HC Deb 29 July 1850 vol 113 cc438-52

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

Debate resumed.


said, it was evident, from the speech which they had that morning heard from the noble Lord the Member for London that the Ministers of the Crown had no intention of supporting the Motion for enabling the Baron de Rothschild to take his seat in that House. In the view which he himself took of this question, and therefore in the mode in which he proposed to discuss it, he feared that he should be rather doing injustice than otherwise to the case of that Gentleman; for he doubted that the House would ever he allowed to go into that which constituted the more important part of the question. For this reason, then, he should trouble the House with only a very few remarks. He was sorry to observe that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon bad committed himself to such propositions as the House had hoard from him. He would take, for example, the observations made by his hon. and learned Friend with regard to the case of the Quakers. From the period of the Revolution till the year 1828 the affirmation of Quakers could not be received in criminal cases; but surely it would not be supposed that his hon. and learned Friend was ignorant of the Bill that had passed upon this subject; and then his hon. and learned Friend, forgetting all that he had said about the Quakers, and forgetting also the real state of the facts, asserted that no one had ever been permitted to sit in that House without first taking the oaths, and that too in whatever manner was supposed to be most binding upon men's consciences; and even the hon. and learned Member went the length of saying that the Host was used as the medium of the ceremony of taking the oaths in that House. Now, there was not the least ground for any such statement. Did the hon. and learned Member really forget that Mr. Pease, the Quaker Member, had been admitted first without oaths, and though almost immediately afterwards a Bill was passed legalising the affirmation of Quakers in lieu of oaths? That was the thing wanted—they wanted that the Gentleman elected for London should take his seat, and that any further measures necessarily consequent upon such a step should be forthwith adopted, and that then the House of Commons do invite the House of Lords to unite with them in those measures. The main point at issue, as the House must remember, was the form of abjuration. In the common law oath the form was, "So help me God, and his holy Gospels;" but they knew, not only from the cases cited by the noble Lord the Member for London, but from much older cases, that the Old Testament was spoken of as the holy Evangelists; and anciently there were no oaths imposed which any Jew or any heathen might not take—nothing required, either by the statute or the common law, inconsistent with the principles of any church or sect. The hon. and learned Member for Abingdon had taken a distinction between the juridical and the promissory oath, but he confessed that that distinction was one which he did not understand; nor did any such distinction seem to have formerly prevailed, for from the Great Roll of Richard I. it appeared that two Jews had been appointed Judges on taking the oath. The words were these, Benedictus de Talemunt et Josephus Aaron Judei, Justiciarii Judeorum. Then there was the Close Roll of 31st of Henry III., containing these words, Sacramentum fidelitatis Regi debitum pretextu officii sui; and in the Close Roll of the 33d of Henry III., was this passage:— Abrahamus filius Vines sit clericus Regis in scaccario Judeorum, loco Abrahami filii Muriel; acceptis ab eodem Abrahamo sufficientibus plegiis de fidclitate. Thus were Jews admitted to those offices. Again, the Close Roll of the 4th of Edward I. contained the following passage:— Quum Dominus Henricus Rex habere solebat quendam Judeum intendentem officio eschaetarix de catallis et tenementis quæ ad ipsum quâcum-que ratione contigerint, assignavimus Benedictum de Winton Judeum ad idem, &c., accepto ab eodem Sacramento corporali fideliter quod se habebit in officio predicto quamdiu steterit in eodem, &c. As to the admission of Jews or others to a seat in Parliament on taking certain oaths, there was no particular precedent. In the reign of Edward III. the House of Commons was considered a part of the Great Council of the nation, and the law as applicable to the Great Council was applicable also to the Members of the House of Commons. The oaths taken by the Members of that body required them to keep the King's counsel private, to do right unto all, to inform the King of any league against him, to refuse all gifts from the Crown—it might perhaps be advantageous if that rule were renewed; and such oaths the Members of the House of Commons took, concluding with the words, "So help me, God," Jews being at that time admitted into Parliament; but that, of course, was before the ordinance by which they were expelled the kingdom. In the 25th of Henry III. the different communities (counties, cities, and boroughs) sent up their representatives to Parliament, occasionally those of the north, and of the south, and of Wales, constituting separate assemblies, but Jews were not excluded; on the contrary, the Close Roll of Henry III., on the 24th of January, in the 25th year of his reign, stated that the sheriffs and others were directed to send six or two Jews, according to the population. The words were— Sex (vel duos, secundum numerum, &c.)de ditioribus et potentioribus Judeis nostris N. et de singulis villis comitatûs tui, in