OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE
CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS
James R. Robertson
Law and Government Division
AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
OR REFUSAL TO TAKE THE OATH
OF AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOLVING OTHER LEGISLATURES
IN OTHER COUNTRIES
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OR BREACH OF THE OATH?
OATHS OF ALLEGIANCE
CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions have recently
arisen with respect to the oath of allegiance that is required to be taken
by all parliamentarians. Two basic issues are involved. First, is it necessary
to take the oath, and what are the consequences of a failure or refusal
to do so? Second, what are the consequences of an alleged violation or
breach of the oath, and how is the validity of such an allegation established?
This paper will discuss
the main issues surrounding the oath of allegiance. It will review relevant
precedents in Canada and Great Britain and some of the arguments that
may be raised.
Section 128 of the
Constitution Act, 1867 provides as follows:
Every member of the Senate
and the House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein
take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized
by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly
of any Province shall before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province
or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in
the Fifth Schedule to this Act;
The oath set out in the
Fifth Schedule reads as follows:
I, A.B. do swear, That
I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.
Note. The name of the
King or Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland for
the Time being is to be substituted from Time to Time, with Proper Terms
of Reference thereto.
As can be seen, the oath
is one of allegiance to the monarch, not to Canada or the Canadian Constitution.
The Canadian oath of allegiance
derives from that used in the British Parliament, where the requirement
for such an oath arose from the political and religious conflicts of the
sixteenth century. The original purpose of the oath was to assert the
primacy of the British sovereign over all matters, both ecclesiastical
and temporal; as such, it was primarily directed at preventing Catholics
from holding public office. (Other religious denominations were also affected
incidentally, until the reforms of the nineteenth century.)
Since 1905, Members of Parliament
have been allowed to "solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm"
that, though they could not take the oath, they were still loyal to the
Monarch.(1) The wording of
the affirmation as it stands today is as follows:
do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare the taking of an
oath is according to my religious belief unlawful, and I do also solemnly,
sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear
true allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
AND THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
Section 128 of the
Constitution Act, 1867 means that only those Members who have taken
and subscribed to the oath are allowed to take their sears in the House
of Commons. After the Chief Electoral Officer has provided a certificate
listing Members returned to serve in Parliament, the Clerk of the House,
or any designated Commissioner, administers the oath of allegiance to
these Members. According to the Sixth Edition of Beauchesnes
Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada,
It is not the Oath that
makes a person a Member of the House. The person must be a Member before
being sworn in. Unless first duly elected under the terms of the Canada
Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, one cannot take the Oath. The
object of the Oath is to allow the Member to sit in the House. In accordance
with this interpretation of the law, Members-elect, as soon as their
election is reported to the Clerk by the Chief Electoral Officer, may
receive such requisites as are necessary for the performance of their
public duties. But if, for some reason or other, a Member were precluded
from taking the Oath and sitting in the House, the person would be deprived
of any such allowances.(2)
This interpretation is consistent
with that found in the Twenty-first Edition of Erskine May, which indicates
that a Member who has not taken his or her oath may not sit and vote in
the House, but is entitled to all the other privileges of a Member, except
the salary, "being regarded, both by the House and by the law, as
qualified to serve, until some other disqualification has been shown to
exist."(3) Indeed, in
exceptional circumstances, Members of the British House of Commons who
have not taken the oath have been nominated to and have served on committees.
The provisions of the Parliament
of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, also support this position. In
Part IV of the Act, which deals with Remuneration of Members of Parliament,
section 55(2) provides:
For the purpose of this
a person shall be deemed to have become a member of
the House of Commons on the day last fixed for the election of a member
of the House of Commons for the electoral district represented by the
OR REFUSAL TO TAKE THE OATH
In 1875, a problem arose
when a Member of the Canadian House of Commons failed to take the required
oath of allegiance before assuming his seat. The matter was referred to
the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, which tabled
its report on 8 March 1875. The Committee noted that the Constitution
provided no direct forfeiture or penalty for an omission to take the prescribed
oath, and neither did any other statute. The report concluded:
Your Committee are therefore
of opinion that the seat of Mr. Orton, the member of Centre Wellington,
is not affected by his having sat and voted in Your Honourable House
before he took the Oath provided, as aforesaid.
