Star. — London, England, 1829-05-19 00:00:00

a• - , , which are alm'sfiliod Iseille Relief Sill -to be taken by Roman Centel& 7 dno Act of-Caton it was. en , tainly directed that Vs the oelleksed by the Act of ' Charles the &coital's* Id be takes, but it did webs. pose any pales or •.. ' tie's* th ose who would- refuse .to take them. It. • nerhap,h_he,gsid, th at as th e Act directed they ri betaken; n was the ditty • therHause, not to allow , any Member to sit or vote until .. he bad tekeittbans. This Wes a point which, although Ii win not by any means prepared to concede. let as is this instance it bad been adopted by that Hon" sod ai there were precedents by which Bills of-indetnnity 4 .•' had been granted in favour of those who-had ne gl ectee ' to take the oaths, be would not occupy the time of the .• • Hansa by dwelling•upon it at length ; but be ,Would ' herald,' submit to the-House whether theAcrof Union • not haying given them the power to enforce the oaths. they Weft itutified in depriving a Representative of the , People 4 his right, and the People of their Repress*. tatire? He entrea ted the House to recollect why Ron Man tiatliolics were excluded from sitting inParliameni. They could not sit in Parliament for no Other' reason but because they could not cosscientioesly take the oaths which woulthave been put to them.' The power was left to. the people, if they should be disposed to diet persons who were capable of the grossest perjury, while those who shrink from perjury were excluded. It west" bad principle to act upon; and if he stood de the Act of Union alone, be respectfully submitted that. standing as he did before an assembly of Christians and Gentlemen, they could not follow op such a principle, and he must succeed. But be did not rest his claims solely on the Act of Union—he stood upon the Relief Bill, the effect of which,•he contended. was tp do away with the oaths imposed by the:AO of •Union—(Hear). •That Act directed that those oaths should be taken until a certain time, and that time was until Parliament should otherwise ordain. That time 'had come—Par liament had already otherwise ordained—the declara tion had been totally abolished—and new oaths had been already administered in that Hesse. The Act had been ; but temporary; it was only to be. in-force until sonseci thing should happen. •It was a penal statute restrictive ;,t, of the tights of the people, end was only to last t i l l Par, ~4. ~,?asuent should otherwiseindain. That periCid was came, - not alone with regard to Catholics, not alone with re l .. „gird to, Protestants, er with regard toDissenters,.but to 1 4 ,, All persons taking 'cicala- Parliament. The very oathi r. which had been proposed to him on Friday,sight' were 41vw,elicl fteth ; they were different from tbDse which were in operation en the 13th of April last. The Act of Union which required the oaths to be taken toss there fare closed,. and he claimed his right to .the limitation if that Act as if it hadnever existed. Bit. supposing the Howe WAS not yet convinced that .thoseAaihs were .repealed„ he would beg to call their attention.to the in tention of the-Legislature in passing. the present. Bill— . to the AO of Union, from tbe.reign of Charles 41. the object wase to exclude Papists from Parliament, And it wasog course. the duty of the House w construe the Act which was passed for that .psrpose.according to the , intention. But here the .object was to open the •Hosses of Parliament to Roman Catholics; to remove the bar which those oaths opposed to . their...entrance; And he respectfully contended that be bad a right to enjoy the. benefit to the intention. This Act was like most other Acts of Parliament, which sometimes eons wilted in the middle. and sometimes at the end, of the .subject. . It in the first place..provided that all Catholic Pee's should be qualified to sit and vote in ?Aimee* on taking the new. oaths, as well those whose titles had been created between. the reign of Charles the Second And the present time. as .before that period. There were two Peers in Ireland in. the .fornser.situatien.