be convenient to the noble Lord at the 983 head of the Government to attend here on Monday, I shall defer the the question until Tuesday.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEI wish to know what is the question that is to be resumed on Monday. It appears to me that there is no question before the House, and that there can be no adjournment of a debate, because there is no debate. I think that there ought to be placed before us some question upon which we could adjourn the discussion until Monday.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMy hon. Friend the Member for Marylebone put a question to me which I said I did not at present feel myself competent to answer, and he proposes to repeat that question on a future day. What I proposed was, that no proceeding should now take place, in order that we should stand on Monday precisely as we do at present, but with the advantage of knowing what is to take place, and of having had an interval to consider what it may, under the circumstances, he most advisable for the House or for any hon. Member to do.
§ SIR FREDERIC THESIGERIf I could understand that there was a question before the House with respect to which we were called upon to decide, I should be disposed to concur in the suggestion that has been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the discussion should be postponed until Monday, in order to afford us further time for considering that question; but I feel an equal difficulty with the hon. Member for Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) in understanding from the statement of the right hon. Gentleman what the matter is which we shall on Monday be called upon to discuss. The right hon. Gentleman told us that there were two questions to be decided—the first being the question as to the right of the hon. Member for Greenwich to a seat in this House—and the second as to the means of affording an opportunity for instituting a prosecution for the purpose of bringing forward the question of the right of the hon. Member to sit and vote in this House. Now, I have great difficulty in understanding what is the first question which the right hon. Gentleman will propose to us on Monday as the subject of discussion. There can he no doubt whatever, according to the former decision of this House, that the hon. Member for Greenwich having refused to take the whole of the Oath of Abjuration, is utterly incapable of taking his seat 984 in this House; and therefore I apprehend that no question of that description can possibly be raised. [Mr. Serjeant MURPHY: There is great doubt about the matter.] My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork says there is great doubt about the matter. But my hon. and learned Friend was not in Parliament last year, and he therefore is not, perhaps, aware that there is on the Journals of this House a resolution upon this very question. Now, I apprehend that if our resolutions are worth anything, there is no question of that description which it can be open to us to discuss; for I can hardly believe that the House is prepared in one Session to rescind a resolution to which it came in the preceding Session, after long and anxious discussion; and I conclude, therefore, that there must be some other point which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes that we should consider. And here I may be permitted to say that I think we fell into a great mistake last Session in the course which we pursued with regard to Baron de Rothschild. It may be in the recollection of the House that on the Baron de Rothschild's refusing to take the whole of the Oath of Abjuration, I rose and moved that Mr. Speaker should issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for the issuing of a new writ for the city of London. I was opposed, upon that occasion, by several hon. Members, and among others by my right hon. and learned Friend the Master of the Rolls, at that time Attorney General, who stated that, under the Act of Parliament, the penalty for having refused to take the oath was not the forfeiture of the seat, but merely a disability to sit and vote. Now, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend was mistaken upon that point. I have very carefully considered the subject since that time, and I have come to the conclusion that the precedents in the case establish the course of issuing a new writ when a Member refuses to take the oaths which are necessary to be taken before he can sit or vote in this House; and I believe no difference will be found in that respect between the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and the Oath of Abjuration. I trust I shall be able to satisfy the House that in either case where a person who has been elected refuses to take the Oaths, his seat becomes vacant, and that a new writ ought to be issued. Now, if that is the question which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to submit to our considera- 985 tion on Monday, I shall be prepared to meet him upon it. But if that is not the question which he means to bring forward—and I cannot assume that there is any other, notwithstanding the "great doubt" of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Cork upon a settled matter—I should be extremely glad to know precisely what is the point with regard to the right to the seat which the right hon. Gentleman means to bring under our notice.
§ MR. BERNAL OSBORNEI rise to order. I ask you, Sir, whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is in order in making those observations, if he does not mean to conclude with a Motion?
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon must conclude with a Motion, or else he is not in order.
§ SIR FREDERIC THESIGERThen I beg leave to move, at the instigation of the hon. Member for Middlesex, that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for a new writ for the Borough of Greenwich.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown, to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Burgess to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough of Greenwich, in the room of David Salomons, esquire, who has refused to take the Oath of Abjuration in the form prescribed by Law.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI am very much surprised at the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman upon this occasion. A few minutes before the commencement of this discussion, I stated to the hon. and learned Gentleman the course which I proposed to pursue on this occasion, and he expressed his entire concurrence in the propriety of taking that course; and, as far as I could understand from my communications with hon. Members, I certainly thought it was the general wish of the House that no question should be raised this evening, and that we should not enter into the whole case in what would perhaps be the most objectionable manner. I confess, therefore, that I am much surprised at the course which the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken, and I think I have a right to complain of it. It is no doubt, however, competent to him to pursue that course; but I trust, under the circumstances of the case, the House will not refuse to adjourn the discussion.
§ SIR FREDERIC THESIGERI do not mean to oppose the Motion for the adjournment; but when the hon. Member for Middlesex (Mr. B. Osborne) rose to call me to order for exceeding the proper limits of debate, I felt it necessary to conclude with a Motion, and I made a Motion which should give the House to understand the course which I would adopt on Monday next, when the question should again come forward for discussion. I have not the least desire, however, to violate the understanding to which I admit that I came with the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer upon the subject.
§ Mr. CHISHOLM ANSTEYI rise to order. I submit to you, Sir, that the hon. and learned Gentleman is travelling into matters that do not now come properly before us. I wish to ask whether the hon. and learned Gentleman is warranted in rising to explain to enter into a variety of matters not properly before the House.
§ MR. SPEAKERThe hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon has moved the issuing of a new writ for the borough of Greenwich, and any Member making a Motion in this House is entitled to a reply.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMay I be permitted to interpose for a moment? I wish to prevent the sort of feeling which is rising in the House. It is not necessary, on a proposal for adjourning the discussion, to enter into a lengthened explanation of the facts of the case. Let hon. Gentlemen recollect the angry feeling which prevailed upon this subject last year, and which it must be our wish for the future to avoid. I feel persuaded that, by not alluding further to the question at present, we shall best ensure hereafter a calm and temperate consideration of the subject.
§ SIR FREDERIC THESIGERIt is far from my wish to produce any irritation. I merely wished to explain how I was almost forced, by the interruption of the hon. Member for Middlesex, to conclude with a Motion. I have not, however, the slightest intention of departing from what I admit to have been the understanding between the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself. I now beg leave to withdraw the Motion. It has served its purpose, and I do not wish to persevere with it.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Further proceedings adjourned till Monday next.