quibus Judei manent; ad tractandum nobiscum tam de nostrâ quam suâ utilitate. On Quinquagesima Sunday, 1241, they voted for this part of the general subsidy 20,000 marks. From all this it became evident that Jews had often sat in Parliament, and were admitted to take their seats without being called on to take any oaths to which they could object. In the reign of Henry VI. the Jews not only contributed to the pecuniary wants of the monarch, but to the entertainment of the Court, for the Rachels of that age were amongst the performers who appeared before Henry VI. in dramatic pieces. At the period of the Restoration there were, however, only twelve Jews in England; but in the reign of William III. it appeared from the debates of Grey, who was thirty years chairman of Committees in that House, that the Parliament being in want of money to carry on the war with France, came to the resolution that, according to ancient custom, practised by their forefathers upon the forefathers of the Jews, they would impose on them the payment of a good round sum—such as would in a certain degree relieve the country gentlemen from the pressure of the land tax. Hence, on the 7th of November, 1689, they by resolution taxed the Jews to the amount of 100,000l.; but before any Bill for the purpose was introduced, the Jews presented a petition to the House, which petition was rejected because the Speaker could not recollect any case where the House received a petition respecting a Bill of which they were not yet seised. The Jews claimed by their petition not to be taxed, because they said, though some of them were aliens, many of them were naturalised subjects. The petition was not received; but so great was the effect on the House, that although the Bill was read a third time, it was not proceeded with; and what was the consequence? When next the Land Tax Act and Poll Tax Act came to be passed, the Jews were treated as natural subjects. Aliens were taxed as before, but the Jews were classified as Christians were, and taxed in specific sums certainly, but not as aliens. There was a general impost on all classes of subjects who were taxed under that law; but at the same time it contained a clause for a double impost on Nonjurors and Papists. There was a clause in that Act exempting Quakers from taking the oath, but there was no provision to exempt Jews; therefore he could not recognise the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon, that Parliament had legislated on the subject in ignorance. With regard to the Naturalisation Act of George II., it wos unworthy of hon. Members to cheer as they did the allusion that had been made to that Act. They must have known that that was an Act for the naturalisation of foreign Jews, and that it was not their intention to qualify an alien to sit in Parliament. It was because Baron de Rothschild was not an alien—it was because Jews born in this country were as much Englishmen as hon. Gentlemen opposite—that they disliked to see them kept out of the pale of the constitution. That motive would, he trusted, cause them to persevere in their exertions, whether the ex-Ministers or Her Majesty's Government made up their minds to join in the cause of liberty and justice, and even at that late hour render reparation to a persecuted body of English subjects. One word with regard to the opinion of the noble Lord at the head of the Government. The noble Lord said, this was not a question of civil and religious liberty, but a judicial question. He (Mr. Anstey) did not know what the noble Lord meant by a judicial question; but the noble Lord approached the discussion of the question by prejudging it. Without having heard a syllable at the bar or on the floor of the House, by way of observation on the third oath—an oath which he (Mr. Anstey) should endeavour to satisfy the House—notwithstanding the opinion of the noble Lord—was an illegal oath, whether administered to a Christian or a Jew, or, if not illegal, was only so because Parliament had the power to alter it at pleasure—the noble Lord had damaged the case as much as possible by an indis- creet and unseasonable avowal, and then had gone through the solemn mockery of inviting the hon. Member for the city of London to claim, in person or by counsel, to be heard against a decision which he nevertheless told the hon. Gentleman would be inevitably against him. With regard to the distinction which had been taken by the noble Lord, he (Mr. Anstey) would remind the House that the great cause of civil and religious liberty was involved in the adjudication of every judicial question, whether brought for decision before that House or any other tribunal; and on what firmer basis could the liberties of England be placed than on the immoveable foundations of law and justice? It was a question of civil and religious liberty, and it was likewise a judicial question; and if it were a party question also, let the noble Lord blame himself for having made it so. He had done his utmost to do it, and had withdrawn from that which would be a majority, but which was now doomed to be a minority, the support of those whose only rule to guide them was what was best for the interest of the great Whig party. It was, therefore, a party question, a judicial question, and a question of civil and religious liberty; his (Mr. Anstey's) mind was made up with respect to it, and his vote would follow, and he trusted hon. Members behind him, and some of those opposite, would take the same course as he did in giving their best support to the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.