— There was Another on whom an .attainder. had been passed...which he might sly was an unjust ittainder, As .it , had . been since declared so by the -Legisla tine. The titles of the Earl of Kenmare and .Baron Ffreuch had. heti mated when they could not enjoy the. benefits of those titles. • They were.now eligi• ble in enjoy .their full rights, and it, sewer could have been meant to deprive those. who were elected by the people as their representatives.of equal advantages from this act of justice. The section following. admitting persons who should be veturnettis the House of Com imens after the commencemenoef this - Act to sit and vote by taking the new oath, if it did not include him, Minding in.the situation in which he did, certainly did not exclude him. It might not, perhaps, go so far as to admit him, Wit did not injure his claim. There was AM point on which he might contentfor his right even under this section, but,• as it was more.% the way of legal Argument, and better fit to discuss in a court of law than before an assembly of that description, he would not .occupy the time of the House by dwelling on it.— He Poly mentioned it now because. in a strictly legal sense, he thought be could take adtantage of k; and he wished to remind. the House of a ease whieb..had lately been decided. in which it bad beentisled.that where pro• perty was bequeathed by.a will tom Children, hereafter to be born, children who bad been born previously were entitled, to inherit. This was merely a technical matter, scud, he . hoped 11 , .n. Members would never understand it at their own. xpenire— ( A leash). lf, then, this iec. ‘ion, was not (tamed for the purpose of exeloding it, it roust' have . been .le4med far other objects, and those objects Yiere.t9 admit those who, like the Earl of Sur- Fey. had;been.since ,elected ; but there was se negative clause in it ; it could not, in any way have the effect of eecludilig. He ,pas, now came at once to that part of theßill on which be thought •it was impossibl a doubt epeldexist with regard to his sight, and he must apo. 011441tIktplio Home .ior having detained them so long fin other points Hitinearnithe tenth section of the Bill: --.? 4 And beit.further enacted, that it shall be lawful for sey,of,his .Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion to,hold, exercise, and enjoy, All civil bad otilitaryoffi:es and places of trust or pro fi t rimier isbleies‘ychia heirs to SISCCeSSOTS, and to mei cis', any gollecjegivaliae or tipil right, except as hereinafter eu ;AWOL upgp taking and subscribing at the time, and is the 111Anegr. hereinafter mentioned, the oath hereinhelore itprp l 4o qpd Set froth, instead of the midis of alle gigue mid topremacy, .and declaration against ttinsub- W 48010006 pd such plbar oath or oaths as are or may he wpw .ky Jew required to be taken. foi. the purpose filteSoostick, oft/ Of his Majesty's 'objects professing • the ,Itomap.Cetholic,religion." So farthe erect which ;biro:lan* niest,bave was .perfectly plain; but, as he Wpold ,pot Italie the .right Of reply, be was, of course. borapd to miticippte any otiections which could possibly lire made ; .apd if he .refuted objections which Ron. ilieu Might ;wider frivolous, and which they Would ut- s troke disclaim, he entreated them to make Ow oilolseatils:fair hissitnation, Nod not to ascribe it to eill.A, OF **To thelP• that -et meeting . any objections - !OPT' Moo p• urged. llsiii section, in the first in. *WOO% ear .torkithog civil and military offices. eon- Am..* ibe, 39 4 1 ;"sfeitnc.bistr." Ibis conk* not refer az .oB#lo, Ito Ale thgtOe fr attabise,forahat, wil'already IrFt•iiittotir siteutigged in the. loth section qt she .Bilk `Nish trued to the: franchise of.oarporations. the 44t1s. section asthma's it,; so that the Act intentioneUfee.: teada.so fen an to make use of the ward again; and, Itt• Geier te give the Act the fullest ecope which 1h 14" lame intended, it goes on to include all deal Fleas *mpg apse which are hereinafter excepted, and *ale 14irtaio olives width are mentioned io the lffth sue ' ticket die BM, and the Lord Cbsocellorship and - Ler4 Liatiteuancy of Ireland. The f3th section also ezefoded_ Masao Catholics from interfering in livings in the by . peohibiting them, fiom advising•i Crown in the appointment of offices of prelersnent in theCherch. These, then, were al[ the exceptions which were men dined, and if sitting in :Parliament was excepted, it would surely bad been excepted by name. He had mad the Bid carefully, and could not see any one : part of it in.which this civil right was excepted. It.might, perhaps, be asked, was .sitting in Parliament a civil right? He had looked into several law authorities on this subject, and be found that Blackstone divides the entire subject on which he writes into right and wrong, tad the very first example of civil right which he gives rthe tight to sit and vote in Parliament. Butif they were to travel out of law authorities. 