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

• Of sew sled •Were admitted, 'all that' ap. e Act might as well be written iis water; is, ia face, • told that what they bad de e their opinion was not their opinion at all, a feet, Roman Catholics • were not bound to /sibs from the Moment the Act of Union was But the Hon. Gentleman at the bar said that 'was, that the oaths should be taken until Par. bad otherwiassorovided, and that, by the relief aliment had otherwise provided. Now, pi put e sense of House whether this was an argument ,ch they would Act? • The Parliament had pro . otherwise, hut it did not provide that the Hon. ,giber should be admitted to sit and vote inthat Nan without taking the .oaths. If Parliament had r d the experiment of admitting Members into the ~. p o r House, without taking the oaths, by that act ...-. Parliament would have otherwise provided; but it was , ~,possible to say that, by such an act, a Member could ait in the House of Commons withoettaking the oaths. . 'Vbe law was certainly changed, but it was not cbatiged So such a way as would admit the Hon. Gentleman leithoot- taking the oaths. A little attention to the Insulter in which the Bill was framed would, he con relived, leave no doubt upon the minds of the House as to 'the intention of the Legislature. In order to direct that attention into what appeared to him the proper' 'channel, he would request them to remember how the law stood antecedently to the passing of the Bill for the ' Relief of -his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. At 1 - ' the time that Act was passed, and previous to it. no l Member-4001d enter that House without having first ' 'taken - the' oaths of supremacy and allegiance, not could be afterwards sit or vote without taking the de. • elaratioe against transubstantiation in the House— •-•lflear, bear). Before passing the Bill in question, - he • Member could enter that House except by the double oath ; bat that Bill, now a Statute, recited a certain declaration : theretofore imposed upon Members .of that House—it repealed the Acts which required • that declaration, but it stopped at the first section, -- Members retusing to take the two oaths before the ..*. Lord Steward and the declaration in the House. - The • -.ant section proceeds' to admit to sit and vote in the •i 'other House Peers professing the Roman Catholic re -:. tigitioosod Such persons of the same persuasion as might • atter the passing of the Act, be elected to that House. • Now, the , House would observe that that was limit. ' ing• the l privilege to a certain class; it did not state that all Roman Catholics might sit and vote, but • that a certain .class . might do so, namely, those who should afterwards be elected. Aay lawyer who glances at the Act will see that there was an enabling clause as to a patticular class, but that there were no words which weld make it general. In his apprehension nothing could be more clear and manifest than the intention of the Legillature to exclude all from the benefit of that ACt except such as were elected atter It had passed; and .. a reason, in his humble opinion, ran along with that • which established,not only that the Legislature had so intended, but that their intention was consistent with justice. It must be full in the recollection of the House, that at the time the Roman rathelic Relief Bill was ' under* the consideration of the Legislature,• there was • • another Act going, through its stages which, tho€gh not, -y:inpoint of form, connected pith the 'Relief Bill, was so substantially, and proceeded along with. it poi passe. • 1 : 3 . What he alluded to was the Act for disfranchising ceri. - ; pain freeholders in Ireland, and in truth that formed ae ••'. "mush 'a part of the statute under which the Honourable, ...iled- Learned. Gentleman sought to take his seat as citzthough bosh had been embodied in one—it was as much tlieeOptemplation as if it floated part of the Act itself,' 1 ,- and it was n..t consistent with 'reason, or the general is4prietice of Parliament, to suppose that it would enact 34.thet.ea-liopourable Mather was to. avail himself of a •".iwetv_ _r state Of things when he was elected under the •e- citd... - 14 begged to say that be was perfectly certain nothing like personal hostility was intended against . ' Met O'Connell ;.but was 4.Meonsistent• with the moat' Atei‘astieloos principles of justiceto claim the benefit of a new ' A OdiOdicioo of the law tratil he had given pp the benefit ' )''!