thought it would he improper in him to let the question go to a division without making some observations, more especially since the address which had been made to the House by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. He regretted very much that the noble Lord should have thought it necessary to pronounce any opinion at all upon the subject which, by some, was called the second question in the matter. The truth was, they could not tell whether they would come to that second question or not; they were at present on the first question, an important preliminary question, namely, whether the Member for the city of London was to take the oaths at the table of the House. The question was, whether they would adopt the resolution of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, or the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Montrose. With reference to the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Oxford Univer- sity, he (Mr. Wood) thought that the hon. Baronet had almost abandoned it himself. He had expressed his readiness to withdraw it; but he (Mr. Wood) did not think he should do so, for he thought the resolution ought to be negatived. It was impossible for any person to maintain their ground on that Motion. He had not heard a single observation from the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon in favour of it; and it was contrary to what every day took place, to say that persons could not take their seats without making a declaration that they were Christians. It was well known "the Moravians" and "Friends" don't do so, yet they can take their seats; and by the Act of Parliament any person who was either a Moravian, or member of the Society of Friends, may take his seat without making that declaration at all. With respect to the Amendment which had been proposed by the hon. Member for Montrose, they had heard a legal argument from the hon. and learned Member for Abingdon, which required attention, and he should wish to offer one or two observations respecting it. With reference first of all to the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose, he (Mr. Wood) ventured to assert, when he first addressed the House on the subject on Friday, that no lawyer would be found in that House who could hesitate for a moment to say that it was the common right of every individual to be sworn in that manner that he should think most binding on his conscience. He was happy to find that that proposition had not been controverted as a general proposition, and he was sure no person could controvert it; but an attempt had been made to distinguish this case from others, and take it out of the general proposition, by saying that they should exclude all oaths that were of the character of an oath of office; and secondly, that there was some peculiar limitation in the statute relating to Members taking seats in Parliament that should preclude this case from the application of the general rule. With respect to its being limited to judicial oaths, and not applicable to oaths of office, he did not hear the hon. and learned Gentleman cite an authority in support of that proposition. No such authority could be cited, and there was abundance of authority in jurisprudence, not confined to their own country, the other way. He might also say, in reference to oaths, that at one time in this country the general assumption was, that every person was a Christian; and thence alone grew up the mode of administering oaths on the holy gospels, and it became the general practice of' administering oaths. But the moment the question arose whether or not that particular mode of administering the oath would be binding on the consciences of the persons to be bound by it, that instant, with the keen common sense which distinguished the laws of their country, our Judges determined, in conformity with the proceedings of other countries, that the question which they had to ask m administering an oath is, have you got the religious sanction, and bound the party by a declaration that he makes in the presence of a God whom he believes to be an avenger of falsehood. That was laid down in the Roman Digest; and in the case of "Omychund v. Barker," a passage was cited from it, to the effect, that everybody might swear by his own superstition, as the Emperor was pleased to call it, and no question was to be asked as to what the man had sworn by. That was the law of the Roman empire. The Church was equally liberal; in the 154th Epistle of St. Augustine there were these words:— If you will not admit the oath of an idolater"—for that was the question referred to him—"there is no adequate method of making a covenant with him, or of binding him to keep his word, or of preserving the public peace. It is not forbidden by any law of God to employ for a good purpose the oath of that man whose fault consists in swearing by false gods, but who keeps the faith to which he is pledged. The only thing then, according to the testimony of St. Augustine, into which inquiry was to be made, was not as to what gods the man had sworn by, but whether he believed that the deity by whom he had sworn was an avenger of falsehood, lie had also looked into the laws of Alphonso, and found in an old copy, printed