'and look to the meaning of the word as used in the Engliiblanguage. be found that Johnson explained she word d , civil," as relating to the community. 6 4 political," and the words political and civil were, 'indeed, precisely the mime in meaniag. the only differeicetieing tbatone was derived fteef,the Greek and the other from the Litin. Agititf,- the meaning given for the word 41 right" woo 44 eihat justly belongs to a perido, power, preroga tive, immunity, privilege." These meanings were in fact mete comprehensive than he himself could have looked for. The word civil rights could not mean bah chise. for that was mentioned in itself. It could not .apply to property, for by another section of the Bill that could be enjoyed without taking any oath. It was clear, then, that political privileges were meant by civil rights. There was one which might,perbapkbe urged. as no time and manier were appotpted for taking the oaths in compliance with the latter part of the tenth sec tion. Which provided that they should be taken as herein after mentioned, and as the 19th section provided the time and manner for taking oaths for corporate, and the 30th for other offices. But his objection was to obviate, by the Sad section, which provided for every such case; and by punctuation, as there was no punctuation in Acts .of Parliaments, it would be made to bear even more strongly on his case; but this section provided the proper Affirm where those oaths should be taken and authorised. And ordered the proper officers to tender the oaths when any Catholic should demand to take them. There never was time and place mentioned. The time was when they aboold be demanded—the place the Courts of Ex. chequer, King's Bench, Common Pleas, and Chancery. That objection therefore vanished at once. He had taken the oaths as the law directed. and he wai ready to prove it. He could now lay the certificate• on the table, and, having taken the oaths, he would torn round And respectfully ask the House oh what grounds they could exclude him ? His was not a case in which there was any danger Of its being made a precedent, for such a case could never again occur; and he could not sup pose that it was the intention of the Legislaarre to ex elude him from the bene fi t of the Relief Bill unless they wished that the Act which was to afford relief to an entire nation should be an act of outlawry against a single individual. It the intention was to direct the Act against him, why did they .ntit specify his case ?— The circumstances of it were well known ; they were on the records of the Home, for a Parliamentary Com mittee had sac upon his election. He wished to call the attentioa of the House tki the preaMble of the Bill.. It is as follows—. " Whereas, by various Acts of PuWmaat, certain restrainand .disabillties am impeesd as Roma Catholic sobjectsofhis Majesty, to whieb other sobjests et his Majesty. are oat tables sal whereas Ws needful* diet such restraints sod disabeisin shall be from issecifordidiseaudemid t assd whereas, by varletwActs, certain oaths sad declared/O. osmsenly called the declaration against tramalk sundial...and salmi tcansubstandasios and 'tlas 'invocation . Of salon. and the escrifice ash, mass, as. practised in the Church of Rome ' are or may be refired to be taken, made, and subscribed , by the subjects et his Mapesty.es qualifications fordo's,' and eating in Pediment, pod fee the enjoyment of ace., franchise, and deli rights—Be it coaxed, by the Obill MOM easeful Majesty, by and 'Weise advice zed consent of the Lout Spiritual 'and Tem poral, and Commons. hi dsii present Pullman assembled. and by the authority - of - the same, that from and after the commencement of this Act all suds parts debt said Acts as resides the said decla rations or either of them, to be made or subscribed as a qualifiers don for doing and voting in Peasant, or fee the 'lefties*, enjoyment of any ace, franiblic. or •dwil right. by goy a his Majesty's Objects, be, and the same are (save as hereinafter provided and excepted), hereby repealed."' It included all Catholics, and was "to remove resttaints equally from all. That was all he claimed. He knew the recital of a Bill 'was not to ceramist any afterelause; that.is that a particular recital should not controol a general clause; but in this case the recital was gene and bore out the meaning of a general clause. They should, therefore, look to the recital, and look also to the enactment; and he respectfullycoutended that. both were conclusive in his favour. But if they did not per mit him to sit, be would ask. what could they do w ith him? The penalty of the 30th Charles 11. which was a penal grievance, had been abrogated. and they could not therefore turn him out. They could aot let him in. What was to become of him? He contended that the penalties did not continue, for to refer again to the pecuniary penalty, which imposed a fine of MU. be would go before any jury, and defy them to impose the, fine; and if be was not subject to the smaller penalty. hOw could he be subject to the greater—the one which , Ought to be.much mere valuable as it ought to bowed" m o re dear to him—the power of representing .a devoted," a patriotic, ea . 