Your Committee is further
of opinion that the votes of Mr. Orton, before he took the prescribed
Oath, should be struck out of the Division List and Journals of Your
Honourable House, as he had no right to sit and vote until he had taken
Thus, the votes cast by
the Member-elect before taking the oath were not recognized, despite his
valid election, but he was not disqualified or expelled. It is unclear
why Mr. Orton failed to take the oath; it would seem to have been more
inadvertent than intentional; furthermore, it would seem that he rectified
the situation by taking the oath as soon as the omission was brought to
In the 1880s, there was
a series of court decisions in Great Britain involving a Mr. Bradlaugh
and his reluctant to take an oath of allegiance. Various changes to the
British form of the oath had been made during the course of the nineteenth
century so as to remove objections to it by various groups, such as the
Quakers, who objected on religious grounds to any form of oath. These
people were expressly exempted by various statutes and permitted to make
an affirmation in terms prescribed. A difficulty remained, however, for
persons who had no religious belief, and who, therefore, objected to an
oath as having no meaning for them.
On being elected to the
British House of Commons in 1880, Mr. Bradlaugh, being an atheist, demanded
to be allowed to affirm, as he was allowed to do in judicial proceedings,
instead of taking an oath. The House permitted him to do this. Litigation
ensued, however, on the basis that Mr. Bradlaugh ought to have been required
to take the oath, and his not having done so invalidated his votes. The
House of Lords eventually held that he was not entitled to make an affirmation
in lieu of an oath.(5) Though
Mr. Bradlaugh then endeavoured to take the oath, the House resolved that
he should not be allowed to do so, presumably because, as an atheist,
he would not consider himself bound by it. The courts refused to declare
that he was entitled to take the oath.(6)
Subsequently, the Court of Appeal decided that Mr. Bradlaughs lack
of religious belief made it impossible for him to satisfy the requirements
of the Act even if he had taken the oath in due form.
In 1886, however, Mr. Bradlaugh
did take the oath, along with other Members elected to the new Parliament.
The Speaker refused to intervene, saying that he had no authority to prevent
a Member from taking the oath: "The honourable member," he said,
"takes the oath under whatever risks may attach to him in a court
of law."(7) As one commentator
Mr. Bradlaugh therefore
sat and voted subject always to the risk that the law officers of the
Crown might proceed against him for penalties incurred and prove to
the satisfaction of a jury that having no religious belief he had not
taken the oath within the meaning of the Parliamentary Oaths Act.(8)
Two years later, in 1888,
the law was changed so as to enable anyone to make an affirmation in lieu
of an oath. The Bradlaugh case, while more directly concerned with affirmations
than with oaths, also illustrates the need to make an oath or solemn declaration,
as well as the extent and limits of parliamentary and judicial scrutiny
or review of oaths.
There do not appear to have
been any cases of Members of the Canadian House of Commons or the Senate
refusing to take the oath of allegiance. It seems clear that a Member
who refused to take the oath or make a solemn declaration would not be
able to take his or her seat, or draw sessional indemnity. Although various
individuals have been elected to the Canadian House of Commons who might
have been reluctant to take the oath on various grounds, none of them
appears to have neglected to do so or to have refused to swear it or make
a solemn declaration.
OF AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE
Failure to take the oath
of allegiance is one matter. Breaking an oath is another. According to
an early edition of Beauchesne:
Should a member violate
his oath he would be amenable to the penalty of not being allowed to
sit in the House of Commons. He may be suspended from taking part in
the sittings while still remaining a member of Parliament, or, in a
case of extreme gravity, a Bill might be passed to annul his election.