-'to. b . Oirived from the eld? He hoped that it was .. '';.'itiviesessary to say .more for the purpose of removing :Abe-idea that there existed in any quarter a personal hostility to theHott. and Learned Gentleman, or arty wish to destrqy the effect of . his particular election. He .would now conclude, what he ha 3 to say on that Patti . eerier part of the Act by saying. that even the Host. and Leerned•CseitleMan himself did not seem to rely upon his ease.eqnsint within the scope of that section of the , Bill.. • Re would next, without further delaying the. - Hots, call their attention to the fact of the Hurt. and • "darned Gentleman himself having appeared not to - • Tely much upon the doctrine that those who wereelected --% heforethe passing of the Act stood upon the same footing as those-who were elected subsequently. He.seemed,• ' however to rely upon the 10th sect. which related solely to the acceptance of Office under the Crown, exercising sw enjoying civil rights. The argument of the Hon. and '-Learned Gentleman was, that the words "civil right;' '''' iiteleded the right to sit and vote in that House. It . • was a known rule in the construction of statutes that 2: they were boiind to look at the whole Act. and thence .• infer the intention of the Legislatute. The first section ' of the Aet recited that it was. expedient that the use of certain Oaths and . declarations heretofore required to be •. ' takes by persons Wore they could sit or vote in Parlia. ... • went, before they colic{ hold certain offices, civil and military, or before they coald exercise certain corporate . ptittileges. should be discoetknued. Now, following tbose.distinetious, sod observing that 'triple distssoo, it . . provides in similar order for the vacancy %Welt the '• previous repeak would otherwise create, there are three dietioct operatious to be performed; but Mr. O'Connell, it *that part of the statement which relates to the thlid, '', • • s finds a word on which he puts his finger, taking it out ' • from the paciageaed from amongst the words with whsch • .it 4 cilikarested, disregarding all the other words in the 10th section. He pus that single word in the front tf , e .the battler and contended that it comprehended ever/ thing. •To use a phrase that must be familiar to both • of diem he, upon his own showing, put himself out of Court. The 10th section required that the oath therein `related to should be taken before a Magistrate. Would 'went Hoc.' and Learned Gentleman, contend that if he - wentlehhe a Magistrate, and took the oaths that be SFPitisttesulti be necessary, be might thereupon proceed to take his place in that House? If the words civil .Sight - is-thelOth section were to be taken in the enlarged '-sense for which Ms. O'Connell contended. and that that ' .indlarted the right to sit and vote in that House, it was . perfectly evident that the oaths were to be;taben before *.l9tatiF 4 l a the Pew. Its was perfectly ready, tonsake t.bio concession to. the, Honourable and Learned Gentle- man, namely, that under the 10th and following sec. %Omit here Was entitled to eiery civil right which those ;sections includid. ' The right to sit and vote ip, too. .House was. actuttllg the . question at. butte,: and be. felt ! -tunmad that afo lawyer could fail to perceite that. the Wtb. section not only did hot Unlade the right of• sit s voting in that Houle, hi!t actually eeelu,ded., 'that prill_ege. iliiitsg thee laid his views *Tod. the, subject- befoto theAltsp,, he thou)* conclude heisetiog. ' l4ll on 11 . 1 •41/ 1 .011sliwilkbit felt bound to declare his ioid : timed• to MPd the asks dm Pdhoed• this lA , " he fte on en bty Cif POd • Act,. it '0; 1 Ps 4 eOCa n, for . for raid any iraN licitly mug as of hake Ict it waved I sob. Juice. 7 ,401 tro ket at - - • 11 6 4 I rags a c o' rstia o incabk blab° cy aoa re. 10 ' aid to tot. w R but, ispressidn of the mettei i 6 iffiputesthat he Wahl throw j out the topics to be sae4esed, that thosevwfao differed from him taught set atones the points to which it was, oecessary . te apply themselves. Before he sit down lal► would ob.erve, chit they Were bound to give their at. fejitinti to thi effiet which their decision might have upon future times. Looking at the law as he found it he conceived Alt he shtiiiid move that Mr.O'Connell,: having heen returned before the cOninientement of the for,,the relief of hi Ntijcity's B.orean Catholic sub-. jects, was not eatitled to vote 00 sit in thatilonse unless he first took the oath's of supremacy and allegiance. Mr. G. LAMB said, though some Honourable Mem