'almost Martyred ple? The most obnoxious parts - Of the Act of Charles had been viol pealed. It was by the declaration that Human Ca tholics were intended to be excluded, and; after the greater oppression bad been removed, were they suppose that the greater penalty should remain?. if beWas wrong the very next Term the questins usighi be tried-in the Cann of King's Bench. and if the 36e. tiers decided against bus there was an end to hisclaisis. He would have to pay a penalty of 5001.--and, suei being the ease, whj need the House to interfere to tfie fuse his claim when it might be settled by the King's Justices? He did not ask them to decide in his ta your against theii privileges, but he begged to remind them that by deciding in his favour, they could do no wrong.' for the question being tried neat Term, if the Omit of -King's Bench decided sigainst him.' and that any Member of this Hoists brought in his hand the • judgment of that Court;' there was 'an end to his (Mr. O'Connell's) right. This was quite clear, and it ought to be equally clear that if enydenbt arose in the Construction of the Jaw ,as it referred to his case, hi ivis entitled tiiide benefit of the ilcitsbu To conclude, be claimed this sight because be was returned by the voice of the people. The law, as it affected this tight,' was now to be construed,ior the first time, and he was. sorry that his was the first case in which it was to be *construed. Ile did not hesitate to sly, that he had de ferred trying his right as long as he could, but he felt it ae imperative dory to those whb sent him to have his fight decided upon. if the decision of this question was . mve individual case be would bury his claims in per.: etual oblivioop but bj doing sobs lel% thit Ise sbosiii /0 - civil /WK.' and that, if the . Noise. divided meld. degas' dint Ail Relict Bill was 1 pot .u... 841 *frame' relict to Hoin2 4 ofi t elhOlicis taSthat Too l 'ids mine Inas, to be considered ilfitielkaltlf!l t ltTlk , l . t) 449..e for "tid him i na tiv i ry d iret b .-,42 - s w ilrblrtre ' . u : 4 ; ad the Bilk $t I eitrieinly.might Isuleflsite, 144 by those who 4uppoerd .4te ReMelosfaittbone Re lief Bill, that it was a 841 tomiet ..oe110111 1 :Allinstk sides. and heast-barnings; 'that it was a return for .by-gone- wrongs; . and that by it the foundation was to be laid for a solid and substantial building. dedicated to unanimity' and peace. If die House 4e cidcd against his daimithat was the infeietice whiCh mutt arise but that thaelief Bill was a Bill not appli; cable to . gamin Catlielici generally—that its peculiar features might be distorted—that the words of which it - was composed /night be wrenched from their ordi nary meaning-and that what was granted as a civil right was not, in fact, a civil right, but that some pre text ora4cuse might be found for overturning it?,- The decision of the present question then, affected the wisdom and policy of the late Act, for what ,other, construction could unlearned persons. orArnald the pub. lic generally, put on it, if his claim was denied,, than that he bad pvinted out? Under all the circumstances, he respectfully submitted that his right to sit and fete' in that house was a civil right, clearly and 'plainly re cognised by the late•statute. That statute was 1111;0111 6 prehensive in its enactments--it grips all comprehensive in its recital--it was allcomprehensive in its language— and the words 44 with the exception hereafter named , " demonstrated that all which remained, all not included in the exceptions so named, was a right belonging to all persons without farther exception. On that statute he stood, and claimed the benefit of its principle and its provisions. Mr. 043einestt then vrkhdrew from the bar amidst di Ayers. After. Mr. o*Courvat. bad withdrawn from idst , the Bar there was payee (or monk minutes, occasioned by Members and strangers quitting the House. As soon es the bunk bad in sense degree subsided. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose and said, that, as the Hon. Member for the county of Clare had with-1 drawn from the bar after stating his claims with an ability worthy of so distinguished ao advocate, and with a temper and moderation which did him credit as a man and a Gentleman—k now became the . duty of the House first to discuss and debate, and then to come) I to a consideration and decision on the question wising ' upon the Honourable Gentleman's claim. la coming to that decision he trusted that the Hou-e would dis card every thing like party or political feeling, and dia. cuss the question strictly on its merits, as a matter of duty. Such, he could assure the House, was the temper lof his own mind,, he would ;endeavour to consider the question which now arose as if he was 'called upon ' to give an opinion on a long obsolete and by-gone Act of Parliament, the actors in framing which had long riacee left the stage. He trusted the House would bear with him whilst be stated the ground on which he had formod an opinion, different, perhaps, to that which others had formed, and Which was, that the Hon. Gem. who bad just addressed the House was not entitled to sit and vote without Gist taking the oath of _supremacy. , The Hon. Gentleman's argument embraced two dis tinct point; to which he should address himielf. In the first place the Hon. Gentleman relied upon the Act lot Union, which, be contended, had virtually done away with the necessity of-taking the oath of supremacy. The other branch of the Hon. Gentleman's argument was solely and entirely directed to the force and rl •aning of the late Act of Parliapient for the relief of .his Ma. jetty's Roman Catholic subjects. These were the dis tinct branches to which the Hon. Member directed his argument, and though there were other argoments, they were perfectly Independent of the privilege he claims of sitting or voting, and many Of them must be to be unconnected with the question on ihich the House had to decide. Coming to the first of the Hon. Gen deman's arguments, he found that the Hon. Gentle man held that the enactments and the peculiar penal ties and disabilities to be found in the Act of Char lesll. were not imported nor to be found in the Act of Union. - Now, if it had been in his tthe Solicitor General's) power to come to this C011C1114041 ,at tb the state of the law, be admitted that he should ' not be sorry for it, because, if it. appeared that, since she Union with Ireland, Roman Catholics had no necelsity to take oaths or snake declarations, such a conviction would tend much to reconcile differences and animosities on the one side, and heartburnings. on the other, for it mould then appear that the Catholics possessed since the Union what they had so often suisequently prayed for, and that by the late measur 3 the Leglature bad given op no secutities at all. He was boned, however, to say, in honesty, that, until the Roman Catholic Relief Bill passed, there was a valid and substantial.securily against Roman Catholics quieting this House of Parlia ment. He had no difficulty whatever in saying that be fore the passing of the late Act the Catholics were Oc cluded. He would first take into consideration the oaths required to be taken up to period when the Catholic Relief Bill passed, and then he would advert to the state of the law as it was affected by that Bill. Upon the first. point these were many things that all parties had .agseed to. It could not ha denied, for instance, that trom the time of the sth of Elizabeth to the Ist of William' and , Mai y, it was necessary for Members of thattlouse to 'take the oath of Supremacy before the High Steward. It was .contended by some, though he was of a different opi nion, that the Act f the Ist of William and Mary re pealed the Act of Elizabeth. 