Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

EVOLUTION
OF OATH
Parliamentary Act
Of Allegiance
HISTORIC COMEDIES
By F.S. WALLIS, A Former Chief
Secretary
The Parliamentary Oath of
Allegiance, which the President of
the Five State (Mr. De Valera)
is seeking to delete from the vows
of members of Hie Free State
Parliament, now is a very short, simple
expression of loyalty to the Sovereign,
but in days gone by it was a very cum
bersome formula indeed.
In 1559, in the first Parliament tn
the reign of Queen Elizabeth, an Act
was passed entitled "An Act Restor
ing to the Crown the ancient juris ?
diction over the State, ecclesiastical
and spiritual, and abolishing all
foreign pawer over the same." The
taking of the following oath was made
obligatory on all ecclesiastics of every
degree, the clergy, and all persons in
the pay of the Crown:—
"I do utterly testily and declare in
my conscience that the Queen's
Highness is the only supreme gover
nor of this realm and of all other
Her Highness's dominions and coun
tries, as well in all spiritual and
ecclesiastical things or causes as
temporal; and that no foreign prince,
person, prelare. State, or potentate
hath, or ought to have, any juris
diction, power, superiority, pre-emi
nence, or authority, ecclesiastical or
spiritual, within this realm; and
therefore I do utterly renounce or
forsake all foreign jurisdictions.
Powers, superiorities and authorities
and do promise that from henceforth
I shall bear faith and true allegiance
to the Queen's Highness, her heirs
and lawful successors and to my
power shall assist and defend all
jurisdictions. pre-eminences and
authorities granted or belonging to
the Queen's Highness, her heirs and
successors, or united or annexed to
the Imperial Crown of this Realm.
So help me God and the contents
of this book."
Lords Exempted
Four yeare later "An Act for the
assurance of the Queen's Majesty*
Boyal power over all estates and sub
jects within her Majesty's Dominions"
provided that every person elected a
member of Parliament "shall from
henceforth before be shall enter into
the Parliamentary House or have any
voice there, openly receive and pro
nounce the said. oath, before the liord.
Steward for the time being, or his de
puty, for the term to be appointed."
There was a proviso, however setting
out that the temporal lords above the
degree of a baron need not take the
oath.
In 1605 the "Gunpowder plot," as it
is usually called, was discovered, and
this led uO another Act being passed in
the following year, "for the better dis
covering and repression of Popish re
cusants."
This provided a new oath consisting
of a lengthy and vigorously worded
declaration of loyalty to King James
1., and of abjuration of the spiritual
and temporal power of the Pope, which
took the place of the former oath go
far as members of Parliament were
concerned, in 1610.
It contained this significant sen
tence:—"And I do further swear that I
do from my heart abhor, detest, and
abjure as impious and heretical thts
damnable doctrine and position tha;
princes which are excommunicated or
deprived by the Pope may be deposed
or murdered by their subjects or any
other whatsoever;" and it wound up
with the words, "upon tlie true faith
of a Christian. So help me God."
Shorter And Simpler Oaths
In 1689. at the beginning of the reign
of William and Mary, shorter and
simpler oaths of allegiance and
supremacy were drawn uj>. retainine.
however, the declaration against the
invocation of saints.
Twelve Tears later the ex-King James
n. died, and his son. James Frederick
William, was declared by adherents of
the Smart cause King of England de
Jure, and was recognised as such by
liouis XIV. of France. This called for
another Act dealing with the Parlia
mentary oath, which had again be^me
rather lengthy, to meet the case.
Necessary verbal alterations repre
sent the change in the form of the
oath until we come to the year of
Catholic emancipation, 1329. Since
tlie union of England and Ireland in
1800, Emancipation Bills had been
passed time and again by the House
of Commons, only to be thrown out
by the Lords. A crisis was brought
about, however, in July, 1828, by the
election of Daniel O'Connell, the
leader of the movement for Roman
Catholic emancipation, for County
Clare. Accordingly, on March 5, 1829.
the Catholic Belief Bill was introduced
Although elected in 1828. O'ConneU
refrained from attempting to take his
seat until the Act became law. The
new oath was. however, restricted to
members elected after the passing of
the Act. Notwithstanding this, O'Con
neU determined to ? present him
self at the table of the
House and demand that the
new oath be administered to him
When he appeared at the Bar, tha
Speaker ruled that he must either
take the old oath or withdraw which
ruling tie reluctantly obeyed on the
insistence of the Sneaker. A new writ
was issued for Clare, and as a mat
ter of course, O'Connell was aeain re
turned, and took, his seat in 1830.
Jew's Dilemma
The New Testament being part of
the Christian Bible, and the oath £tm
containing tiie words, "on the faith of
a Christian," it was plainly out of
the question for a Jew elected to Par
liament to allow himself to use these
words. Therefore, when, in 1847,
Baron Lionel Nathan de Rothschild
was elected a representative of tiie
City of London, something had to be
done to make the form of the oath
suit the case. Accordingly, the Pre
mier (Lord John Russell> introduced
a Bill to get over the difficulty.
Though opposed by Tory members, it
was got through the Commons and
sent to the House of Lords, where it
was promptly thrown out. For three
years the Baron contented himself
with eitting below the bar of the
House of Commons. Though given the
opportunity, again and again, the Lords
remained adamant in their cTinositiop
The Baron, however, presented himself
at the table for the purpose of
taking the oaths, asking permission to
be sworn on the Old Testament with
his head covered, according to the
Jewish rite. This was eventually al
lowed, but, as was natural, he omitted
the words "on the faith of a Christian."
Tlie House would not stand this, in
sisting that it should be a case of all
or nothing. He had consequently to
return to his seat below the bar
In 1858—11 years after the Baron'e
first election—Lord Derby, as Premier,
was instrumental in getting a com
promise agreed to between the two
Houses of the Legislature. An
Act permitted either House by reso
lution to allow a duly elected member
who was of the Jewish persuasion to
omit when taking the oath the words
"on the faith of a Christian"
Acme Of Brevity
In 1868 the Promissory Oaths Act,
which abolished some 600 oaths that
hitherto had to be taken by various
officials outside Parliament, was
passed, and the acme or brevity was
reached in the form of the Parliamen
tary oath, which was finally reduced
to the following words:—
'"I do swear that I will be faithful and
bear due allegiance to Her Majesty
Queen Victoria, her h&irs and suc
cessors, according to law. So help
me God."
Some of us are old enough to re
member the case of Charles Brad
laugh, elected to represent Northamp
ton in 1880. As an avowed atheist, his
conscience would not allow him to con
duce his vow of allegiance with the
words "So help me God." Accordingly,
when he presented himself at the table
he claimed the right to make the affir
mation atheists were permitted to
make in courts of law under the Evi
dence Amendment Act. This was
disallowed year after year until the
assembly of the new Parliament in
1886, when he was permitted to take
the oath and his seat in Parliament,
the new Speaker (Viscount Peei)
firmly refusing to allow any protest or
question to be interposed.
$