should be placed within the reach of every hon. member.

Mr. Whitmore replied shortly. He adverted to the increasing prosperity of the American trade with China, to prove how much British merchants would be benefitted by a full participation in that branch of commerce. He argued on the absolute necessity of the House being placed in possession of the very best evidence on this subject, and concluded by expressing his hope that ministers, who appeared to be liberally disposed, would grant an early and an effectual inquiry.

The motion was negatived without a division.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

Friday, May 15.

MR. O'CONNELL-CLARE ELECTION.] The expectation that Mr. O'Connell would this day appear in the House for the purpose of taking his seat for the county of Clare, under the provisions of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, occasioned a strong sensation. The gallery and the avenues of the House were filled with individuals anxious to learn the result of Mr. O'Connell's application as soon as possible. Long before the Speaker took the chair the body of the House was crowded with members. The Speaker entered the House a little before four o'clock; and prayers having been read,

this were so or not, or in whatever way the change must be effected, still it was clear, from the information which had been laid before them,-information that stood uncontradicted, that a change was necessary and inevitable. An hon. gentleman had charged the hon. mover with exaggeration. Now, the speech of the hon. mover was, so far as his knowledge went, perfectly just in its principles, and luminous in its details; and every single point which he brought forward-the China trade included-was ably and conclusively illustrated. Therefore, if the mercantile question only stood in the way, it could be easily dealt with; but the difficulty was, how the removal of the monopoly could be accomplished with perfect security to the other great interests that were concerned-with safety to the essential interests of that immense country, and with safety also to that long-established government. When he said this, it would be at once conceived, that he did not wish to transfer that government to this country; because, though an anomaly, yet the government of India, as regarded the interests of the people, and the maintenance of due and legal subordination could not, he thought, be placed so safely in other hands, even if they lived to see the Company cease to be traders, and aspire to become governors of a mighty empire. These, however, were matters which would form the subject of future discussion. But that the circumstances of the time, connected as they must be with inquiry, would lead to a great and radical change of the situation of this Company, he took Mr. O'Connell immediately came forto be as clear as possible. Then the prac- ward, conducted by lords Ebrington and tical result for them to arrive at was, Duncannon. Mr. O'Connell produced at when that inquiry should be made? And the table a certificate of his having been though he felt that there was much weight sworn before two of the deputies appointin the observations of those who wished ed by the lord Steward, whereupon the them to make a beginning in the present Clerk tendered to him the Oaths of Allesession,--short as it was likely to be- giance, Supremacy and Abjuration, upon though he felt that some good might be which Mr. O'Connell stated, that he was done by selecting particular matters for ready to take the Oaths of Allegiance and future consideration, and by examining Abjuration, but that he could not take those documents which had now been pro- the Oath of Supremacy, and claimed the mised them,-yet, taking into view every privilege of being allowed to take the point connected with this intricate subject, Oath set forth in the act passed in the he thought it would be better not to press present session for the Relief of His Majesthe question to a division; the understand-ty's Roman Catholic Subjects; whereupon ing being, he thought, that as soon as the the clerk having stated the matter to Mr. sessional business was fairly brought for- Speaker, ward, this question should be really and positively discussed; and that, in the mean time, the documentary evidence VOL. XXI.

The Speaker said—If there are any new members to be sworn, let them be pleased to come to the table.

The Speaker said:-It is my duty to state to the House, if I have been correctly informed, that the course which the