11ur to go back to the Act of Charles the Second, two oaths were-then ordered to be taken-at the table, together with the new declara tion against transubstantiation, and this was the law and the practice which contitosed and subsisted up to the time of the Union. Now, the question was, fist, irlff.; ther she Aet of William and Mary made it no longei . necessary that the oaths should be taken before the High 'Steward? and. idly, whether the Act of Union altered the state of the law as it was left by the 'Act of William and Mary, by preventing and doing away the necessity of taking any oaths? Those were thetwo points, and the only points, on which persons were at variance on this :object. He would just trouble the House with a few words on the statute of William and Mary, which he contended had no effect in rendering the oaths of supremacy andZ:r unnecessary to be taken before the Lord High d. He contended that, before the passing of the late Act, tito man had a right to enter or vote in that Moan, or to do any act as a Member, without taking the oaths before the H:gh Steward, and that, therefore, the Hon. Gentleman had no right, as a knight, citizen; -ae burgess, to enter the House; . and when the light Honoaiablatlentlemtan* asked what was to he don! witteltizn e 'be (die Stilicitoe' General) would replj k that,' in his view, and it theigcluse . concurred with him subsequentia clisctiteOn:thi House bad nothing to do but td order a new :wit to be issued. It was unnecessary, perhilps, Wester iiito any relation of the circumatinikel tinder'olhkkthal'Aiti of William and Mary was paiiptilVailbe facts wetelkioin . to every Member of that House.' Upon'the hodiag.of Y.ing William and Queen Mary le ttere misslife were .seat out to protureatiastep4ltiof saisethitig s atttelf -parliament as could be istrph mitletatthe cireotnl. `' UP• l 4Thf a colty was found to from *hick of their aliigm e iiir taken the oaths of supremacy and allegiance Mince e i t 2r Highlksward.The difficulty was,that they could tioti e kt the oath of allegiance to the Prince *he had abdicated,. and the old oath wi uld. sot apply to the yew Nice ; Some provision. thereto*, was necessary to make wh et Jog .aseecia. ale -amuse •rif talleilatiab•lido-a,abo. liament. - Upon the meeting of A. contention, ther e . fore. - the first proceediog . vows to cam tbe4rst.Act :anti Mary, chapter tbk lest, b which t h e ., convention .was Awned ,it:to a Parliament. the only . object of that Act was to state • 'that was to lre• ste ne • with regard to the taking:of the oath' of supremacy' and allegiance. •At the. table owety thing that was to be. done previously•oras 'still required to be done... sp a the Act' has no , tefeiencrto any thing to be doemy re; luminary to Members entering the House. The Ai * of Willimas and, Mary stated that certain oaths should be then taken by Members at the table, but it did not•stime that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance were to Aitken at the table,of the H<<use ,and ; not tlsewliwi: As to whether the statute of William and MerrrePealeil T „ toot o f e,inaueto was quite another question. and.kr was decidedly of opinion th it the statute of Sods beth was re it repealed by that of William and - Meiji but that, alter the passing of the statute of William and Malty, Members of the Houses of Lords'and mons tame bound to take the oaths previous to sitti ng in Parliament. 'The Legislature clearly did not we e . in the slightest degree, to repeal the oath's of allegisece and supremacy by the I.st of William nod Miry. Th e : intention.of.the Legislature wa4.-clearlyskfined•by sub. sequent proceedings. 'Within a year after the statmeof William and Mary, upon reierence to the Journals of Parliament, : they would 6od that-commissions meg given-by the Duke of Devonshire, who was et that lime the Lord Eigh Steward, to - Dimities, to admiouterthe oaths to Meinbers. - The lot mss corn issions, as described in the Act of Elizabeth. were exactly cipied. Ind_ the moment the Parliament met those commissions a im issued, which proved to 'demonstration. that the Act shortly before passed did not affect the oaths to be sakes out Of the House. It was impossible to sup lose, under all the circumstances of those times, that it could have been intended to repeal the oaths to. be taken oat i nt: the Wass, and that, it these had been-any cosh tendon, it would not have been distinctly slated in the Act. The oaths were administered by that High Steward in the Goa .yeer of William and liltufsAti ß n. when All tbepersons were alive who had been Dam mental in r aisin g the Act.