bers seemed'to think the present a question of not mach importance. yet he took quite a different view of it. He had read the Roman Catholic Relief Bill with some attention, and he could never• regard it in any other light thin as a Sill for conferring privileges,' and not for taking. them away, or making distinctions between different classes of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. In order to judge of the construe tion which the words of the Act warranted, they should put themselves in the situation of remote posterity ; and how could they reg.rd the point then , uns.er consideration otherwise than as a coins orai4atal There was nothing in the Act which could lead them to think that the exclusion of Mr. O'Connell was intended; • . getanl would as* the Uonse if that woe the eonsttaes [don *ostrich it isrodid be fair to put open the first sec tion of 'the Act ? pile would est it that, isahlti.or, fact / were its mrassiog7 Was it the sassing . of tar lianteut, when that Act was framed. to commie the. oath of supremacy to Catholics? WAs sot air oath repealed. (as far as respected Catholics at least) ler ever; and. if it remained at all, was it not intended for Protestants shine? When the Hon. Member for Clare appeared at the table of the House a card was handed , to him, containing on the one side the oath to be taken by Protestants, and oath* other the oath to be taken by Roman Catholic. That for the Protestants was the oath of sepreinaey; the other, for the Catholics, was the new oath provided in the Catholic Relief Bill. and which was meant to consprebeed every am of persons. He said that after the passing of this Act the Hon. Member for Clare stood in the situation of ao individual who was not provided for either by the old or the new law, and he thought, therefore, that the Hon. and Learned Solicitor bad nu right to argue that the Hen. Member ought to be . exclusiedfrom Parliament merely because he bad not yet been admitted. Could it be contended by liberal red persons that the Hon. Gentlem a n was to be ex- ,d from his seat because no express provision was amide for his case in the new law ? Certainly n..t. His was, perhaps, an extraordinary ease; bet, however extra ordinary. should be dealt with liberally. It was impossi ble to attribute any intention on the part of the Hun. in dividuals from whom this Act had emanated to legislate individually against Mr:O'Connell, or to suppose that when this Act was pas-ed they had worded it in such a particular manner with a vitro of excluding him fronrtbe privilege of taking his seat. He was convinced that no such intention could have existed for a moment. Since an objection. however, hid been raised upon the con struction of that Act, as-respected the admission to that House of the Hon. Member who had been elected for the county of Clam, it became the duty of the House to consider the question in the most serious manner ; for it should be remembered the claims of Mr. O'Con nell to his seat in Parliament were not put tor ward as the claims of an individual, but as the claims of a large body of persons who had sent him for their representative—(Hear, hear.. hear). If it were found that, from any accidental omission, or from any looseness in the manner of drawing up the Bill, it was so worded as to operate exclusively against owe individual. it could not be supposed that it was intentional on the part of the Government or of the Legislature. It was merely the result of accident. sad should be dealt with accordingly. At all events it would be unfair to put a positive construction upon the Ac:, which it ass evident must be contrary to the spirit and intention of the Legis- Wore, Tbeclaim now put before the House wasof a more sacred and more important character than• the claim of any individual could be. It was theclaina of therepresen tative of a large body of persons who had bees declared duly elected. and who now presented himself to take his place, and who would take his place except that he de nied the legality of the oaths which had beta tendered him.. It became necessary then to debate this question, not upon narrow or illiberal grounds, but in a Consti tutional point of view, as a question not telatiog to the. admission or non-admission of an individual to that, House, but a question relating to the rightsnad privi leges of all those who had sent him there,.since it mutt be evident to every oqe that P.rliasuent could never have intended to have legislated ; against an. individna f. The present question claimed, be insister