2 Y

hon. member has proposed to take, is a I was placed, perhaps he had not, according course which, until over-ruled by stronger to the strict usage and practice of the House, authority, I do not conceive it my duty such a right. The doubt (continued Mr. to acquiesce in. I understand the hon. Brougham) which most presents itself to gentleman proposes to take the oath pre- my mind, and which occasions my adscribed to be taken by Roman Catholics, dressing the chair, is, whether a member as it is to be found in the act recently coming to the table to be sworn, can be passed. As I read that act, it is my im- prevented stating his reasons why he will pression-and upon that impression it is not take the oaths prescribed, and why he my duty to act-that it involves two ought to be admitted to his seat without points relative to the course to be pur- taking them. For any thing I can see, sued in taking seats in this House. The there is no objection to his being heard; first point is that of repealing the Decla- and it is doubtful if any instance can be ration against Transubstantiation; the found of members being refused this priother, that of appointing an oath to be vilege, whilst there are precedents of their taken by such members of this House as being allowed to enjoy it. Until this profess the Roman Catholic creed in lieu question be disposed of, it is useless to of the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy speak of the other questions which arise and Abjuration. But this substituted out of the case. But now, Sir, that the oath, as I imagine, refers only to such hon. member has withdrawn by your members as shall be returned subsequently direction, I submit that, according to custo the passing of the act. Now the hon. tom, and to reason, the construction which member was returned as the House is well you have put upon the act, and the opiaware, long before the passing of this act. nion to which you have come on the siI have therefore only to refer to the law af- tuation in which the hon. gentleman fecting all the members of this House until stands, ought to be so far subject to disthe late act passed; and with the single ex- cussion as to allow the House to exercise ception of repeating the Declaration against their opinions on the subject; at all Transubstantiation, I have to state, that events, to the extent whether the hon. the construction which has been uniformly gentleman ought to be heard at the table put on the law of the land, and which has or at the bar of the House. I repeat, been repeatedly sanctioned and confirmed without departing from the profound reby act of parliament, is, that every mem- spect I owe to the chair, or from the disber before he takes his seat, shall take position I entertain, to bow to its authe Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy thority, that the hon. gentleman has a before the lord Steward, and the Oath of right to be heard; but it is a question of Abjuration at the table of this House. great importance, that no opinion of any This is the course which the dignity and individual member whether in the chair or the privileges of this House require. I out of it, ought to bind this House. The state this the rather, because it is well question at the present moment relates to known that this House is open to an ap- the right of the member for Clare to be peal by petition, or it may be brought for- heard himself in that place, at the table. ward by any member in this House. In He ought, I say, to be heard at the table, that case, the House will be better able to as to his right to take his seat. Now, judge, and to state its opinion of the pro- there are two or three precedents upon priety of the conduct which it appears to this point, to which I must beg shortly to me to be my duty to pursue. I therefore direct your attention and the attention of state to the hon. gentleman, that he must the House. They appear to me to bear withdraw,-unless he is prepared to take out the proposition which I submit to the the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and House for their consideration. They will Abjuration. not assist in deciding the principal question, but they will serve as a guide in deciding on the preliminary point, as to whether the hon. member shall be heard at the table. The first case is that of sir Henry Monson, which took place on the 13th of May 1689, and the other is that of lord Fanshaw, which occurred on the same day. It appears by the Journals of

Whereupon Mr. O'Connell withdrew, Mr. Brougham said, that, with all submission to the Speaker, he thought the hon, gentleman who had been directed to withdraw had a right to state his reasons for adopting the course which he appeared to have done. Standing in the situation in which that hon. gentleman

with, without his being heard. I wish the House to decide this point; and that they may be enabled to do so, I shall move, "That Mr. O'Connell be called back, and heard at the table."

Mr. Secretary Peel said, it was scarcely necessary for him to remind hon. members, that they were called upon, in the present case, to act in a strictly judicial character. What they had to decide on related to the law of parliament, and to the rights and privileges of the House of Commons. Now, in his view of the case, he had no doubt on his mind that the learned gentleman who had withdrawn was not in possession of the right to be heard at the table; because, if it were so, every person returned as a member of that House, who entertained any scruple with respect to any part of the oaths would have an equal right to state his objection in person. The law appeared to him to be plain and direct on this point. It expressly said, that a party, before he was entitled to take his seat, should be required to take certain oaths. Now, if that was the law, the in

the House, and by the account which | right-is not taken from him, certainly--remains of the proceedings which took but it is, up to a certain extent, interfered place upon that occasion, that sir Henry Monson was at the table, and that some discussion, little or much, took place then; and that he was called in by order of the House, and asked, if he had any objection to take the usual oaths. He answered, that he had objections, but that they were entirely personal and in no way tended to the disturbance of the government. The House, it appears, was not satisfied with his explanation, and he was directed to withdraw. A discussion took place and the result was, that the seat was declared vacant and a new writ issued. But what I wish particularly to impress upon the House is, that which took place before the issuing of the writ; namely, that the party whose interests was more immediately concerned was heard at the table of the House, to state his own case before it was disposed of. In the case of Mr. Archdale a similar course was pursued. He stated that he could not in conscience take the oaths which were tendered, and a new writ issued. The same was the course pursued in the case of lord Fanshaw; but in all of them the party concerned had a hear-dividual refusing to take the appointed ing, and addressed the House from the table before he withdrew.* The time which they occupied in explanation is of no importance. It is sufficient, that the individuals, in these cases, were heard at the table, previously to their being ordered 'to withdraw. I could not press this point before. But you, Sir, in the exercise of your discretion, having directed the hon. member for Clare to withdraw, it becomes competent for me to introduce the subject; and the question is, has the hon. member for Clare a right to be heard at the table? If so, we ought to have him recalled, and heard there; and then, if it should be your opinion, and that of the House, that he should withdraw, we shall be at liberty to deal with the main question. I think I need make no apology for stating what I have done in this stage of the business. It is a subject of the highest importance, and we ought not to act without the fullest deliberation. I have stated the impression of my mind, which is founded as well on precedents as on the reason of the thing. As regards the hon. member, the case involves a very great hardship, because a high privilege, the highest civil