It may happen, when a state of war exists, that a member of Parliament
makes, either outside or on the floor of the House, statements detrimental
to Canada and favourable to the enemy. This would be in violation of
this oath because allegiance to the King means allegiance to the Country,
and the offence would be liable to punishment by the house. The power
of dealing with treason is inherent in the Parliament of every country.(9)
Joseph Howe of Nova Scotia
was one of the first opponents of Confederation, and led the anti-confederate
forces in that province. He was elected to the first House of Commons
in 1867. One historian has written:
Despite Howes threats
in his private letters to England, he assured Major General Hastings
Doyle, who was soon to replace Williams as governor, that he would use
only constitutional methods to gain repeal. Howe, thus, intended to
obey the law of the land, a law which included the act of union. He
was not only prepared to take his seat in the Canadian Parliament but
he also borrowed $1,000 from W.J. Stairs to enable him to make
the trip to Ottawa.(10)
The anti-confederate forces
in Nova Scotia argued that attendance at the federal Parliament and the
acceptance of seats in the House of Commons would constitute acceptance
of the union, and acquiescence in Confederation. Nevertheless, Howe was
sworn and took his seat in the House of Commons. The federal Members from
Nova Scotia attended the first session of the federal Parliament and remained
in Ottawa in spite of the growing insistence in Nova Scotia that they
leave. In his first speech in the House of Commons, Howe upheld the right
of the anti-confederates to agitate against "a mere act of parliament,"
but John A. Macdonald noticed that Howe did not pledge himself to agitate.
Howe spoke frequently in the House, but, aware of criticism in Nova Scotia,
remained apart from the Government and the Opposition. He said that he
intended to "
maintain an independent attitude as an anticonfederate,
asking nothing and accepting nothing till [the British] Parliament decides
for or against us, and then will be governed by circumstances, after full
consultation with our friends."(11)
In addition to favouring repeal of the act of union, the British North
America Act (now the Constitution Act, 1867), Howe also suggested
that the tie with Great Britain be re-considered, a rather revolutionary
sentiment at the time.
A few years later, Louis
Riel was elected to the House of Commons for the riding of Provencher,
first in a by-election in 1873, and then in a general election in 1874.
Following his 1874 victory, Riel, who was avoiding arrest, travelled to
Hull. On 30 March 1874, he crossed the Ottawa River with another Member-elect,
Romuald Fiset, and went to the House of Commons to sign the Members
register and take the oath of office. Having done so, he immediately fled
back to Hull before he could be arrested. It appears that the Clerk of
the House, who administered the oath, did not recognize Riel, and did
not realize who he was until he had left.(12)
Riel was legally elected,
sworn and had his name entered on the rolls, but he did not attempt to
exercise any of his privileges as a Member.(13)
The House of Commons ordered him to appear in the House, which he could
not do for fear of arrest, so, after a heated debate, he was expelled
for failure to comply with the order. In any event, there appears to have
been no question of his refusing to take the oath, nor were there allegations
that he had breached it.
In 1942, during World War
II, the Bloc populaire was formed in response to the introduction of conscription;
by 1944 it had four Members. In the 1945 general election, only two members
of the Bloc populaire were elected. There is no indication that the oath
of allegiance was or became an issue in relation to them.
It was also in the 1940s
that Fred Rose was elected to the House of Commons. One writer has noted
that "as Mr. Rose was subsequently convicted in the spy trails of
1946, it would be difficult to say whether his acceptance of the oath
of allegiance established a precedent of any significance."(14)
Rose was expelled by the House after his conviction, although this was
not done on the basis that he had breached his oath of allegiance.