eeery tail con struction which could be put upon it in favour of the lib- rties and privileges of the people, as respecteil the tadmission of the person) whom they. had chosen. for their representative into Parliament; and. if ever there was a moment at which, it a-asimportaut to re spect that sacred privilege, it must be. admitted to be the present. Goveroment was disposed now, rather to ro strict than to extend the privileges r e f representation, and the privilege consequently became , more valuable. It was Important, therefore, that such a body of perscras as the electors of the county of ,Clare should have' their representative in Parliament; but, if he ueit4ll vacated his sear, not was alloaed.to sake it. he would. beg 'to know what course would be adovted? What were his constituents to do? There was certainly one. obsustation which had fallen from the Solicitor Gene ral which had excited his surprise —it was 'in allusion to the coustructiuo which the Honourable Member for Clare had put upon the 10th clause of the new Act. The Honourable Member for the county of Clare had. argued that clause as a lawyer; but lest it should be supposed that he intended in doing so to argue away the common sense of the question, he. bad referred ,to the highest authority extant for the proper construction to be placed upon any particular word in the language. The Learned Solicitor General sneered at the fact of the Hon. Gentleman's having resented to the authority of a dictionar but he (Mr. M. Isar/ would iafprm and as the statute was one tor granting relief, and not for imposing penalties, it'would be naturally and justly inferred that the c,sse of the Clare election bad been oveilaoked. That be conceived was the proper point of view in which to regard the question. • Bia statute of Henry VI. respecting a trial of the Duchess of Gloucester for witcbcraft, it was enacted that all Noble Ladies, Duchesse., Countesses. and Baronesses should enjoy the benefit of Clergy ; Marchionesses and Vis countesserwere not included. but after ages held that that was an accidental omission, there basing been at the time no individuals in the peerage bearing those titles. The case of the Hon. And Learned Gentleman was perfectly analagous, and he confessed himsel unable to discover on what ground it was proposed to exclude him without a clause in the Bill at all referring to the case. Mr. FERGUSSON contended that the case of . Mr. O'Connell was included in the Bill, and that, therefore, he could not be admitted without taking the oaths as prescribed by former statutes. The Honourably and Learned Gentleman, by the able statement which he had that night modem the House, had proved, so far as his own personal qualifidations went, his well earned tight to represent in Parliainent the constituents who had sent him thither ; he had proved also. that his qualifications would render him a valuable acquisition to that body (the House of Commons). but he (Mr. Fergusson) regretted to think that he could not sit with• out previously taking the oaths. All who were not ad mitted by theßelief Bill were excluded.To acknowledge the justice of the arguments of Mr. O'Connell was tanta mount to saying that before meant after, for in order to establish his right to sit he should prove that he be longed to the class which the Bill had in contemplation; that it was limited to a Claes was, he Conceived, indis 'potable. It was inconsistent with the ordinary course and practice of legislation to proceed retrospectively. There was nothing unfair or unjust in requiting that those who wefe elected under the 'old laws should come ii. under its provisions. The Hon. Member fur Clue relied much upon the words of the tenth section. It would be admitted that the rightist voting and 'sitting in Patliainent was the highest civil right, and the, species of civil right spoken of in the 10:h sect. was far' inferior. Now, the interior could never include the su perior. As it respected the Hon. Member for Clare he did lament that 'the law operated to his esclusion— (Hear, and a laugh). Yes, whatever Hon. Members might say, he did. llama it. He had given his vote for Etn.ncipation most cordially; and he should notch 'egret that any one would suppose him capable of any lukewarmness or indifference. He bad supported Eman cipation not on personal grounds, or with reference to Breland, but on the broad principle that no man should labour under civil disabilities on 'account of religion. Mr. M. FITZGERALD said be was not among the number of those who doubted