See Parl. Hist. vol. v. p. 253.

oaths, could not assume any of the functions to arrive at which it became necessary to take those oaths; and therefore he could not be heard at the table. No notice having been given of the intention of the learned gentleman to agitate this important question, he should hope, if the House entertained serious doubts on the subject, that they would not attempt to decide it on the present occasion. His own opinion was entirely against the existence of the alleged right. It appeared evident to him that no person who had not taken the preliminary oaths could act as a member of parliament, and be heard in that House. It was not necessary to go into the legal point; and he hoped that no hon. member would enter upon it that evening. In his opinion, they would best consult their own feelings, the dignity of the House, and the importance of the case, if they adjourned the decision of the question until Monday.

Mr. Wynn said, he agreed with the right. hon. gentleman that it would be highly inexpedient and extremely precipitate to enter at once into a discussion as to the very important question, whether a Roman Catholic, being elected to serve in parliament prior to the passing of the late bill

there was no question as to which way this should be done. If a petition or application were made, setting forth that the hon. member wished to state to the House the grounds on which he conceived that he ought to be admitted to sit in parliament on taking the new oaths, (supposing the House not to know any thing whatever of the printed document which had been put into the hands of hon. members)-he was of opinion that the House should hear the applicant in some shape or other. He did not care whether the hon. member was heard standing at the table or standing at the bar, but it was a principle, founded on all reason and on all precedent, that when an individual asked for his right, he should be allowed to state the grounds on which he claimed it.

could take his seat in that House on taking the oath prescribed by the new act. The determination of that question would require deliberate investigation and discussion. The point now before them was whether the hon. member for Clare had a right to be heard at the table. He had no hesitation in saying, with respect to that point, that the precedents quoted by his hon, and learned friend were decisive in favour of allowing the hon. member to state his reasons for refusing to take certain oaths. It would not, indeed, be fit it would not be consistent with the privileges of the House-that he should be allowed to speak or to perform any act as a member of parliament; but the act to which this motion referred, would be that of a person claiming to be admitted to parliament, claiming to go through certain preliminaries to enable him to take his seat, but not doing any act as a member of that House. Now, in his opinion, there was no distinction, no difference, whether the hon. member should be heard at the table or heard at the bar. But, as precedents had been spoken of, he begged leave to refer to the case of Mr. Wilkes. That gentleman having been returned as a member of parliament by a large majority, the House would not receive him, and declared that he was incapable of sitting. He presented a petition to the House, complaining of a breach of privilege, and the House decided to hear the petitioner make his defence. He asked the House, whether, situated as he was, he would not incur the penalties prescribed by different acts of parliament, if he came to the House for that purpose?" and the Speaker said, "It has been customary for a petitioner to state the allegations of his petition without taking the oaths, and, in so doing, he is not guilty of any offence Mr. Brougham said, the House knew within the intent and meaning of the nothing of what had passed in the Steward's acts." Now, it was the same thing here; office, and could not therefore found its and he maintained, that every individual decisions upon that of which they had no having a wrong to be redressed, should be certain knowledge. He understood the heard either at the bar or at the table. fact to be, however, that the hon. member In his opinion, however, it would be much for Clare had a certificate of having taken better to adhere to the former course. It what he conceived to be sufficient oaths would be better to allow the honourable before the proper officers. He should now member, on his application, to state at the take leave to suggest that, as the member bar his reason for believing that he was for Clare had expressed his consent to entitled to take the new oaths and to re- take some oaths whilst he objected to ject the old. It would be proper to hear others, the House should give him perhim at the bar on that point like any other mission to take the oaths to which he did petitioner, or like any other person claim- not object, leaving the question upon ing any right of that House. He thought the others open as before.