in 1491, dedicated to Ferdinand and Isabella—and no person could believe that they were favourable either to Jews or to Moors—he found, in "Law 20," the forms given of the mode of swearing both Moors and Jews; and the general principle adopted in these forms was, that in swearing a man they were to swear him by that which was binding on his conscience, and they were not so absurd as to swear him by that which he did not believe. Leaving, however, the laws of Alphonso, he would come to the state of the law on the subject in Franco. In June, 1755, a question of considerable importance was raised before the Parliament of Paris, which was, whether a man who was a Jew should be allowed to be sworn in a different manner than that prescribed by law—whether, in fact, he should be sworn according to his own mode. Considerable discussion took place on the question, and the prisoner, getting weary of it, put on his hat, took the Bible out of his pocket, held it in his left hand, placed his right hand upon it, and said, "Je le jure;" upon which the President decided that he had taken the oath in that form. A question also arose, under the Code Napoleon, which expressly enjoined the mode in which every man should be sworn, which was that he should hold up his arm and swear, using the words Je le jure. The question which arose was whether a Jew, notwithstanding the directions contained in the code, should be allowed to swear in his own accustomed form, and it was decided that he could. After the publication of the "Code," another Act was passed by the French Legislature, which provided that Jews, in the matter of oaths, should be placed upon the same footing as all other foreigners, and upon this law two questions arose, which came before the Court of Cassation. The first was, whether a Jew could, after he had been placed upon the same footing with all other foreigners, still be "allowed" to be sworn according to his old mode, and it was decided in the affirmative. The second question which arose was, whether, if after he had been placed upon the same footing, and had expressed his willingness to be sworn according to the established rule, he could be "forced" to take the oath according to the old form, and it was decided, that since he had declared he would stand upon the same footing, and as the general rule bound him, lie should be allowed to be sworn in the new form. What had been done in our country? He would refer to the great case of Omychund v. Barker, and would cite one passage from the argument of the Solicitor General of that day, who stated, with respect to alterations in the form of oaths— All occasions do not arise at once; now a particular species of Indians appears; hereafter another species of Indians may arise; a statute very seldom can take in all cases, therefore the common law, that works itself pure by rules drawn from the fountain of justice, is for this reason superior to an Art of Parliament. This was a matter of some consequence, as affecting the second branch of the question. The Lord Chief Baron also went at some length into the question, in giving his opinion he said— The law of England is not confined to particular cases, but is much more governed by reason than by any one case whatever. The true rule is laid down by Lord Vaughan, fol. 37, 38. 'Where the law,' saith he, 'is known and clear, though it be unequitable and inconvenient, the Judges must determine as the law is, without regarding the unequitableness or inconvenieney. Those defects, if they happen in the law, can only be remedied by Parliament; but where the law is doubtful, and not clear, the Judges ought to interpret the law to be, as is most consonant to equity, and least inconvenient. The step which Lord Chancellor Hardwicke took in this case was a very strong one. The commission, as the House was probably aware, had always run tactis sacro-sanctis Dei evangeliis, and "on the corporal oath," but these words were all ordered to be struck out of the commission. But his hon. and learned Friend had stated that this form of oath did not apply to oaths of office. He had, however, completely answered his own argument, for, in the course of his speech, he referred to the Declaratory Act of the 1st and 2nd Victoria, c. 105, and stated that being only a Declaratory Act, it could not alter any existing Act, but was merely declaratory of its meaning. He (Mr. Wood) fully admitted that to be the case with respect to the 1st and 2nd Victoria, c. 105. But what did that Act declare? It declared— That in all cases in which an oath may lawfully be and shall have been administered to any person, either as a juryman or a witness, or a deponent in any proceeding, civil or criminal, in any court of law or equity in the United Kingdom, or on appointment to any office or employment, or any occasion whatever, such person is bound by the oath administered, provided the same shall have been administered in such form and with such ceremonies as such persons may declare to be binding. There was, therefore, an end to the line of distinction drawn by the hon. and learned Member, as between judicial oaths and oaths of office, for this Act which was a declaratory one, declared it to be the law that persons taking the oath of office or of