that the Hon. Member lamented the exclusion of Mi. O'Connell. The question was no doubt to be treated judicially, and, as the Hos; and Learned Solicitor General had said, the House was bound to divest itself of any partiality, and to consider the question upon its general merits, and in a general point of view, without reference to any particular case. That'Hon. and Learned' Gentle Man must allow him (Mr. M. Fitzgerald) to express WI admiration, not only at the talent, but at the temper with which be had a& vanced his arguments to the House. He had advised the House, in the discussion of the present question, to dismiss from its consideration the part which it had been the fortune of the Hon. and Learned individual whose case was the present subject of debate to take ip the past history of his country. Such advice was correct and proper, and such as he trusted would be acted upon. It was impossible for such a plain unlearned person as himself to approach *question dealt with almost in clusively by lawyers without a powerful conviction of his own ineapacity to compete with them, or to (teal with the, question purely upon points of law. He . felt conviece.i that there could be no person who would not tremble to find himself opposed to persons of such learning as those who had already addressed the House upon this subject.' it was a great relief to him that, in reference to the case now before the House, there .was not much occasion for learning. It certainly ap peared to him that the maxims laid down by the Learned Solicitor General himself would lead the House to come to a conclusion. against him. The Hen. and Learned. Gentleman had said that. in constructing an Act of Par liament. the House should not apply its attention to it in one point otview only, but should consider it in its genera i l Anse, The same argument bad been urged at the bar of the House that night by the Hon. Member for Clare, who had entreated the House to consider the Act not a Roo soy particular clause alone, but upon its general sense. It was bis(Mr. M. F.'s) wish to do so in 'the ob .:mentions which be had now to submit to the House; it was his wisb to get at the real spirit and character °fibs Act, and not to apply himself to disjointed points. or to the considetationiat paraicular portions of the Bill alone. But how. had 'be fioaourable and Learned Solicitor :General dealt' with the Act?- He had argued Upon farticular claoses, and had refised to consider them in referencA toothemgehest said that it was unfair- toltake the fhb section, and to pat'. construction upon it by what ,waassid in. other clauses. Again,.he had contendetethat it was unfair to consider the 10th sect, in reference to the Was the Hun. Member for Clare bad urged his right to. dn.. 13i the kat s t ectioo of the new Act the dead 'ration which prerepted the admission of Catholic,tothe ,Roue waasepealedi but the Learned' Solicitor General ,here, chose to4bnsider the first section, not by itself. but .4 reference to andther. I . ..lesoi4Abat, considering the !fir*, gutlen with, the took bo was bound to believeihat.nkaafa uosild inter. that. House without having assisan..tba oath. at supremacy unless it were Cotholicil ;who ample have been elected akar else paatult qfE YbeCatholic Relief he (Mr. 'M. Fits. ,et . 1 • • • T• b 4 aid elide& le pod, foe aft septie; p i e j c o sheik would have no hesitation in taking the oaths. To this reason he mild .uot agree, fg. at all events, the osonseet a Catholic took those oaths he loft his caste, and fiisoldassociates would no longer extend to him the band of fellowship, .sb that thelaw.would remain fully effec tive as it was intended that it should be. Er JAMES SCARLEII nett addressed the House. Ha .was by no mesas prepared to go the length of the arguments advanced toping the Hon. Member for Clare; but, at the same lime, he admitted that he be. lieved the Acts referred to relating to the taking of the oaths in the. Lord Steward's office verse repealed. The lioneerable one Learned Gentleman then entered into .slie history of thou: Acts, in order to prove this pod deo, aid said that if the Honourable Member's taking his seat depended , upon thjs, be should feel...bound to vote for the motion of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite—(the Solicitor General). He next came to the Act of Union, and in speaking of this be begged to premise. that he was never consulted upon the subject by the ./lotts limber for Clare, and had never given an opinion directly nor indirectly upon the subject. He would