perfectly absurd. The hon member for Clare could not be heard at the bar, or at the table, without an application. The motion before the House was a preliminary step, and the sooner it was decided the better. He confessed he saw no difficulty in the case, whether the hon. member was heard or not at the table. If not allowed to be heard at the table by a decision this evening, he might still be time enough to make an application to be heard at the bar; and the next step would be, to fix the day when he should be so heard. This was the most direct and consistent mode of proceeding. It was a question on which they ought to be prepared to come to an immediate decision. And if, as the Speaker had said, no precedents could be found--though he understood from his learned friend that there were some-that circumstance must render delay still less necessary. But, whether the precedents were more or less, or none at all, some opportunity ought to be given for explanation to the person refusing to take the oaths. In the three cases which had been quoted, the reasons given by the parties were very short; and, for any thing he knew, the reasons of the hon. member for Clare might be equally

authorities differ in opinion on this subject, was, he thought, an additional reason, and a strong one, for adjourning the discussion. After the Speaker bad stated his opinion that he was not aware of any precedent where a member refusing to take the oaths was heard at the table, without the previous decision of the House, it was certainly better, that a short pause should be allowed.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald said, that no one objected to the postponement of the decision on the legal question. All concurred in the propriety of taking that course; but that was no reason why they should not, in the first instance, hear the objections which the hon. member for Clare had to state against taking the oaths. Let the House look at the predicament in which it was placed. A gentleman legally elected came to the table, and he was there debarred, by the interposition of the Speaker, from being heard at the table. He was thus so far suspended in the exercise of a right. But what followed? A motion was made that he should be heard, and it was next proposed that that motion should be postponed. Now, if the hou. member were allowed to state his reasons for refusing the oaths, that would form à good ground for adjourning, in order that they might consider those reasons. In fact, their proceedings would be greatly facilitated, by permitting the hon. member

But, after a member had been reported, as regularly elected-after he had taken the oaths up stairs, the House in its wisdom, said "We know not what to say or do," They ought, instead of put-to put the House in possession of the ting off the discussion, to decide at once to hear the hon. member at the table; and if they decided differently, why then he might make his application to be heard at the bar. If they proceeded differently, the hon. member for Clare, who had tendered himself to be sworn, would perhaps be obliged to make his appearance again on another day, and be then placed in the same situation. He thought the House was able, at the present moment, to decide on what ought to be done.

Mr. Secretary Peel was of opinion, that no blame ought to attach to any one who wished for delay. On matters of much less importance, regular notice was given of the question to be discussed, and he could not help thinking that, on a motion affecting the privileges of the House it was not unreasonable to ask for two days' delay to enable them to decide whether an individual refusing to take the oaths was entitled to be heard at the table, at the bar, or at all. Now, hearing great

reasons which prevented him from taking the oaths. Whether that statement was made at the table, or at the bar, be thought of no consequence. In pursuing this course they were injuring not only the hon. member, but his constituents; who had withheld from them the right of representation.

Mr. Peel said, the question was how this gentleman should be heard. Until that was decided, how could they get his statement? Until they knew whether he should be heard at the table or at the bar, they could not come at his reasons for refusing the oaths.

Sir F. Burdett said, the important question was, whether the member for Clare should be heard at the bar or at the table of the House.

Lord Milton said, that whatever doubt might exist as to the mode of proceeding to be adopted there did not seem to be any as to the proceeding itself. He was glad to see that, whether the honourable

went to abridge the freedom of individuals to act in their own concerns as they pleased. Nothing could be more unfounded. No man could be more attached to perfect freedom of action in every concern of life than he was. It was one thing to allow men to do as they pleased in their own affairs, but when they came for privileges not given to others, the House was bound not to grant them, except on such conditions as might not prove injurious to others. Mr. Portman regretted that it should have fallen to his lot to have brought forward this measure instead of his right hon. friend, who, he was satisfied, was actuated by no other desire but that of benefitting the members of friendly societies. The prejudice against the bill introduced last session, however, was so strong that it was greatly to be feared that any measure of this nature associated with the right hon. gentleman's name would be met by opposition.

The clause was agreed to and the House resumed.

LABOURERS WAGES BILL.] On thẻ motion of Mr. Slaney, that the bill be re-committed, or genout res il Mr. Wodehouse begged the hon. member to withdraw his bill, which was perfectly inapplicable to the present circumstances of the country. He was aware there was no intention to carry the bill to the Lords during the present session ; if so, there was little use in carrying it any further in that House. He recognized the extent of the evil resulting from the practice of mixing up the wages of labour with the poor-rates; but the hon. gentleman should recollect the state of things which had given rise to that practice; and, considering this, he' was satisfied the proposed measure would not remedy the evil.

