they did in substance what the member for Clare did-they stated their objections to take the oaths, and they were then or dered to withdraw; but they did not address any argument upon the subject while in the House, and they were not compe tent to do so, because they were incapable of being present, until they had qualified according to law. The case of Mr. Archdale was very nearly the same. He acquainted the Speaker, that he had con

under the impression that his declaration of fidelity would be tantamount to taking an oath. When he came into the House, the oaths were tendered to him, which he declined taking, and he was ordered to withdraw. Then came the case of Mr. Wilkes, which a right hon. member thought established the right of the member for Clare to be heard at the table.

Mr. Wynn explained. He had stated, that the case of Mr. Wilkes established Mr. O'Connell's right to be heard at the bar.

the member for Clare should be heard at the table or at the bar of the House, he had no hesitation in saying, that it would not be fitting to permit him to be heard at the table. He thought there was nothing in the precedents quoted which fortified the hon. member's claim argumentatively to discuss at the table his right to sit in that House. The only precedents bearing on the present case were limited to those of lord Fanshaw and sir H. Monson. Lord Fanshaw and sir H. Monson were mem-sented to serve as a member of parliament bers of the convention, which was subsequently declared to be a parliament. In addition to these, there were the cases of Mr. Archdale and Mr. Wilkes, who was brought up in custody to the bar. The cases of lord Fanshaw and sir H. Monson were very peculiar. They were members of the convention parliament and had sat in the House, without taking any oaths at all, either at the office of the lord steward, or at the table of the House. In point of fact, it was impossible that they could have taken any oaths; for the only Oath of allegiance which then existed was that Mr. Peel. The course pursued on that prescribed by king James, and it was ma- occasion clearly proved that a member nifestly inconsistent that the members of who had not qualified must be heard at the convention should take an oath pre- the bar. Mr. Wilkes was brought up in scribed by king James. They continued the custody of the Marshal of the King's to sit as members of the convention, and Bench, and before any thing passed, he were parties to the act by which the con- desired to put this question to the Speaker, vention was declared to be a parliament, whether or not, as he had not taken the without taking any oaths, and were found oaths, and had not presented his qualifica in that condition, when an act passed ab- tion at the table, he did not subject himrogating the old oaths and prescribing self to the penalties inflicted by the stanew ones. It was by that statute enacted, tutes of Charles 2nd, if he addressed any that after the 1st of March 1689, every observations to the House. He was then member should take the Oaths of Supre-ordered to withdraw. The subject was remacy and Allegiance, as altered by the par-ferred to the House, and the opinion which liament, in lieu of the former ones. Four the House delivered was, that though he hundred members qualified on the first day, and on the 2nd of March there was a call of the House, and many members who had not been present on the first day, were called upon to attend, and required to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, as prescribed by the 1st of William and Mary. Those oaths were tendered to the two members by the Speaker, and upon declining to take them, they were ordered to withdraw. The case of Mr. O'Connell was, he apprehended, in substance the same. The Speaker having tendered to him the Oath of Supremacy, he declined to take it, and was then ordered to withdraw. Whatever peculiarity attended the cases of lord Fanshaw and sir H. Monson, as members of the convention parliament,

had not taken the oaths, and had not presented his qualification, yet there was nothing in the act which prevented him from appearing at the bar. But, independently of these precedents, the question might be tried by the dictates of common sense. Assuming that the Oath of Supremacy was in force according to the interpretation which had been placed on it by the organ of the opinion of that House, whose duty it was, subject to the control of the House, to interpret the law, and to act upon that interpretation; assuming that it was quite inconsistent with law to permit the member for Clare to be present at discussions of the House, and to deliver argu ments without taking the Oath of Supremacy,-what would be the consequence of

י

The presumption was, that the member had complied with the law, which directed that certain oaths should be taken before the Lord Steward, and he subjected himself to a high penalty if, having neglected to do so, he took his seat. The power to administer the oaths was given to the Lord Steward for the satisfaction of the Crown, which was not content by their being administered by the officers of that House; and the Crown required that the members of the House should give such security with respect to their allegiance to the Crown as parliament should require. The practice of requiring the certificate had not been steadily adhered to. He had himself taken his seat in the House, after qualifying in the Lord Steward's office, without his certificate being demanded. Ile therefore thought that the course adopted by the Speaker was exactly in consonance with the usages of the House. He should propose by way of amendment, in order to bring the question to an issue, to leave out from the word " O'Con

to add the words, "the member for Clare, be heard at the bar, by himself, his counsel, or agents, in respect of his claim to sit and vote in parliament, without taking the Oath of Supremacy," instead thereof.

