new Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, in lieu of the former baths. Four hundred Members did take those new oaths, on the first day after the Act came into operation; that is, on the 2nd of March. A call of the House was ordered, on a notice that several Members were not in the House, and at the call they attended. They were called up to the Bar, and required to take the Oaths of Supremacy and Allegiance, as prescribed by the Act of the 1st of William and Mary. These oaths were tendered to them at the table, and they declined to take them, declaring it impossible for them to take those oaths. I apprehend the Honourable Member for Clare has done the same. The Speaker having tendered the oaths to him, the Honourable Member for Clare has declined taking them, and he has been obliged to withdraw. But whatever is the peculiarity of these cases, on account of these persons having been Members of the Convention Parliament, they did in substance the same as the Honourable Member for Clare has done, in refusing to take the Oaths. They did not address any arguments to the House on their own right to sit, notwithstanding their having declined to take the Oaths; and they were not competent to do so, because they were incapable of being present during any discussion in this House, unless they had qualified themselves to sit here as Members. The case of Mr. Archdale was nearly the same. He was not a Member of the Convention Parliament. He had been previously elected, and had undertaken to serve under the impression that his declaration would be found tantamount in effect to his taking the Oaths. He was called to the Table, the Oaths were tendered to him; he declined to take them, and he was ordered to withdraw. The terms in which he signified his disinclination were not exactly the same as those employed by Lord Fanshawe and Sir H. Monson; but, in fact, the Caths were tendered to all, and were declined by all, on conscientious or religious scruples; but none of them were permitted to address the House from the Table. Then, as to the case of Mr. Wilkes, which my Right Honourable Friend imagines

will establish the claim of Mr. O'Connell to be heard at the Table, the cases quoted on that occasion proved that if a Member had not qualified, he must be heard at the Bar, and not at the Table. Mr. Wilkes, I believe, was at that time in the custody of the Marshal of the King's Bench, and he was heard at the Bar; and before he was examined, and before anything had passed, he put a preliminary question, as to whether he should not subject himself to penalties, under the Act of Geo. II., although he had not sat or voted, as he had not then proved his qualification? He withdrew; and he was then told, that though he had not taken the oaths, and though he had not proved his qualification at the Table of the House, there was nothing to prevent him appearing at the Bau. I believe this was the substance of what occurred regarding Mr. Wilkes. Independently, however, of these precedents, the question may be fairly left to be tried by the dictates of common sense. Assuming the Oaths of Supremacy to be in force, which-according to the opinion of the official organ of this House, whose duty it is to interpret the law according to which our proceedings are to be governed-is the case; assuming, I say, under that opinion, that those oaths ought to be taken by the Honourable Member for Clare, it would be quite inconsistent with the law to permit him to be present at our discussions, by allowing him to come up to the Table. The law subjects an individual who has not taken the oaths to heavy penalties; and even if a doubt were entertained as to the propriety of admitting, the House ought not to sanction the possible infraction of the law. The rights of this House, and the customs to be observed in this case, have been determined by Parliament. It is the object of the House to hear whatever the Honourable Member has to say in vindication of his claims. That purpose will be answered by hearing him at the Bar, as well as by hearing him at the Table. By hearing him at the Bar he will be exempted from those penalties which I have mentioned; so that even with reference to his own security, it is infinitely better that he should be heard at the Bar than at the Table. For these reasons, which I have