Were a Member to be found
to have breached his or her oath of allegiance, the House of Commons could
impose punishment. The Canadian House of Commons has from the beginning
reserved the right to refuse to let a Member take his or her seat, and
to discipline or expel any of its Members. Properly speaking, this right
involves the privileges of the House and its Members, and the Houses
inherent ability to manage its own affairs, rather than qualifications
for membership. There is ample precedent for this practice in Canada,
and in other parliamentary systems. Before Confederation, expulsions were
effected in Canada in 1800, 1829, 1831, and 1858. Members have frequently
challenged the right of other Members to sit and vote. In addition to
the expulsion of Louis Riel, there have been a number of serious investigations
with respect to the propriety of allowing certain Members to remain in
office. Most of these cases involved allegations of criminal activity,
although one writer has noted the readiness of the House to disqualify
or expel, even though no statute may have been violated and provided,
perhaps, that party lines could stand the strain."(15)
Although actual rejection
of an elected Member by the House is rare, the House of Commons expelled
Louis Riel twice in 1874-75, Thomas McGreevy in 1891, and Fred Rose in
1947. In two of these cases, the House did not pass a formal motion of
expulsion: in Riels second expulsion, the House merely observed
that he appeared to have "been adjudged an outlaw for felony,"
and was, therefore, disqualified; Rose was found to be "incapable
of sitting or voting in this House" when he was sent to jail.(16)
In none of these cases even that of Rose, who was convicted of
treason did the issue arise of whether the individual concerned
had breached his oath of allegiance.
INVOLVING OTHER LEGISLATURES
Members of provincial legislatures
and assemblies are required by section 128 of the Constitution Act,
1867 to take the same oath as federal Members of Parliament.
Individuals advocating various
forms of separation have been elected to provincial legislatures in Canada.
For example, in the wake of Confederation, the anti-confederates gained
control of the provincial legislature in Nova Scotia, and eventually formed
the government. There is no evidence that any problem or issue arose over
their taking the oath of allegiance.
The most recent and dramatic
case involves the 1976 election of the Parti Québécois in Quebec. According
to one press report, members of the Parti Québécois, faced with the necessity
of taking the oath, resolved it by "crossing their fingers"
while doing so.(17) Another
explanation is that the oath was seen as an oath to the Queen in right
of the province, since the Crown in Canada is divisible. As such, the
Queen represents the state (or the province), and is a symbol rather than
an identifiable individual.
Since 1982, members of Quebecs
National Assembly have been required to take a second oath. Section 15
of the National Assembly Act. R.S.Q., A-23.1, provides: "No
member may sit in the Assembly before taking the oath or solemn declaration
provided in Schedule I." Schedule I sets out the following oath or
I, (full name of the Member),
swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be loyal to the people of Québec
and that I will perform the duties of Member honestly and justly in
conformity with the constitution of Québec.
According to the Members
Manual of the National Assembly:
Writers on parliamentary
law (Beauchesne, 4th ed) state that the oath of allegiance to the Queen
required by section 128 of the British North America Act refers
to allegiance to the country, while the oath required by section 15
of the National Assembly Act is an oath of allegiance to the
people and Constitution of Quebec.(18)
This distinction between
the two oaths, and description of the constitutionally required oath,
presumably enables Members to take the oaths who might otherwise object
to doing so.
IN OTHER COUNTRIES
There have been cases where
"separatist" parties and individuals have been elected to legislatures
in other countries. Again, few specific examples have been found of the
failure or refusal to take an oath of allegiance or of allegations that
a Member violated or breached such an oath.
In Great Britain, members
of Welsh and Scottish nationalist parties have been elected to the British
House of Commons. Such individuals have often advocated devolution, and
other forms of political restructuring. As they would not necessarily
have opposed the continuation of the monarchy, however, they would probably
have had no great difficulties in swearing an oath of allegiance to the
More problematic is the
case of Irish Catholic members of the British Parliament who advocate
unification of Northern Ireland with the Republic of Ireland. Members
of Sein Fein, the political arm of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), and
others, would presumably be reluctant to pledge allegiance to a British
monarch. No cases have been found, however, where a duly elected Member
did not take the oath, or was alleged to be in violation of it.