employment were bound by such oath as they might themselves declare to be binding. The remaining part of the hon. and learned Member's argument was founded upon this state of things; he said that the oath of supremacy set forth in 1st Elizabeth, c. 1, was, by the 5th Elizabeth, c. 1, directed to be taken by the Members of the House of Commons upon the Holy Evangelists; and by the 7th of James I., the oath was also directed to be taken by Members of Parliament in the same mode, and that, therefore, it was impossible for a Jew to take the oaths so presented. But the requirement that the oath should be taken upon the Holy Evangelists applied merely to the form, and stated nothing whatever about the substance of the oath. The necessity, however, for taking this oath did not stand upon that Act, but upon 30th Car. II., s. 2, which referred to the oaths of allegiance and of supremacy, which were directed to be taken before the High Steward upon the Holy Gospels, by the 5th Eliz., cap. 1. The 30th Car. II., s. 2, enacted that no Member of the House of Commons should be allowed to take his seat "until from time to time respectively, and in manner following"—nothing whatever was said about the Holy Gospels—"he shall first take the several oaths of allegiance and supremacy, and make, subscribe, and audibly repeat this declaration following," which was the form of the declaration against Transubstantiation. But what was "the manner following," in which the oaths were to be taken?— Which said oaths and declarations shall be in this and every succeeding Parliament solemnly and publicly made and subscribed, betwixt the hours of nine in the morning, and four in the afternoon, by every such Peer and Member of the House of Peers at the table in the middle of the said House before he takes his place in the said House of Peers, and whilst a full House of Peers is there, with their Speaker, in his place, and by every such Member of the House of Commons at the table in the middle of the House, and whilst a full House of Commons is there duly sitting, with their Speaker in his chair, and that the same be done in either House in such like order or method as each House is called over by respectively. His hon. and learned Friend said, that Members of Parliament still took their oaths upon the Act of Charles II. That was quite true, but they did not take them upon the statutes of either 5th Elizabeth or 7th of James I. For, although the 1st of William and Mary, sess. 1, cap. 1, might have left unrepealed the 5th Elizabeth, c. 1, and the 7th James I., c. 6; still, by the 1st of William and Mary, sec. 1, c. 8, an Act for abrogating the oaths of supremacy and allegiance, and appointing other oaths, it was enacted that from henceforth no person should be obliged to take the oaths prescribed by the 5th Elizabeth, c. 1, and the 3rd James I., c. 4, and that the said oaths themselves should be, and were, thereby repealed, utterly abrogated, and made void. The oaths which were required to be taken before the High Steward were those prescribed by the 5th Elizabeth, c. 1, and that was the only oath required to be taken before the High Stew- ard; and by the 1st of William and Mary, sess. 1, c. 8, that oath was altogether given up. The only remaining oath then in existence was that contained in the 1st of William and Mary, sess. 1, c. 1, which substituted different oaths, and directed them to be taken in the manner directed by the Act of 30th Charles II., s. 2. They had nothing whatever to do with the oaths directed to be taken before the High Steward and upon the Holy Gospels; for the Act of 30th Charles II. only required that the oaths should be solemnly and publicly taken. This brought him to the consideration of the second question which had been discussed, and upon this point he would only say, that having at present but one question upon which to deliberate, he believed that that second question had been most improperly introduced into the discussion, and he regretted that the noble Lord at the head of the Government should have thought it right to express his opinion upon that question at the present stage of the discussion. The hon. and learned Member for Buteshire had made use of an expression to which he (Mr. Wood) felt bound to refer, to the effect that Baron de Rothschild and those hon. Members who were in favour of his claim to be allowed to take his seat, were taking an unfair advantage of the House by the course they were pursuing, and let fall something about special pleading. In his (Mr. Wood's) opinion, this was purely a legal question, which was, whether a party was to forfeit some very important civil rights upon his own part, or whether the electors of the city of London were to be deprived of his services in the discharge of a very important trust which they had confided in him, upon a merely technical quibble of the driest description, and deprived of those advantages, too, by an Act which declared that if he failed to conform to it, he should be treated as a Popish recusant, and be liable to all the consequent pains and penalties which could not therefore by possibility apply to Jews. He believed that he was justified in saying that Baron de Rothschild would have recourse to every legal means to establish