- The persons likely to be called upon to advise the . Crown pt this time were load Chief Justice Holt, Sir John Creeeey, the Attorney P General, and Sir John -Somers, afterwards .the toed !Lord 8 amen, who was , then Geoiral. Some of thegreatest a nd best-men of that age were, 'bertha', consulted on this Act, end it Was abundantly midget m from all the citcustaoCet.. thai . the *statute Of Willies" anJ Mary did not repeal the oaths to becakenbeime the Lord High Steward -as to subsequent Parliaments The oaths to besakeo remained she eel y.sante from the use of William and 'Meg to the passing cf the Act 'Alias with Ireland. In all that long interval it had never hem urged that those oaths were to be repealed; and on a point which-concerned their own privileges. and 'Ouch must have come frequently before tbe 14 Iv', it was impossible not to build with some Outdate on the fact that no.objection was ever made to takiatthose oaths on the ground that they had been repealed. Up to the period. of the Union, then, the oaths•of .septe fancy add allegiance were -still neceseary.to.be. taken, and the statute of Elizabeth was still in' force...ile thought he could tasisty the House, by a short Oa* ment, that the Act of Union did not alter the liw.oek• respect to the oaths to be taken. • or the peoaltits ant disabilities which followed - I(ons"any aighlerintakieg those oaths.. The. penalties . and disabijitiea. evaded to a breach of the Act Making it necessity .for Aka ben to take the oaths -were important and .*eighty considerations; 'might he allowed - . to.'ay that an_ Act •of .Parliament could only bt iliderttoid according to its "subject matter and felt interpre tation. The Act in heland .in force before the Union. aid requiring oaths t 6 betaken by - Menthe:4,as ezattly_the same as in England. eccept as to*the witba before the Lord High Steward. Tile omits to lattakaa .at the 'Ask were precisely the same is Iffliaalle is England.. The oaths &supremacy and allegiaote woe the same, for which it was not necessary for him is mention any authorities. As the force of the - William the Third was doubted, on the ground. dist the Irish Parliament was not a party, Yelyersoe's Act was passed in 1782 or 1783, and removed all doubts, and from that time all the oaths imposed in England were also imposed in Ireland. in Abe e ats! manner as in England. Thera cauld..bet ea doubt, then, that up to the -time of the Union the same 'Sethi and disabilities were in force in - both commit% Two nations, then, having the same oaths end &sal* ties in force, entered into a solemn contract to =fel their Parliaments, in order that one Parliament AO :represent the whole; and .nothing could be moot reasonable abduatural than'thai the laws and dude. Jitiek which were common to both Parliaments ail sapprite should be applied to . th e - united Palianalle The natural consequence was, that thesaurus laws whit *ere in -force in both cOinitries. aould Dave the sawed. (ect and operation in the united Parliament. Butit Di sot rest these, foe these was a direct declitaticia is de eighth section of the Act of Udion. That settlen sod that the Members of all succeeding Parliaments shoed take the. oaths and subscribe to the regulations "ft enjoined.... Thin could pale tie coastreed to mesa dm * same obligations and the' Male legal coaseqesese tillire still in kris.' And such was' the practical coo don given to fidiliectkdo of the Act of Pukes fa up to the present *metes the oaths of supremacy ssl allegiance were' taken by all Members without iff doubt. until a new - light broke in upon the Hosoll!w_ Gentleman: The Act of Union expressly and Mien/ statedthat Peers voting for tepresentative Pease.° take the oaths required to be taken by limbered the Upper Howe. If any person neglected to ail' those oaths they uniformly applied for an Act Indemnity, and those Acts of Indemnity foo l 'strong Legislative declarations that the oaths still obi iisted'in full force notwithstanding the Act of US! In 1806 a Noble Lord entered the House mithouttekfl the oaths, and that act was followed by a pin demnity, which, consing,four years 'after .the Act !I Polon. must be considered as of. greater weigt o : proving the necessity which still existed for taking oaths than the act of any Court of record. In the lo'1 o' ;1812 an&1818 similar Acts of Indemnity were P IN". :(tine is the case of Mr. Charles. Grant), and b. ~.ce 'tended that th ose Acts, being solemn declaim", t* , the 'Hon**. keeled -strong aid ipsonootsu P torellbopto o l4 in proof of the ropositigai with svbia . _ l lo ept valaelyobsit *oaths of sspremecl 5",,, 'since ww..stilt tot be taken. The 45th of Ge0 . ...t ~theseoaths, and th e 10 "7,, he copoe Avaally admitted that up to': F 3fB was Crary to take the oaths. The tie wi !bib...very "bet, -declared 'the neeetill ." : 71 'nisi:top to tbit time for caking the oaths; butt ~s~~. I , • •1 1 . ; • - fa . In ci to -b P d ) . th is ' • el • if of L DI of lii • at N is tC ' • ia ' e t •'~i •" .4.'1111 . LC,* 1 4 111 Z•;„711 -ra Attie ~., '0 • • ri • • it VI ,II I -b ••4310 .~ .•.~ HI .