remaining in the House, having omitted to take that oath? The law subjected individuals who sat, or voted, or entered into the House, not having taken the Oath of Supremacy, to heavy penalties; and therefore, even if there were considerable doubt on the subject, the House ought not to lend its sanction to the possible infraction of the law. The object of the House was to hear what could be urged by the individual in question in support of his claim. That purpose would be answered by hearing him at the bar. By hearing him at the bar he would be exempt from all, penalties which possibly might attach to him if heard at the table; and therefore, in reference to his own security, it was better that he should he heard at the bar than at the table. These were the reasons which had brought him to the two following conclusions; namely, that under the special circumstances of the case, as it was incapable of being drawn into precedent, being an individual question, and as it rested on the construction of acts of parliament, it was right to give to the mem-nell" to the end of the question, in order ber whose case, was involved in this consideration the privilege of stating it, by himself, counsel, or agents. He had also stated the grounds why he thought the member for Clare ought to be heard at the bar of the House, in preference to being heard at the table. He knew that these matters were considered by some persons, but, he believed by no member of that House, of trifling importance. Great public interest, he was convinced, was concerned in maintaining the privileges of that House, and in doing an act of substantial justice we should take care to see that it was done according to forms, which superficial minds only, held up to ridicule. An hon. friend appeared to be under the impression, that the House ought to admit the member for Clare into the House. In reference to his having been permitted to advance to the table in the first instance, without being called upon to produce a certificate of his having taken the oaths before the Lord Steward, Mr. Brougham said, that his right hon. the precedents were in his favour. That friend had anticipated the few observations was exactly the case of Mr. Archdale. he had to make to the House. He difBefore appearing in the House, he inform- fered from the right hon. Secretary as to ed the Speaker that he entertained strong the force of the precedents. He still objections to take the oaths. The pre- thought, that the precedents bore out the sumption, therefore, was, that he had not original proposition; but whatever differqualified out of doors; and, notwithstand-ence of opinion there might exist on that ing that, the House admitted him to the point, as there was but one opinion as to table for the purpose of taking the oaths. the point of hearing the member for Clare,

Mr. Wynn said, that as his right hon. friend had alluded to him, he was anxious to say a few words. He certainly was in favour of hearing the hon. member for Clare at the bar of the House; though, generally, he did not think it signified where the hon. member was heard, whether at the bar or at the table. No inconvenience or danger could arise from hearing him at the table; for, by allowing him to speak there, he was no more admitted to the functions of a member than the peer who, being a member of the upper House, was allowed to enter the House, and to give his evidence or support his privileges from the floor. However, he had no objection to the amendment.

tinued in force, it would have been vain | and, fourthly, he claimed under the positive for the people of Ireland to have elected enactments of the Relief Bill, to sit and him for any county. He could not then vote without taking any other oath thàn have exercised the right he was now that mentioned in the Relief Bill itself. using; because the law expressly provided, that the refusal to take the oaths should be followed by the vacating of the seat, and the issuing of a new writ. Up to the period of the legislative union with Ireland, the statute was, by means of other acts, continued in force;-that was to say, partly in force; the declaration was in force, but he found, by reference to statute, in the library belonging to the House, that the oaths were repealed by the 1st of William and Mary, section 1, chapter 1. That statute altered the form of the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy. By the statute of Charles the Oath of Supremacy was affirmative of the king's supremacy in spiritual matters. By the other, the oath only negatived foreign supremacy and spiritual jurisdic

tion.

He would endeavour to go over these four points as briefly as possible. The Act of Union with Ireland certainly directed the oaths to be taken, and it was equally certain that it did not enact any pains and penalties for not doing so. The act did, however, direct the oaths to be taken; and it might be considered that the legislature having directed them to be taken, the House had authority to prevent any man from exercising the right of representation who refused to take them. He would not concede that point, but he would admit, that after the Union an act was brought in for the relief of persons who had neglected to qualify. He would, however, put it to the House in its judicial capacity, and would leave it to its decision, whether the Act of Union not having given the House authority by express enactment to This was the state of the statute law up deprive representatives of their rights, and to the period of the legislative union with the people of their representatives, the Ireland. At that period, in his humble House could do so of its own authority. opinion, an alteration took place in the He could not avoid reminding the House, effect of the statute law. He most that the oaths had, at all times, operated as a respectfully submitted, that the alteration hardship only on those persons who enter. which took place at the period of the tained a conscientious respect for the legislative union in the statute law, as sacred obligation of an oath. Parliament established by the 1st of William and had been called upon to exclude a most Mary, which was one of pains, penalties, meritorious class of persons; whereas those and disabilities, against any person who who might choose to neglect the obligation sat and voted without taking the pre-of an oath were admitted to the privilege scribed oaths, was, that there was still a direction to take the oaths, but no pains, penalties, and disabilities, consequent upon the not taking them. He submitted, that the statute of Charles 2nd did not operate on the present parliament. It was a statute made in the English parliament. No statute of the parliament of Great Britain, after the Union with Scotland, could operate. Nothing could operate in this case but the Act of Union with Ireland, or some act passed subsequently to the Union. That was a position which, as it appeared to him, no lawyer could controvert, and no judge possibly over-rule. He now claimed, therefore, firstly, to sit and vote without taking the oaths by virtue of the Act of Union with Ireland; secondly, he claimed to sit and vote under the Relief Bill, without taking the Declaration: thirdly, he claimed, according to the effect of the Relief Bill, to sit and vote without taking the Oath of Supremacy;