his position, and it was but right that there should be a distinct understanding upon that point. He had been advised by those competent to advise him, that it was expedient that this question should first be determined, whether or not he should be allowed to take the oath in such a form as should be binding upon his own conscience. That might lead hereafter to some further question as to the distribution of the oaths; but at present they had not that question before them. There was one point to which he would allude before concluding, which was material, with a view of clearing Baron de Rothschild's character from any aspersions which might be cast upon it. He had heard a rumour to the effect that it had occurred to the hon. Member to present himself at the table, and to ask for the Roman Catholic oath, in order to evade the necessity of taking the oath upon "the true faith of a Christian." This was a most unfounded charge; for he was able most positively to state that such an idea had never once crossed the hon. Member's mind as that of approaching the table as a Roman Catholic. No person could use the Roman Catholic oath without either, in word, or by the act of asking for that oath, professing himself to be of the Roman Catholic faith. From all that he knew of Baron de Rothschild he had every reason to believe that a more honourable man did not sit in that House. He could not say that some person might not have suggested such a course to him; but the moment such suggestion was made, it was rejected, as being unworthy to be entertained even for a moment. He could inform the House that Baron de Rothschild would throughout these proceedings take, as he had before stated, every advantage which the law gave him in his position, but he would probably think it his duty not to take any legal advantage without giving the House full notice of his intention. In conclusion, he was surprised that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon should have revived the old exploded error with reference to the Jew Bill 13th of George II., which was a Bill simply to enable foreign Jews to naturalise themselves. It was clearly settled that English-born Jews were not aliens, and Lord Mansfield, when he was Chief Justice of the Court of King's Bench, had settled the case for ever by buying a freehold house from a Jew. Under all the circumstances, he trusted that the House would agree with him to reject the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford, and to accept the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Montrose.


said, he did not mean to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman into the arguments and details he had just addressed to the House. He was anxious just to state in a few words the ground upon which he intended to vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose. He did not rest much upon the argument that the hon. Member for London must of necessity take the two oaths to which he did not object upon the Holy Evangelists; nor was he disposed to maintain, that in the case of oaths of this description the general principle of Lord Hardwicke's Act was not applicable. If he were to form an opinion at the present moment, he believed it would be in favour of the more liberal view of the question, that the party swearing—whether it were a promissory oath or a judicial oath—should be sworn in the form most binding on his conscience. But the principle on which he should vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Montrose was, that according to all the practice of Parliament, according to all the information which they bad from the Journals of the House as to their mode of proceeding in taking oaths, it appeared that the oaths were taken jointly, and were contemplated jointly, and not considered one at a time. But even if they were permitted to put the oaths separately, it seemed to him that it would be manifestly absurd in this case to do so, because they had had the hon. Member at the table, and had asked him what he meant by requesting to be sworn on the Old instead of the New Testament, and he had told them that it was because he considered that the mode which would be most binding on his conscience. Well, what was the necessary inference from that? That he was not of the Christian persuasion. It was true that the hon. Member had not stated that he was a Jew; but if he refused to be sworn on the Gospels, he thought the necessary inference must be that he was not of the Christian persuasion. He repeated, then, that it was manifest trifling—the hon. and learned Member for Oxford was mistaken in supposing that he had used the words "unfair advantage;" but he repeated that the course which the friends of the hon. Member were now pursuing was trifling with the question, because he did feel that it was trifling with the question to ask the hon. Member to take two oaths with all the solemnity of kissing the Old Testament, when they knew that at the next step, upon the occurrence of the words "upon the true faith of a Christian," they must turn upon him and shut the door against his admission. These were the grounds upon which he should vote against the Motion.

Question put, and negatived; Words added; Main Question, as amended, put.

