e member has
proposed to take, is a course which, until overruled by stronger
authority, I do not conceive it my duty to acquiesce in. I understand
that he proposes to take the oath prescribed to be taken by Roman
Catholics as it is to be found in an act of parliament recently passed.
As I read that act of parliament, it is my impression, and on my
impression it is my duty to act, that it involves two points relative to
the course to be pursued in taking seats in this house. The first point
is that of repealing the declaration against transubstantiation; the
other, that of appointing an oath to be taken by such members of this
house as profess the Roman Catholic creed; but with this condition, that
those members should be returned subsequently to the passing of the act.
Now the honourable member was returned, as the house is well aware, long
before the passing of this act. I have, therefore, only to refer to the
law affecting all the members of this house until the late act passed;
and, with the single exception of repeating the declaration against
transubstantiation, I have to state that the construction which has
been uniformly put on the law of the land, and which has been repeatedly
sanctioned and confirmed by act of parliament, is, that every member,
before taking his seat, shall take the oath of allegiance and supremacy
before the lord-steward, and the oath of abjuration at the table of this
house. This is the course which, by law, the dignity and the privileges
of this house require. I state this the rather because it is well known
that this house is open to an appeal by petition, or it may be brought
forward by any member in this house. In that case, the house will be
better able to judge, and to state its opinion of the propriety of the
conduct which it appeared to me to be my duty to pursue. I, therefore,
state to the honourable gentleman that he must withdraw." Mr. O'Connell
having withdrawn, Mr. Brougham moved, that he should be called back, and
heard at the table in support of his claim to be admitted on taking
no other oath than that contained in the late act. Mr. W. Wynn was of
opinion that Mr. O'Connell was entitled to be heard at the bar of the
house, and that it made no difference whether he was heard there or at
the table, though it was his opinion it might be better to adhere to the
former course. Mr. Peel, however, thought there was a great distinction
between hearing the applicant at the table and at