Mr. Sugden said, the question was, whether this gentleman had a right to be heard in his defence in that House. He did not think that he possessed any such right. It must be taken for granted, before such a proposition was conceded, that the 5th of Elizabeth had been repealed, which he was not disposed to admit. The 5th of Elizabeth applied to a member before he entered the House; and it provided, "that any person, who, having been elected to serve in parliament, shall presume to enter the House withont having taken the oaths before the Lord High Steward, shall ipso facto be considered as having committed an act which shall render him incapable of serving as a member during that parliament." Now the hon. gentleman, not having conformed to that act, and having entered that House, was no longer a member of parliament. He knew not, therefore, how he could be heard at the table.

Mr. Secretary Peel observed, that his right hon, friend had said, that there was no material distinction between allowing the hon. gentleman to be heard at the table, or at the bar. He, however, could not but think that there was a very great difference. As there had been no time for consulting precedents, he should at once propose that the discussion be postponed till Monday.

Mr. Sugden said, that in order to enable the hon. gentleman to enter that House, he must previously go before the Lord Steward. Now, the fact that the hon. gentleman would not take the oaths before that officer was avowed in his own publication.

Mr. Brougham said, the hon. and learned gentleman was calling on the House to act, in a delicate and difficult matter like this, not on an ascertained fact, but on a conjecture, drawn from a printed pamphlet, which might or might not bear out his conclusion. For how did they know whether, after that pamphlet was published, the hon. member for Clare might not have gone to the Steward's office, and taken certain oaths? He believed he had gone to that place, and that he did take certain oaths? With respect to what the right hon. gentleman said; namely, that this part of the case required grave consideration, he should only say, that whether the hon. member was heard at the table or at the bar, he must be heard.

On the question, "That the debate be adjourned till Monday" being put,

which I pursued, under the circumstances of the case was, to take that line which the law of the country pointed out to me; knowing, that if I were in error, the House would set me right without prejudice to this gentleman. With respect to not hearing the individual at the table, I found myself on this--that I know of no instance where any person has been heard, without a decision of the House that he should be heard, short of his being a complete member of this House; and it was obvious, if a debate were going on, with a person thus situated standing on the floor of the House, that he might subject himself, not to the provisions of the statute of Elizabeth, but to those of the statute of Charles 2nd. This is the ground on which I stand. I do not advance any thing to prejudice the case itself, but merely state the ground on which I proceeded. There is one other subject on which I will make a single observation-that is, as to the oaths taken before the Lord Steward or his commissioners. The House are well aware, that the lord Steward and his commissioners are not officers of this House. The certificate received from them, that the person has taken the oaths, is put in by the person receiving it; therefore, it is impossible for the House to know, in its aggregate capacity, what oaths were taken; and when no evidence is given that improper oaths were taken, the presumption is, that the oaths taken were proper [hear].

Mr. Tierney said, the question simply was, whether the hon. member for Clare should be heard at the table or at the bar

a question which he thought ought to be settled at once. Because, in point of fact, if it were not decided to-day, another day would be lost; which he considered to be a great hardship on the hon. member for Clare, who would not be able during that time to know how he ought to proceed. Now, if the motion of his learned friend were adopted, the hon.

The Speaker said:-Before I finally put the question, perhaps the House will not think me unreasonable, if, without anticipating any judgment to which the House may come in respect to the course I have pursued, I put them in possession of my reasons for adopting that course. The House on all sides agree, that the question in both its points-the construction of the law, and the right of hearing and the mode of hearing-is a matter re-member might have been allowed this quiring grave deliberation; and the best proof I have of that fact is the unanimity of feeling in favour of postponing this discussion. All I have to state to the House is, that though it is impossible for me to differ from them on the great importance of the question, and on the consequent necessity for deliberation, it was for them to appoint the time for deliberation; and not for the chair. The course

evening to state at the table the grounds on which he hesitated to take the oath proffered by the clerk. It would not be necessary for them to decide hastily on the argument which he might adduce: nothing would, indeed, be more proper than an adjournment of the discussion, after the hon. member had been heard. But to adjourn without knowing what the hon. member's argument was, appeared to be