now proceed to say that be was rely much struck by the omission in the Act of Union of any penal clause whatever. The Hon. Member then proceeded to argue upon the purport of the various clauses of the present Act, and said, that he was by co means prepared to vote either way in so doubtful a case, without further deliberation ; but still, if the 'question was pressed to a division, he should feel intlided to give his sopport to the motion of his Hen. and Learned Friend ;.for the impression he laboured under was, that Mr. O'Connell was not entitled to take his seat. Mr. C. W. WYNN referred at great length to the various Acts of Pailiameat and Parliamentary prece dents.opon the subject, and contended that Mr.O'Connell was entitled to take his teat • The Catholic Peer, under the new Act, was enabled to take his seat—the member of a corporation was allowed to do so, and yet Mr. O'Connell was to be excluded, merely because he had been elected before the passing of the Act. This was an inconsistency which he did not think the House could with a doe and proper regard to their digoity.be guilty of—(Cheers). Still, as there appeared •to be a doubt upon the subject, he thought the better 'way would be to make a declaratory Act upon the 'Abject. is favour of Mr. O'Connell (Great cheers). 'Mr. DOGHERTY said, he felt regret that be should he obliged to vote against the admission of the Hon. Member for Clare, though his inclination was in favour ofbis doing so. He felt pleased, however, at the re- Section that his exclusion would be but for a very short time, and that if now rejected. the time would be very brief before he would again be in possession of the object et his legitimate ambition. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then entered into legal arguments to show that Mr. O'Connell could not take tiffs seat without being reotlected. He was happy chit not I single Member of that House had shciwn theilibitert personal feeling stainst Mr. O'Connell during the whole course of the chibate.which had taketi place. On the contrary, they would feel gratified, be feleconvinced, &they could conscientiously vote in his favour. Mr. BROUGHAM contended that. where an Ho nourable Member who hid spent his whole life, as his HoeourabW Friend the Member for Peterborough had done. in combating legal difficulties, and yet confessed that in this case he felt the greatest doubt, no other Honourable Member, however great his Parliamentary experience, need be ashamed of evossing that he also lelt a doubt upon the subject. Be did not think that the Solicitor General had succeeded in'removing the diflicul tie. the case, and nu one Member had replied to Mr. O'Connell's argument as to the Act of Union: that Act of Union says that these oaths shad be administered until karliaeleia shall otherwise provide. Parliament had nose otherwise provided, and dive( see those oaths could no longer beenforced.• • The HunoUrable Member pro ceeded to contend, that is it was admitted on all hands that a griveiand serious doubt existed, the benefit of that doubt ought to.be given to the Hon. Member for who would other wise be exposed to a great hard whip% which be was aute was not the' intention, because ivis disavosied. of thus who .bad framed the Act. 6. MI. PEEL . said, t hat although the import. ant question under the is nssderatinn s f the House was of that nature ghat those, who were . not possessed of a legal educatiatilo an experieace in legal matters must necessarily feel great difficulty in coming to.a decision, gill as the Lay Members of the House were not freed fiont the responsibility' of acting with respect to it in a jodicial capacity, he 'hoped the House woolen:ear with art while be cadeavosied to state the considerations which would direct his vote. He looked atthe question as purely jod cial ; and doing so he begged' it to be understood that be spoke only in his individual capacity Me-icier of • House. He' - bow( ob- --Y. - s. as. _ .zgeralJ) _ as a ,leml mat _ _ muu, . 