Mr. Peel begged to be understood that he did not pledge any opinion upon the subject as to its ultimate determination.

Lord Milton did not understand the Right Hon. Secretary to have any doubt whether the Member for Clare had any right to be heard on the question. All he understood the Right Hon, Gentleman to doubt was, whether he ought to be heard at the Bar or at the Table of the House. Then he must confess that he did not understand the Right Hon. Gentleman. He had understood the Right Honourable Gentleman to put the question as resting upon the point, whether the Member for Clare should be heard at the Table or at the Bar. He did not hear the other alternative, of whether he should be heard at all. It was important that no doubt should exist upon the question.

Mr. Peel could not determine as to any ulterior course, till the Member for Clare had been heard, either at the bar or at the table of the House.

Sir Joseph Yorke said, that the question must be determined upon the authority of greater names than his; but if the case were accurately investigated, it would be found that Mr. Fanshaw had been sent for by the Speaker, and asked whether he would take the oaths at the table. He had decided in the negative, and he had been required to state his reasons for refusing to take them.

Mr. Brougham had no hesitation in saying that he had not formed a confident opinion upon all points in the cases of Fanshaw and Monson. He knew that the latter had been a member of the Convention Parliament, which was an illegal assembly, till its acts were legalized by the subsequent Parliament, constitutionally convened. The cases of these two might differ from that of Archdale, the Quaker. Fanshaw and Monson's cases were in point with the present-possibly that of Archdale might be different. He had no objection to accede to the Right Hon. Gentleman's Motion of Postponement, but he had no idea that any man could entertain the notion that the Hon. Member for Clare was not to be heard at all, though he felt that a great difference of opinion existed

as to the propriety of hearing him at the Bar, or at the Table of the House. The idea of not hearing the Hon. Member for Clare at all, appeared to him quite impossible.

Lord Duncannon said that he was instructed by his Hon Friend, the Member for Clare, to state that he claimed the privilege of being heard before the House in support of his claims.

The Speaker then put the question of adjournment to Monday next, which was carried nem. con.

On the following day, May 18, after some preliminary business, Mr. Brougham intimated that he thought the time was come when the Hon. Member who had moved the adjourn ment of the question as to Mr. O'Connell's admission, should continue the debate.

Mr. Sugden wished to ask the Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hume), or the Hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, what oaths Mr. O'Connell had already taken.

Mr. Hume observed, that perhaps the Hon. Member might derive the information he required by obtaining the certificate from the Clerk.

Mr. Sugden said, the Hon. Member must be aware that the certificate would afford him no such information. The certificate only stated, that Daniel O'Connell had declared his name; and contained an indorsement, stating that he had taken the oaths," but what oaths it was not stated. The oaths, however, were mentioned in the plural number, though he knew that Mr. O'Connell had taken but one oath.

Mr. Hume could only say in answer, that the Hon. Member had taken two oaths.

The Speaker then read the original question, "That Mr. O'Connell be heard at the table of the House, with respect to taking the oaths prescribed."

Mr. Sugden said he must address a few observations to the House on this subject, and trusted he should to do so without being thought pertinacious. He was quite ready to do whatever the House might think fit, but he wished to have the question he put answered, and would persevere in that question, unless it was the opinion of the House that it ought not

In

to be answered. He might be mistaken; but he did think that the question was one that required a specific answer. his opinion it was material for the House to know what oaths Mr. O'Connell had taken. He (Mr. Sugden) had been at great pains to inform himself upon the subject, but had been unable to do so to his own satisfaction; and when with all courtesy he put a question to the Hon. Member opposite, he did apprehend that Honourable Member ought to have given him the required information.

Mr. C. Wynn wished the House to recollect that no Honourable Member could insist upon an answer from any other Honourable Member, or could compel him to give any information of which he might be possessed. 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.

An Hon. Member remarked, that if his ears had not been mistaken, the Honourable Baronet, the Member for Westminster, had stated that Mr. O'Connell had taken a new oath.