shortly stated, under the circumstances of the case, which render it incapable of being drawn into a precedent, I think Mr. O'Connell ought to be heard. In cases affecting indvidual right, it is usual to give Members, whose cause 18 under investigation, the privilege of stating their cases by themselves, their Counsel, or their agents. I have also stated the grounds on which, if the Honourable Member for Clare is heard at all, he ought to be heard at the Bar, in preference to being heard at the Table. By some persons, who are not Members of this House, the subject is treated as one of trifling concern; I think, on the contrary, that it is of great importance, and that the public advantage is concerned, that when we do an act even of substantive justice, we should do it in the accustomed forms of the House. I know that this is what appears to some superficial minds as ridiculous; but important advantages are often preserved by an adherence to the forms which practice and convenience have established. My Honourable Friend, who put a question at the beginning of this discussion, appeared to have an impression that the House of Commons could not permit the Member for Clare to enter even the doors of the House; but the course of the precedents goes to shew that he might be admitted to the Table without the certificate of his taking the Oaths before the Lord Steward. The case of Mr. Archdale is a strong case ou this point. He objected to oaths altogether. There was, therefore, a strong presumption that he had not qualified out of doors; yet, notwithstanding that violent presumption, the House admitted him to the Table without his taking the Oaths. The general presumption, of course, is, that Members have complied with the law, and have taken the oaths before the Lord Steward. If they have not, they are liable to penalties. It should, however, be recollected, that these Oaths before the Lord Steward were provided for the satisfaction, not of the House of Commons, but of the Crown, which not being satisfied with the security provided by the House of Commons, determined to obtain what it considered necessary for the security of allegiance to its possessor, leaving it to the House

of Commons afterwards to take what security it might think proper. I know, however, that these securities are not strictly 12 attended to in every instance, for I know that in my own case I have often taken my seat here without being called on to produce the certificate of my having taken the Oaths before the Lord Steward. I shall conclude by observing, Sir, that in my opinion, your conduct the other day was exactly consonant with the practice of this House; but as I think that Mr. O'Connell should be heard in stating his own case, I shall beg leave to move, as an Amendment to the Motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman-"That the Member for Clare shall be heard at the Bar of the House, with reference to his claim to sit and vote in Parliament without taking the Oath of Supremacy." This motion is put, as it seems to me, in the proper form, to leave us afterwards to decide on the substance of that claim.

The Speaker having put the original Motion and the Amendment,

. Mr. C. Wynn rose and said: As the Right Honourable Gentleman has alluded to what I stated on a former occasion, I am only anxious to say that the former cases shew the Honourable Member for Clare ought to be heard at the Bar; but there are some precedents to shew he might be called up to the Table. I do not think there is much difficulty in the question. I do not think it signifies at all whether one or the other question is carried. I do not see any inconvenience or danger to the House from either of them. I do not conceive there would be greater danger in allowing Mr. O'Connell to be heard at the Table, than there would be from our conceding the privilege always granted when a Member of the House of Lords claims to address this House on a subject relating to himself--I mean the privilege of being heard from the floor of this House. I am however, perfectly ready to concur with my Right Honourable Friend's Amendment.

Mr. Brougham: The Right Honourable Gentleman has anticipated the few observations I meant to address to the House. I differ from the Right Honourable Gentleman oppo

site as to the precedents he has quoted, to bear out his org nal proposition. At the first view, this Table, according to my idea of those precedents, is the place where the Honourable Member for Clare ought to be heard; but whether at the Table or at the Bar, is, in reality, as the Right Honourable Gentleman has observed, matters of little consequence. As in a practical point of view, there is no difference between the two places from which he may be heard, and as I do not mean to contend that he ought to be heard from the one rather than from the other, I should be performing a most unacceptable office-I should be but wasting the time of the House, if I were to go into any discussion of the question now. We find precedents on both sides. One for bearing a Member at the Table, several for hearing him from the Bar; and as hearing Mr. O'Connell from the Bar will be no impeachment of his rights, and will tend to prevent the possibility of litigation elsewhere, I shall, for one, consent to it. Though I have no doubt that the Right Honourable Gentleman's interpretation of the statute is correct, and that no penalties would attach on Mr. O'Connell's being heard at the Table, yet I will not answer that all persons out of the House will have the same opinion. It is barely possible that advantage might be taken of such an act by some persons, and to give the Honourable Member for Clare some trouble; and also if (which I am by no means inclined to anticipate) his re-election should be ultimately declared to be necessary, it might lead into a question before the Committee of this House, whether, by entering into the House without being duly qualified, he had not incurred a forfeiture. On all these grounds, urged and re-urged as they have been, I prefer of the two courses, both of which are open to me, that of hearing the Honourable Member at the

Bar.

The Speaker then put the original Motion, which was lost

and the Amendment was then carried.

Mr. Brougham thought the sooner they proceeded to the business the better; and he trusted that when they called up Mr. O'Connell, it would be perfectly understood that they