'ever, hem that law books were not the only authority in that WM!, difficult as he felt the subject to be , that klause; and since that was the case Me would ask, what he had come to a conclusion so far sati-factory be'ter resort could be made than to the common iinse to* his mind ; from its beissu,supported by and in of any term or earressitin ? He hoped that, for so ling ,coocureetics with the opinions,pf three of the most at least as he should have the honour of sitting in the eminent lawyers in the country. ,sfie found his conchs- House. it would act upon the common sense of the moons in entire accordant' isith those of his Honourable questions that came before it, rather than upon legal and Learned Friend the:Solicitor General, that the re quibbles or technicalities. If lawyers .in the present spit of the vaiy able considerations of the Hon. and instance had biouglst the House into perplexity and Learned Member for Peterborough was a determine doubt, they might depend upon it that it would not lion similar to his own; and that hii own reasoning and resort to them to get ont—(Hear.) The House would reflections were completely sustained by the very power 'take a direct aqd honourable coarse to relieve itself tul arguments and statements of the law which had from any difficulty into which' it' might have been been produced by the Honourable and Learned Mem thrown, and would not fail to rescue itself from the for Weymouth"... Its making these Observations he stoat odious imputation which could attach to it, not had no intention to undereelat otbei- ibthorities.— qnly at home, and on the continent, but in every part He would then address hinitelf imettediately to the If the world—the imputation of having framed an Act subject before the House. He wax hot pittarlii to admit in such a manner at purposely to operate to the injury that the Ait of Esisabeth, that which imposed the ne- Of au individual. He had felt it his duty to make these cessity of taking the oaths of supremacy Sad abjuration °Nervations, but he should now no longer occupy the betide the Lord High Steward.. had hen repealed by attention of the House. In conclusion • he begged to the Ist of William and Mary. He bad made allthe re say that, under all the circumstances • to which be had search he could into that part of th e sithjicti. and he did adverted, be should certainly give his vote in favour of not find any reason to believe that thetilasirious men the motion of the Hon. Member for Dungarvon. . who (turned the Ist of William and.Maiy intended it Mr. FERGUSSON rase to captain a past of his speeeh which should have any such effect. The Ike. Hon. Gentleman the Han. Member appeared to have mistaken. .All. that be bad thought sufficient light had not been thicket/ upon the said mow, that di*" Members who were elected dues this Actwers Act of. the Bth of William 'and Mary. It was certainly 'meiotic(' from the operation of the old law. sr. aileso they wok. the oast BATTEY thought It dear that the, sambaed mAgebsis the intention of Parliament to carty the provisions of who were elected bites, it had l i ssie d s . the Ist . Of and Mary into effect.' The' woads of of supremacy. • • • • • that Act vine remarkable. it enactedillift awl peeson Mr. SUDDEN said, Mr.O'Connell, in the first letter entering into office in any capacity-W.44 iakethe oath be addressed to the Membeis of that . HOOW. was as at such time and id such manner as thip fOrmer oaths coesdent to sit under the Act of - Unicitt, ai be is now had been administered. In 1689, a fdl'iliottas after the under the Relief Act. As to the applicatioMof the sth passing oftbeAct., new Pas' liament had beeVanmasessed, Of Elisabeth to the Hon. Member's case, it was a matter and if it had been intended to reline Members of Paris that regarded the Hon. Member himself more than the -meat from takingtheonths beforetheLoed EleWard,some House; for that Act roe ides,th at if a Member enters that one must have found it out. It appeased* the Joorrinh, House without having taken the oath of supremacy be- that the Duke of Devonshire, March 20,1689. the daron fore the Lord' Steward, he shall not be cornpeteot to sit in which Parliament itiet.atieeded as leirdffteward to swear that Hoti'se daring the duration of that Parliament. the Members'as they came into the House and the oaths He was aliaid the Honourable Member for Clare had were administered iv the usnil way. T hat occurrence brosight.himiellinto that situation, that if he should be 'proved that it wasnot the intemiiinot Parlfallient to die teweleoteck.heconld net take his seat during the present pease with the oaths. The Hots. and Leashed Cantle , Parliament. • That Act bad been in operation fqr . man had argued, that upon a question which depended and the, Eloise was. now called upon to say that upon nice distinctions, they were boned to give an in the. 414.44 - .Union had pot say and to all itspeoaltim, dividnel the advantage. If it' was,a queition. whether was said that the etreitof the old oaths was admit is penalty should be inflicted upon an individual, it 1 •