Lord Althorp thought, his hon. friend did well to press the bill forward. It was desirable that an opportunity should be afforded for examining its provisions in the committee. Whatever objections were entertained to the measure could be then brought forward, and, if well-founded, might be obviated. He was aware of the difficulty of bringing the bill into practicaloperation; but what improvement was it possible to devise in the state of the poorlaws in which difficulties would not be found? The bill, he was satisfied, would

Mr. Courtenay proposed an amendment to the second clause, to the effect that no rules for friendly or benefit societies should be allowed by magistrates in quarter session, unless the tables were founded on calculations which might be adopted with safety to all parties. He had seen much distress and misery brought on individuals who had subscribed to friendly societies; but who found, when too late, that they had been calculated on data which could not go on with advantage to the sub-confer a great benefit on the country. The scribers.

Mr. Portman said, that the duty which his right hon. friend would wish to impose on the magistrates was exactly that from which he would wish to relieve them. He thought they ought not to be called upon to give their sanction to any tables; because none had yet been made applicable to such societies, on which reliance could be placed. The sanction of the magistrates could not make the tables a fraction more accurate, or the society more secure. The two clauses which he had introduced would, he thought, be quite sufficient. One was, that every society should present annually an account of the state of its funds to the members, who would thus have an opportunity of judging of the situation in which they stood. The next was, that quinquennially there should be presented from each society an account of the mortality and sickness amongst its members. By this means we should in time arrive at the rate of mortality among the working classes.

only persons who could oppose it were those who approved of paying the wages of labour out of the poor-rates. To prevent that was the object of this bill; and upon this ground he supported it

Sir G. Philips approved of the principle of the bill, but thought that great difficulties would be met with in an attempt to carry its provisions into effect in the manafacturing districts. He did not deny that labourers were paid out of the poor-rates in them, as well as in the agricultural; but the distinction was, that in the agricultural the poor-rates were made a means of reducing the wages of the labourer, while in the manufacturing districts the labourers were only paid out of the rates, when their wages were considered to be insufficient for their support. He apprehended, indeed, that the difficulties which arose in making any sudden reduction in the number of manufacturers in any establishment created such a difference between them and the agriculturists, as would materially impede

measure.

Mr. Cripps, although he foresaw some objections to the bill, conceived they were capable of being obviated in the committee. It was a thousand pities that things had gone on, with respect to the poor-laws, so long in the beaten track; and he hoped the hon. member would not be persuaded to withdraw his bill.

the executions of the hon. gentleman's | All that the bill did, was to compel a man, if he employed labourers, to pay them. By the abuse of the poor-laws, many labourers, in some parts of the country, were compelled to labour for much less than the fair reward of their exertions. He denied that the bill interfered with the principle of the poor-laws; it only corrected the abuse of those laws. The principal object was, to prevent the practice which prevailed of paying the labourers' wages out of the poor-rates. The scales of payment which, in some districts, the magistrates had framed, were most pernicious. If such a practice increased the price of labour, or tended to multiply the comforts of the labourer, he should be far from objecting to it; but it had not that effect. Hon. members talked of raising the moral character of the population; but that was not to be effected by giving the single man 4s. or 5s. a week for doing the same work for which the married man got 10s. The system at present acted on was a bounty to the single men to get married as soon as possible and have half a dozen children. The best way to improve the morals of the people was, to show them that their rewards depended on their own exertions. He hoped the hon. member would persevere and carry the bill through the House.

Mr. Benett said, that they ought to take care not to make the law worse than it was, instead of better. He denied the averment of the bill, that the wages of the labourer were paid out of the poor-rates. The payments made to the labourers out of the poor-rates were made on account of their children. The object which the bill had in view was, in his opinion, impracticable. But, if the price of labour could be raised by withdrawing labourers from the market, the vacuum would soon be filled up by those whom it would be impracticable to get rid of; and greater distress than at present existed would be occasioned. The bill would be injurious to the agriculturist, but it would be still more so to the manufacturer. Many thousands were now working for the manufacturerer at 4s. a week; for it could not be expected, that he would give more than the labour was worth to him. Even the provisions of the bill, as to who should have relief, were ill-digested; for it might be harder for a poor man at one time to maintain two children than at another to maintain three. The whole of the bill seemed to him to be a departure from the principle which hitherto had regulated our poor-laws, and he therefore felt himself called up to resist it, or any other attempt to legislate on a subject of such importance with so little caution and deliberation.