There were problems, however,
before the establishment of the Republic of Ireland, when Members of the
British Parliament representing constituencies in what was known as the
Irish Free State (1921-37) and Eire (1937-49) were constitutionally required
to take an oath of allegiance to the British Crown.(19)
Similarly, as various former
colonies in the British Empire gained their independence, no doubt legislators
were elected who advocated independence, separation, a break from Britain,
and other policies that were not necessarily consistent with the oath
of allegiance. Even so, the issue does not appear to have arisen in any
In 1920, the Australian
House of Representatives expelled one of its Members, Hugh Mahon, for:
Having, by serious and
disloyal utterances at a public meeting
been guilty of conduct
unfitting him to remain a Member of this House and inconsistent with
the oath of allegiance which he has taken as a Member of this House
This is virtually the only
case found where a legislator lost his or her seat for violating an oath
of allegiance. Even this case seems to have been based on political and
personal grounds as much as anything else.
CONSTITUTES A VIOLATION OR BREACH OF THE OATH?
There do not appear to be
any cases to illustrate what would constitute a betrayal of the oath of
allegiance. The taking of an oath or indeed an affirmation is essentially
a question of morality. It is generally believed that people do not take
the oath or affirmation lightly, and will consider themselves bound by
it. If the person taking the oath lies, on one level that is a matter
between that person and his or her conscience or God. At the same time,
just as witnesses lie in court, despite having been sworn to tell the
truth, people do on occasion break their oaths. Moreover, in the present,
less religious era, it is likely that many people are not as intimidated
by oaths as was previously the case.
When an oath is broken,
penalties are usually imposed. For example, witnesses who lie in court
can be charged with perjury or held in contempt of court. It is up to
the legislature to punish such contraventions by legislators. Punishment
can consist of a motion of censure, or, in the most severe cases, expulsion
of the individual.
There can be significant
difficulties in establishing whether politicians have broken an oath.
Perhaps this would be easy to do in a clear case of treason, but in most
other cases it would depend, in part, on how one saw or interpreted the
oath, and ones definition of allegiance or loyalty.
Some see the oath not as
one of allegiance to the Queen as an individual so much as one of allegiance
to the Crown as a symbol. The Queen can be seen as representing or symbolizing
the state, either nationally or provincially, or as the embodiment of
a democratic and constitutional form of government.
It is extremely difficult
to define what activities would be considered to be a breach of the oath
of allegiance. Would the test be objective or subjective? While an individual
might feel honestly and sincerely that his or her actions did not breach
the oath, others might disagree. Moreover, if the oath is considered to
be to the Queen as representative or symbolic of a parliamentary and democratic
system, one is arguably remaining faithful to it so long as one does not
advocate a violent overthrow of the government.
In a courtroom setting,
it may be a relatively simple matter to determine whether someone has
told the truth in sworn testimony. In considering concepts like "allegiance,"
though, determination of a breach is much more difficult. What one person
considers to be in the best interests of the country may not seem to be
so to other people. An individual may honestly believe that a communist
form of government would be good for the people: would this belief be
contrary to his or her oath of allegiance? Does how the person goes about
achieving the goal make a difference? One persons idea of loyalty
to Canada may not be someone elses but so long as the objective
is pursued by legal, democratic and parliamentary means, it might be argued
that the person has not violated the oath of allegiance.
A distinction could also
be drawn between those who seek a new constitutional arrangement and those
who seek the break-up of the country. Again, by representing certain views
of their constituents, Members could be perceived as being themselves
at variance with the "national interest." Similarly, even the
break-up of the country may not in itself constitute a violation of the
oath: the oath is to the Queen, and the Queen could remain the head of
any new state that resulted (this would seem to be the policy of the Scottish
Nationalist Party in Great Britain).