Mr. Peel: I think it impossible that I can be said to act inconsistently in rising at this moment to state my view of this subject, which is somewhat different from that I was inclined to adopt a few days since. I believe, indeed, that by stating that view at the present moment, it may tend to save some of the time of the House. This debate, which has been adjourned from Friday, is a debate on the claim of an Honourable Member of this House to take his seat, on having administered to him the Oath of Supremacy. You, Sir, in my opinion, most properly, in execution of the duty which is committed to you, to enforce the provisions of the law, and uphold the usages of Parliament, according to your construction of them, hesitated to admit that Honourable Member on his taking the present Oath of Supremacy, and required him to take those other oaths which were required to be taken by Members before the present Session. I call the present oath the Oath of Supremacy, for such it is in effect, though differently framed from that which preceded it. You refused, Sir, to admit him

to take his seat on taking the oath prescribed by the new Ac and you required him to take the former Oath of Supremacy That Honourable Member objected to take that former Oath of Supremacy, and preferred his claim to a seat in this House under the privileges conferred by the Act passed in the present Session for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects The questions for our immediate consideration are, whether or no the Honourable Member for Clare shall be heard at al on this claim; and, if heard, whether he shall be heard at the Table or at the Bar of the House. With those questions! shall in no manner whatever mix up any other. I shall avoid expressing any opinion as to the legality of the claim, but! shall wait till the discussion of that claim has been gone int I shall do so, because, at the present moment, I think it as well to confine myself to the simple points, whether the Honourable Member shall be heard at all; and, if heard, whether he shall be heard at the Table or at the Bar. Having given the best consideration I could, in the interval which has elapsed since this debate was adjourned, I have come to the conclusion that it would be fitting to hear the Honourable Member for Clare. I think so, because the case is a special case, and one which it is impossible can ever be drawn into a precedent. It is a claim founded on a question as to the construction of an Act of Parliament: and whatever our ultimate decision may be, it will be more satisfactory if we admit the object of that decision to state his case in the usual mannerin the manner which I shall hereafter point out. The question is not only a special and an individual question, and an exception from ordinary rules, but it is one which may not only relate to the privileges claimed by the Hon. Member, but may involve also his liability to penalties-it may be a question as to what are the proper oaths for him to take. If the Honourable Member is wrong in the oaths which he takes, he may be liable to penalties in Courts of Law. He may take oaths which, in his opinion, entitle him to take his seat, but which may turn out to be oaths that may render him liable to penalties in a Court of Law. On that ground, I say, that

there are special circumstances in this case which make me desirous of giving an individual so circumstanced all the advantages to which he can be fairly entitled, consistently with the practice of this House. As to the question whether he shall be heard at the Table or at the Bar, I must say, for myself, that I do not think it fit he should he heard at the Table. I think that there is nothing whatever in the precedents that have been quoted to fortify the claim of the Hon. Member to be heard at the Table, on the right which he urges to sit in in this House. I do not know whether it is necessary at this moment to enter into the consideration of these precedents, and I have not the slightest wish to do so unless the House desire it. I believe that the whole of the precedents are those furnished by the cases of Lord Fanshawe, Sir H. Monson, the Honourable Member for Newton, and Mr. Cholmondeley; these were cases in the Convention Parliament-an assembly which was afterwards declared a Parliament; and the cases of Mr. Archdale and Mr. Wilkes, the last of whom, I believe, was brought up in custody to the Bar. In the cases of Lord Fanshawe, Sir H. Monson, and Mr. Cholmondeley, there were some peculiar circumstances. The question in these cases was, whether the Members of the Convention Parliament could sit in the New Parliament without taking any oaths whatever. They had not taken any oaths before the Lord Steward, nor had they taken them at the table of the House. It was impossible that they could take the Oath of Allegiance, for that was an oath of allegiance to King James; and it was manifestly inconsistent with the circumstances of that time, that the Members of the Parliament then sitting should take an oath of allegiance to King James These Gentlemen had previously sat in the Convention Parliament, and they declined afterwards to take the oaths. They were found in that condition when the Act passed abrogating the ancient Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, and providing new oaths in their stead. That Act decared, that after the 1st of March all Members should take 4 E

24.