Mr. F. Palmer was persuaded the effect of the bill would be, to throw very shortly the whole of the married labourers out of employment, unless a compulsory clause were added to it, requiring farmers and others to take into their employment a certain number of married labourers at a rate of wages far higher than unmarried labourers received.

Colonel Wood denied that his hon. friend had shewn any hurry in the introduction of the present measure. It was the produce of the committee, who had sat during the greater part of last session, and had come to the conclusion that this was the best remedy for many of the evils which existed under the present system of poor-laws.

The House went into the committee. On the first clause the committee divided: Ayes 39; Noes 11. The other clauses were agreed to.

ANATOMY REGULATION BILL.] On the motion for going into a committee on this bill,

Sir R. Inglis moved, that it be an instruction to the committee, that it be empowered to repeal so much of the act 9 Geo. 4th, c. 31, as empowers judges to order the bodies of murderers to be given over for dissection.

Mr. Warburton said, that as he had reason to believe that the fate of this bill, depended upon its containing no such provision, he should oppose the motion.

Lord F. Osborne said, he should decidedly oppose this measure, which gave over the bodies of the poor and friendless to the surgeon.

Mr. Hume said, that the clauses of the bill were permissive only, and not compulsory, and that the measure would be beneficial to the poor, as well as to the rest of the community.

Mr. Protheroc said, he had gone into

the committee on this bill as much prejudiced against it as any man could be, but that the evidence had completely removed his prejudices.

After a short conversation, the House divided for the Instruction 8, against it 40. The bill was then committed.

ཋ་

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Monday, May 18.

MR. O'CONNELL-CLARE ELECTION.] Mr. Sugden wished to ask the hon. gentleman opposite what oaths Mr. O'Connell had already taken.

Mr. Hume said, that perhaps the learned member might derive the information he required by obtaining the certificate from the clerk.

Mr. Sugden said, the certificate would afford him no such information. It only stated, that Daniel O'Connell had taken "the oaths;" though Mr. O'Connell had taken but one oath.

Mr. Hume could only say in answer, that the hon. member had taken two oaths. The order of the day being then read, for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion, "that Mr. O'Connell be called back, and heard at the table,"

mer Oath of Supremacy. The hon. mem ber objected to take the former Oath of Supremacy, and preferred a claim to sit on taking the oath prescribed by the act passed in the present session for the relief of his majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. The question immediately for the consi deration of the House was this--whether or not the member for Clare should be heard at all on the subject; and if he should be heard, whether he should be heard at the table or at the bar of the House. With these questions he would in no manner mix up any other question. He would avoid expressing the slightest opinion on the legal point, whether the member for Clare had a right to sit without taking the former Oath of Supremacy. He would postpone his opinion on that point, until such time as it should be discussed; and he would now address himself entirely to these three questions,--whether the member for Clare should be heard at all, and if heard, whether he should be heard at the table, or at the bar of the House. Having given this subject the fullest consideration, during the interval which had elapsed since the debate was adjourned, he had come to the conclusion that, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, it would be fitting to hear the member for Clare. He thought so because the case was a special case, which could not possibly be drawn into precedent. It was a claim founded on a question as to the construction of acts of parliament. Whatever the ultimate decision of the House might be on that claim, that decision would be more satisfactory, if the House permitted the object of it to state his case in the manner which he should afterwards point out. He was aware that the question was a special and individual Mr. Secretary Peel said, he thought it one, which therefore, perhaps, might be might tend to save the time of the House, exempted from the ordinary regulations; if he were at once to state the view which but he conceived that it was a question he took of the subject under considera- not only of admission to privilege, but of tion. This debate was adjourned upon liability to penalty; because, the question the day that an hon. member of this House would arise as to what oath was proper to came down to take his seat, on having ad- be taken, and if the member for Clare ministered to him the Oaths of Allegiance should take the wrong oath, he would be and Abjuration. The right hon. the Speak- subject to a penalty in a court of law. er, most properly, in the execution of his But as there were special and peculiar eirduty, which compelled him to enforce the cumstances in the present case, he was observance of the laws and usages of par-desirous, particularly as it could not be liament, according to his construction of drawn into precedent, of giving the indithem, hesitated to admit the hon. member vidual so circumstanced every fair advanon taking the Oaths of Allegiance and Ab- tage, consistent with the usual practice of juration, and required him to take the for-the House. As to the question, whether

Mr. Sugden said, he wished to have the question he had put answered. He might be mistaken; but he did think that it was one that required a specific answer. In his opinion it was material for the House to know what oaths Mr. O'Connell had taken.

Mr. Wynn said, there was but one way of enforcing a question, and that was by motion; but no member could compel another member to answer a question which he wished to decline replying to.