The House divided:—Ayes 113; Noes 59: Majority 54.

List of the AYES.
Adair, R. A. S. Langston, J. H.
Aglionby, H. A. Lennard, T. B.
Alcock, T. Locke, J.
Anderson, A. Lushington, C.
Anstey, T. C. M'Cullagh, W. T.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Martin, J.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F. T. Matheson, A.
Barnard, E. G. Maule, rt. hon. F.
Bellew, R. M. Melgund, Visct.
Berkeley, Adm. Mines, R. M.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Moffatt, G.
Bernal, R. Morison, Sir W.
Birch, Sir T. B. Morris, D.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Bright, J. Norreys, Lord
Brotherton, J. O'Brien, Sir L.
Caulfeild, J. M. O'Connor, F.
Clay, J. Ogle, S. C. H.
Clements, hon. C. S. Osborne, R.
Cobden, R. Paget, Lord G.
Collins, W. Palmerston, Visct.
Craig, Sir W. G. Parker, J.
D'Eyncourt. rt. hn. C. T. Pearson, C.
Disraeli, B. Pechell, Sir G. B.
Dundas, Adm. Pelham, hon. D. A.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D. Pinney, W.
Dunne, Col. Reynolds, J.
Ebrington, Visct. Rich, H.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Roebuck, J. A.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Romilly, Col.
Forster, M. Romilly, Sir J.
Fortescue, hon. J. W. Russell, Lord J.
Fox, W. J. Salwey, Col.
Freestun, Col. Scully, F.
Grace, O. D. J. Shelburne, Earl of
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Sidney, Ald.
Greene, J. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Grenfell, C. P. Stanley, hon. W. O.
Grenfell, C. W. Stuart, Lord J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Tancred, H. W.
Grey, R. W. Tenison, E. K.
Hall, Sir B. Thompson, Col.
Harris, R. Thornely, T.
Hatchell, J. Tollemache, hon. F. J.
Hayter, rt. hon. W. G. Trelawny, J. S.
Headlam, T. E. Tufnell, rt. hon. H.
Herbert, H. A. Vane, Lord H.
Herbert, rt. hon. S. Wakley, T.
Heywood, J. Wall, C. B.
Heyworth, L. Wawn, J. T.
Hill, Lord M. Westhead, J. P. B.
Hobhouse, T. B. Wilson, J.
Hume, J. Wilson, M.
Hutt, W. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Jocelyn, Visct. Wyvill, M.
Keating, R. TELLERS.
Kershaw, J. Wood, W. P.
King, hon. P. J. L. Smith, J. A.
List of the NOES.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Bagot, hon. W.
Ashley, Lord Baldock, E. H.
Barrington, Visct. Legh, G. C.
Blackall, S. W. Lewisham, Visct.
Bowles, Adm. Lockhart, A. E.
Broadley, H. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Brooke, Sir A. B. Meux, Sir H.
Burghley, Lord Neeld, J.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Neeld, J.
Carew, W. H. P. Newdegate, C. N.
Cochrane, A. D. R. W. B. Pennant, hon. Col.
Corry, rt. hon. H. L. Plowden, W. H. C.
Cotton, hon. W. H. S. Plumptre, J. P.
Davies, D. A. S. Pugh, D.
Dodd, G. Richards, R.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Simeon, J.
Egerton, W. T. Stafford, A
Floyer, J. Stanley, hon. E. H.
Gordon, Adm. Tollemache, J.
Halsey, T. P. Trevor, hon. G. R.
Hamilton, G. A. Trollope, Sir J.
Hamilton, Lord C. Turner, G. J.
Henley, J. W. Tyrell, Sir J. T.
Herries, rt. hon. J. C. Vivian, J. E.
Hervey, Lord A. Vyse, R. H. R. H.
Hildyard, T. B. T. Walpole, S. H.
Hotham, Lord Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Jermyn, Earl Yorke, hon. E. T.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. TELLERS.
Jones, Capt. Spooner, R.
Lacy, H. C. Beresford, W.

"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 the most binding on his conscience), the Clerk be directed to swear him in on the Old Testament accordingly."