OATHS BEFORE THE LORD STEWARD. (Hansard, 20 July 1831)

Mr. C. W. Wynn
moved, that the Bill be then read a third time.

Sir Robert Inglis
opposed the motion, as breaking in on the Constitution. The hon. Member quoted an opinion of Hatsell, to show, that unless the oaths were taken before the Lord Steward, it would be possible for men who were not legally Members of the House to find their way into it, and elect a Speaker. This might take place in times of great excitement. The reasons for bringing this measure forward were, that Members had been delayed in taking the oaths, and there was a wish to reduce the number of oaths. A remedy could be obtained for the present, by allowing the deputies of the Lord Steward to administer the oaths; with respect to the other, the question arose, what were unnecessary oaths, and he thought those under consideration were not of that character. If they further considered the oaths to be taken by Members, who came in on writ after a general election, they would find that to be the case; 91 even now, hon. Members had taken their places without taking the oaths. Was it desirable to lessen the chance of the law being obeyed? Was it useful, that the proof of qualification should be given in that House, the fees paid, and the inquiries made there? Pressed as they were with business, the loss of time that would occasion was an object. He was, therefore, of opinion, if it was necessary to abolish any oaths at all—but this he denied—it would be better to abolish the oaths taken in the House, rather than those taken before the Lord Steward. For these reasons, he should oppose the third reading of the Bill.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
would reply, in a very few words, to the remarks of his hon. friend, and state the reasons why, in his opinion, the oaths taken before the Lord Steward should be discontinued. The first was, the objection to the multiplicity of oaths; for it was absurd to take the same oaths, first in the Lobby, and afterwards in the House, in the space of a few minutes. The next was, that the taking these oaths exposed the Members of that House to a state of dependence on an officer who had no authority over the House, and who might, as he did in 1812, resign his office, and make the oaths taken before his deputies void. The Members who took their seats, after so taking the oaths, would, according to law, have forfeited them; and a special Act was obliged to be passed, to relieve them from the consequences to which they would otherwise have been subjected. He admitted the possibility of persons, not being legally Members, taking part in the election of Speaker, but that was so remote and unlikely a contingency, that it ought not to weigh against the Bill.

§ Mr. G. Bankes
would vote with his hon. and learned friend, the member for Oxford, should he divide the House, against the Bill. He would rather have the second set of oaths, those which were taken in the House, abolished, than the first set, which they might consider as taken before the Sovereign himself represented by his officer. He conceived, it was necessary the Sovereign should be satisfied, that the Oaths of Allegiance to him were duly taken, for he or his officers did not, and could not, attend the House. The Commons were jealous, and justly jealous of the presence of Royalty among them, and could not tolerate it at any time.

§ Sir Charles Forbes
would vote against the Bill, because it would be but a short time in existence; for he expected that the next Parliament would abolish oaths altogether.