of sitting in parliament. This legislation was founded on a bad principle. It excluded a meritorious class, and admitted all who neglected or disregarded the sanc tion to which he had referred: it called upon the people to elect the careless, the fearless, the mendacious; and it proceeded upon the pad principle of making a selection of the vicious to the exclusion of the conscientious. That being the spirit and principle of the law, he humbly submitted to the House, whether it would carry that spirit and principle into specific execution. He thought, if he stood on the Act of Union alone, he should stand firmly in that assembly of Christians and of gentlemen, in calling upon them not to give effect to that vicious principle-not to promote the choice of such as were hostile to those who reverenced the sacred obligation of an oath, but to throw the doors open as wide as possible to all who would illustrate that assembly by their virtues and their talents.

claimed the benefit of the limitation con tained in the Act of Union. He required not to come within the terms of any of the oaths. All he said was, that the period of limitation contemplated by the Act of Union had expired. If the provisions of the new act did not embrace every case, that was either the wisdom or the defect of the statute; but, in either case, the time had found its limit, and the Union statute was at an end. He now claimed to take his seat just as if that statute had

He quitted that point, and came to the next, to which he adverted with pleasure. He founded it upon the Relief Bill. He insisted, that the effect of the Relief Bill was, to do away with the obligations directed by the Union Act, as far it related to oaths. The Union Act directed, that the oaths should be taken for a particular period, and for a particular period only. The words of the Act of Union were" That every member of the House of Commons in the first and all succeeding parliaments shall, until the parliament of the United King-not existed. But suppose that what he dom shall otherwise provide, take the oaths, had said did not satisfy the House. Let and make and subscribe the Declaration, him call its attention to the Relief Bill, and take and subscribe the oath now by law and to point out to it, that in considering enjoined to be taken, made, and subscribed that measure there were general principles by the Lords and Commons of the parlia- of common sense that would enable the ment of Great Britain." He could not House to decide upon the construction of now do that, for the direction was at the act, as well as any bench of judges, an end. On that direction depended the however familiar with legal topics, could Oath of Supremacy. If, under that direc- possibly decide the most intricate points tion, the Oath of Supremacy could not be of law. Previously to the Union, or he required, then he succeeded at once. He might say, down to the passing of the contended, that the period had arrived Relief Bill from the time of the 30th of when that direction was no longer in Charles 2nd, the object of parliament had force. The period of the existence of the been, to exclude papists from sitting and direction was limited by the adverb of voting in either House. The decisions of time "until." The oaths were directed to the House upon that would be decisions be taken until something should happen. auxiliary to that object. Here was a new Had that something happened? That was statute, the object of which was to throw the only question. Let him see whether open the doors of parliament equally wide he could answer it. He said that some- to Roman Catholics and Protestants, to thing had happened. And how did he annihilate the bar which had opposed the prove it? He took up the Act of Relief entrance of Catholics; and he respectfully passed this session, and he found the submitted, that the construction of the Declaration totally abolished. Had not statute ought to be such as would forward parliament now "otherwise provided?" its object, by facilitating the admission of The former statute was a penal act on Catholics into parliament. The new stapopular rights, -a restriction for a given tute, like many other acts of parliament, period, "until parliament should otherwise sometimes took up the subject in the provide." He took up the statute and he middle, afterwards proceeded to the comfound that parliament had otherwise pro- mencement, and then travelled back again. vided-not for Catholics alone, not for Its arrangement, therefore, was not so Dissenters of any particular class, but for methodical as to enable him to give an Protestants, Dissenters, and Roman Ca- analysis of it at once. The second clause tholics-all-all. He had distinct evidence of the act enabled all Roman Catholics, of that fact when he appeared at the table being peers, to sit and vote in parliament, of the House. The oath was different by taking the new oath. It would be from that which would have been tendered necessary to ascertain, whether any Cato him before the 13th of April. It was a tholic peers had been created between the new document, produced fresh for the period of the 30th of Charles 2nd, and the occasion, by reason of the recent act of present time. There were two; he might parliament. On one side were the oaths say three; for parliament had declared, for Protestants, and on the other the oath that the attainder passed against the third for Catholics. And why was this? Be-was unjust. He would, however, confine cause the legislature had "otherwise provided" than at the period of the Union. As a representative of the people, he

himself to two. The earl of Kenmure and baron French had been created peers during a period when it was impossible