On 1 November 1990, the
Speaker said "Your Speaker is not empowered to make a judgement on
the circumstances or the sincerity with which a duly elected Member takes
the oath of allegiance. The significance of the oath to each Member is
a matter of conscience and so it must remain."(21)
He went on to remind the House that:
the fact that an Honourable
Member holds views which are vigorously opposed by other Honourable
Members can in no sense be allowed to detract from his right to present
A historical perspective
on Parliament here in Canada and in Great Britain reveals ample precedent
for the presence in the House of duly elected Members whose ultimate
goal may be at odds with, even inimical to, the constitutional status
Only the House can examine
the conduct of its Members and only the House can take action if it
decides action is required. Should the House decide that an Honourable
Member has in some way committed a contempt, then it is for the House
to take appropriate steps.(22)
It is important to understand
the purpose of oaths of allegiance. Persons who are elected or appointed
to public office are expected to be loyal and faithful. They are assuming
positions of public trust, and the oath of allegiance is a pledge that
they will conduct themselves "patriotically," and in the best
interests of the country. The oath also serves to remind the individual
taking it of the serious obligations and responsibilities that he or she
is assuming. There is no magic about oaths, but they do serve an important
Various forms of oaths are
possible. An oath of allegiance to the head of state is the one adopted
in Canada and most Commonwealth countries. Oaths of allegiance to the
country, to the people, or to the countrys constitution are also
used in various countries. The Dutch have added a requirement that the
individual take an oath or affirmation that he or she is not under any
obligation to any other person. Variations of these oaths are possible,
for example, an oath in favour of democratic traditions. To some extent,
the choice of subject matter for oaths depends on the values of the society,
and the things seen as the cornerstones of the countrys political
The Crown was important
in terms of the historical development of the United Kingdom. In the context
of the religious battles between Catholics and Protestant, and the debate
over religious leadership, the requirement for an oath of allegiance to
the monarch is understandable. When the Canadian Constitution was being
drafted, the British tradition was imported. As Canada gradually acquired
full independence, culminating in the patriation of the Constitution in
1982, the nature of the oath required of legislators in Canada could have
been reviewed. Since the Queen is still the head of state of Canada, an
oath of allegiance to her is still relevant. The monarchy, however, is
not as central to the Canadian political system as it once was; indeed,
many Canadians question the concept of a monarch, particularly one who,
living in another country, is perceived as "foreign." Others
see the Crown as a vestige of the colonial or imperial past. At the same
time, however, the oath does not involve the Queen in her personal capacity,
but rather the Queen as the symbol or personification of the country,
its constitution and traditions, including concepts such as democracy.
Failure to take the oath
of allegiance constitutes an absolute bar to sitting or voting in Parliament
or the provincial legislatures of Canada. The only way to change this
would be to amend the Canadian Constitution. It is not entirely clear
whether this could be done under the general amending formula (through
resolutions of Parliament and of the legislatures of at least two-thirds
of the provinces having at least fifty per cent of the population) or
whether it would require unanimity. (One could argue that a single legislature
could by itself amend the oath required of its own Members, but any action
based on such a premise would probably be challenged.)
There is, however, no penalty
for a Members failure to take an oath, other than his or her inability
to sit or vote or to draw a salary. Presumably, the House of Commons could
expel anyone who consistently refused to take the oath, or even declare
the seat vacant. Such an act, however, would probably be challenged under
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Once a Member has taken
the oath of allegiance, thus becoming entitled to take a seat and vote
in the House, the only issue that could arise would be whether the Member
violated or breached the oath. The House of Commons has the power to expel
or otherwise discipline Members who contravene the oath. There do not
appear to be any precedents for use of this power, however, and, given
the general vagueness of the concept, considerable difficulties would
seem to lie in the way of establishing the validity of allegations of
contravention. Ultimately, the matter would probably have to be resolved
politically, although the Charter of Rights and Freedoms might
be relevant in appropriate circumstances.
