OATH OF ABJURATION AMENDMENT BILL. (Hansard, 30 June 1856)

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
My Lords, before the Orders of the Day are taken I wish to say a few words on the subject of a Bill which I introduced a short time ago, and which stands for the third reading on Thursday next. That Bill was for the amendment of the oath of abjuration; or, as my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) would like better, a Bill to amend the oath "commonly called" the abjuration oath. That Bill was introduced to effect an object which all your Lordships desire—namely, the abrogation of certain portions of that oath which, having become obsolete, are useless, and, being useless, are indefensible. My Lords, I was in hopes that the Bill, having that object, would have been discussed without any allusion to another subject with which it had been on former occasions connected, and I framed the Bill so as to avoid any reference to that other subject; and I hoped that in this and the other House of Parliament the proposed measure would have been received in a spirit of conciliation; but the character of the comments which have been made on the Bill in its progress through this House, and of which, I think, I have some cause to complain, and the misconstruction of its objects by so high and so respected an authority as my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), deprives me of the hope that it would be received in the other House in the spirit in which it was intended. For peace and conciliation I introduced a measure, as it appeared to me, of the most unobjectionable kind; but I have been met in a spirit of defiance and hostility. I have been charged with having promoted that which would bring about discussions on a subject likely to produce considerable irritation; whereas my sole object in introducing the Bill was to avoid—sedulously to avoid—that. But in the present state of the public mind—since there is no hope that the Bill will be passed into law in the spirit in which it is intended—I will not, so far as I am con- 5 cerned, be answerable for reintroducing an irritating topic, upon which the two Houses are at variance. Looking, then, at the probability of the Bill leading to inconvenient discussion, and having regard to the period of the Session at which we are arrived, I will ask your Lordships' permission for the discharge of the Order for the third reading; but, in doing so, I must at the same time be permitted to say that it remains my firm conviction that a Bill such as that which I have introduced is the only mode of effecting the abrogation of those unnecessary oaths. If, for the future, those oaths which are unnecessary, and therefore objectionable, and of which every one is desirous of getting rid, be retained, I trust that I shall not be held responsible for their retention. I did my best to get rid of them; and the responsibility of their retention must rest with those who will not agree to their abolition, unless attached to that abolition are other provisions referring to another entirely distinct subject which this House has repeatedly expressed its determination conscientiously to refuse.

§ LORD LYNDHURST
I will not now enter upon a discussion of the question; but the noble Earl complains of the course which I pursued on a former occasion with respect to this Bill. Now, I have much more reason to complain of the noble Earl's conduct, because, on that occasion, in terms not of the usual courtesy, he charged me with, not misapprehending the Bill, but misrepresenting the objects of the Bill. However, the comments which I then addressed to your Lordships were perfectly legitimate, and quite consistent with the character of the proceedings in your Lordships' House.

LORD CAMPBELL
I should be glad to have this oath abolished, as it is my painful duty often to listen to the profanation which the taking it involves; but the noble Earl opposite has done well to withdraw his Bill, as no good can possibly arise either to the cause which I have at heart—the abolition of the oath—or to that which is the noble and learned Lord's object—the removal of disabilities in the way of the Jews. In all probability, the Bill would have been returned to this House in such a state as to make it identical with the Bill your Lordships have rejected. I do not wish to see any such conflict between the two Houses, because I hope to see the time when, with the 6 assent of both, justice may be done. Nor do I wish that the House of Commons should take upon themselves by Resolution to alter the law of the land; but that the Jews may be admitted to Parliament by the only way in which they can be admitted—by the consent of both Houses.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
I very much regretted the other night that this Bill was not discussed in a plain and straightforward manner—on the plain meaning of its words; but an example was set by my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst)—an example likely to be followed—to depart from the plain sense of the Bill, and to attribute motives to my noble Friend beside me (the Earl of Derby) for bringing in that Bill—motives by which my noble Friend denies having been actuated. If, my Lords, I regretted that circumstance the other night, I regret it still more now—

§ LORD LYNDHURST
I beg to correct my noble Friend. He is quite under a mistake. I stated that I conceived the noble Earl to be under a mistake as to what would be the real effect of the Bill; but I did not impute motives to the noble Earl.

§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURY
Well, I think the House must have understood my noble and learned Friend to argue as much against this Bill as one which he believed would operate against the admission of Jews into Parliament, as he did against the plain sense of the words of the Bill itself. I certainly understood him to argue against it more on the former ground; and I regret very much that my noble and learned Friend should have departed from the plain sense of the words of the proposed measure. I am sorry, that instead of arguing on the merits of the Bill before the House, he did not refrain from entering on the discussion of a subject which the House had considered and decided upon a few evenings before. My Lords, I regret still more that the noble and learned Lord should have repeated that censure and that argument immediately after my noble Friend had withdrawn his Bill, and thereby shown the respect he had for your Lordships, and also shown what his motive was in opposing the Bill. Again, I repeat my regret that such an example of departure from the plain dealing which characterises and should ever characterise your Lordships' House should have been set by such a distinguished Member as my noble 7 and learned Friend. But I shall only repeat the maxim in Horace. Decipit exemplar vitiis imitabile."

§ LORD LYNDHURST
What I complained of was, that although the words of abjuration were omitted, the whole sting remained, because "the true faith of a Christian," would still have formed part of the oath. The sending such a Bill down to the other House, after they had sent a Bill here in which those words were carefully excluded, would not have been very acceptable to them.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE
I am sure the common sense of Parliament and of the country will not permit the maintenance of this absurd and irreverent oath. It ought not to be remodelled; it ought to be abolished. If you will have an oath at all, have an oath of allegiance and fidelity in plain simple terms, which every good subject can take, whatever may be his religion: and if you choose to exclude Jews and infidels, make the oath in such terms as every denomination of Christians can take it. You ought not to continue this absurd oath, because incidentally it has the effect of excluding the Jews.