Arthur Beauchesne, Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada,
Fourth Edition, The Carswell Company Limited, Toronto,1958, at citation
15, p. 13. This was apparently done by Instructions passed under the Royal
Sign Manual and Signet of 15 June 1905. The question arises as to how
a Royal Instruction can legally amend a constitutional provision; it does
not appear that this issue has been addressed. According to later editions
of Beauchesnes (see, for example, Sixth Edition, 1989, citation
243), the Oaths of Allegiance Act, R.S.C 1985, c. 0-1, permits
Members who object to being sworn to make a solemn affirmation if the
taking of an oath is contrary to their religious belief, or if they have
no religious belief. This, however, does not appear to be correct, as
a federal statute cannot override a constitutional provision.
Alistair Fraser, W.F. Dawson, and John A. Holtby, Beauchesnes
Rules & Forms o f the House of Commons of Canada, Sixth Edition,
the Carswell Company Limited, Toronto, 1989, citation 242(2), p. 68.
C.J. Boulton, ed., Erksine Mays Treatise on The Law, Privileges,
Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, Twenty-first Edition, Butterworths,
London, 1989, at p. 231.
House of Commons, Journals 1875, at p. 176.
Clark v. Bradlaugh, (1882-83), 8 App. Ca. 354 (H.L.), on
appeal from (1880-81), 7 Q.B.D. (C.A.)
Attorney-General v. Bradlaugh (1884-85), 14 Q.B.D. 667.
Quoted in Sir William R. Anson, The Law and Custom of the Constitution,
Fourth Edition, Reissue Revised, Oxford, 1911, Volume I, at p. 93.
Ibid., at p. 93. This text contains a full discussion of the Bradlaugh
case, at p. 89-95.
Arthur Beauchesne, Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada,
Fourth Edition, the Carswell Company Limited, Toronto, 1958, at citation
16(2), p. 14.
Kenneth George Pryke, "Nova Scotia and Confederation, 1864-1870,"
Doctoral Dissertation, Duke University, 1962, at p. 147.
Ibid., at p. 152-153. See also J. Murray Beck, Joseph Howe,
Volume II, McGill-Queens University Press, Montreal, 1983, at p.
Thomas Flanagan, Louis "David" Riel: "Prophet of the
New World," University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1979, at p.
42; William McCartney Davidson, Louis Riel, 1844-1885, The Albertan
Publishing Company Ltd., Calgary, 1955, at p. 110; Hartwell Bowsfield,
Louis Riel: The Rebel and the Hero, Oxford University Press, Toronto,
1971, at p. 70; G.F.G. Stanley, Louis Riel: Patriot or Rebel?,
The Canadian Historical Association, Booklet No 2, Ottawa, 1979, at p.
Norman Ward, The Canadian House of Commons: Representation, University
of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1950, at p. 70; see also ibid.
Ibid., p. 79.
Ibid., p. 72.
Norman Ward, Dawsons The Government of Canada, Sixth Edition,
University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1987, at p. 105. In 1986, the right
of the legislature of Nova Scotia to expel a duly elected member who had
pleaded guilty to an indictable offence was challenged under the Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The court held that, while the legislature
had the power to expel the Member, it could not prevent him from running
Charles Lynch, "Bloc Québécois: Members Make Oaths of Office Seem
Ridiculous," The Ottawa Citizen, 29 July 1990.
Quebec, National Assembly, Manuel des membres de lAssemblée nationale,
ch. 2.1, 1986, p. 2.
See Donal OSullivan, The Irish Free State and its Senate,
Faber and Faber Limited, London, 1940; J.L McCracken, Representative
Government in Ireland, Oxford University Press, London, 1958; Timothy
Patrick Coogan, Ireland Since the Rising, Pall Mall Press, London,
Australia, House of Representatives, Votes and Proceedings (1920-21),
p. 431. See also Parliamentary Debates, 1920-21, Vol. SCIV, pp.
6283-6284, 6327-6328, 6382-6475.
House of Commons, Debates, 1 November 1990, p. 14970.