The Sun. — London, England, 1829-05-19 00:00:00

ahree I should stand firmly in this ass e mbly of ; is so intentionally extensive, that it Lean the word, Christians and Gentlemen, calling upon them not to unnecessarily perhaps, again. Nay more, the fran give effect to that vicious principle—not to en- chise connected with corporations is actually men courage tinned again in the 14th section : thus in th . eesth ° The strong antipathy of bad to good ;" section it means one species'of franchise, in the 10th not to promote the choice of such as we hostile to, section another, and in the 14th section a third; for those who reverence the sacred obligation of an oath, i fear any franchise should be omitted and :Orgotten : but to throw the doors as wide as possible to all lest any party should by chance be excluded from who tvili idustrate this assembly by their virtues and the benefits, which I hope and trust will flow from their talents. I quit that point, and come to the the Act, the word franchise is to be found in three next, to which I advert with pleasure. I formed it different parts of it. I. then goes on to give all civil on the Relief Bill. I insist that the effect of this rights, excepting such as are hereinafter mentioned. Relief Bill is to do away with the direction of the The first question is, whether the right of sitting j Union Act, as far as it relates to oaths. I will can- and voting in Parliament be hereinafter excepted ? sass that proposition first :—The Union Act directed I meet that with a direct negative—it is not; that these oaths should be taken for a particular but there are offices excepted in the 12th section, j period only. The dtrec:ion is," Arid every member such as the Guardians and Justices of the United of the House of Commons of the United K ngdom, Kingdom, the Regent of the United King in the first and all succeeding Parliaments, shall, dom, Lord High Chancellor, Lord Keeper, until the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and High Corn otherwise provide, take the oaths," &c. I contend missioner to the General Assembly of the Church that this direction is at an end, upon this directicn of Scotland. In the 15th section also the civil d e pends the oath of supremacy, and my argument is, rights arc excepted which might be exercised f o r that the period is arrived. The Statute uses the ecclesiastical promotion, and for presentation to liv adverb of time " until,"—the provision was merely ings in the gift of Corporations. These do not in somp.orary, and the period has expired. The Act elude the right for which I contend, and I shall not of Union provides that certain oaths shall be detain the House by going through the Act more ta k e n until something shall happen. Has that ' minutely; I have read it carefully and attentively, happened ? That is the only question. Let • and I can assert that I find in it no such exception. tee see whether I can give an answer to the ques- - I shall be asked, perhaps, whether the right to sit tion. I say it has : that is my assertion, and how i and vote be a civil right ? And I would reply, if I do I prove it ? I take up the Statute and I find— were permitted to do so, by asking another ques what ? that the declaration is for ever abolished.— tion—if it be not a civil right, what is it ? 1 have Iles net the 1100-e, in the words of the Act of looked into law-books with a view to this question ITaion, " otherwise provided ?" This is a penal of civil right, and I find that Mr. Justice Blackstone, awed reetrictive Act; it is reetrietive of the people's in his Commentaries, has divided the whole law r ; g i i t, I take up the Statute, and I see that the into rights and wrongs : on the front of his b oo k i s Perlhonent has otherwise provided—not for Cat ho- formed the very right to sit and vote in Parliament. lies alone—not for Protestants alone; but for Ca- But I appeal to common sense and common under thel;es, Dissenters, and Protestants—all without ,standing, is it not a civil right ? Must it not be a limitation or restriction. That the period has ar- civil right ? In the section itself I find civil contra ni eed, I have distinct evidence lit what happened to distinguished from military—that Roman Catholics rny,_cif at the table. The oaths then tendered to may " enjoy all civil and military offices." The were different from those which would have section itself therefore explains the meaning of the le•en tendered before the 13th April, the document term, But travelling out of the section, and resort proehiced was new—it was fresh for the occasion ; ing to those who have best defined the meaning of it was a novel introduction into the House; on ore words in the English language, what do we find ? aide were the oaths for Protestants, arid on the Dr. Johnson tells us, that " civil" is an adjective other theoe for the Catholics; and why was this i :which means " relating to the community; politi- Bee-I:Ise the Legislature has " otherwise provided," cal ; relating to the city or government." Now, than at the date of the Union. Ae one of the rep re- " political" and " civil" must, by the bye, mean the ecitatives of the people I claim the :.mefit of the pro- same thing ; the only difference being that one word vision, I claim to come not within any o f t he oaths. •If is from the Greek, and the other from the Latin. the ne-a• provision has not embraced every case, it is They are synonymous and identical ; and no man either the wiedom or the defect of the A ct ; but can deny that sitting and voting is both a political eithee in one ease or in the other the time concern_ and a civil right. The example given front Spinet plated has come, arid I claim my right just as if the fully supports this assertion. " But there is an- Union Statute did net exist. But suppose that other unity which would be most advantageous to what I have said has not convinced the House, let our country; and that is your endeavour after a roe :all its attention to this Bill, and to ri-mind the civil, a political union in the whole nation - ." This t neree that in construing it there are general princi- definition and description necessarily includes pies of common sense to enable us to decide on the the right I claim ; but let us see what is the construction of a Statute, as well as any Bench of definition of that word " right." After giving other Pre- significations, Dr. Johnson proceeds to the third Judges to determine an intricate po i nt of law. sense of " right," which is `'just claini ;" and lie Vows to the Union and, to the passi n g of th e Act of follows it by others ; such as " that which justly :30 Chades 11., the object of the Le stature was to prevent Papists from silting end voting in Palle. 'eel:mg.; to one "—" property "—" interest " me nt, and arty decision of the Hoese upon that Ste- '' power, Prerogative"—" immunity, privilege;" i n short, there is not one of these significations that is tote must be a deeiefon ancillary to th a t ob j ect. The object of the Statute at Charles teas to exei,ide Pa- more comprehensive than I would desire it to be. 't- ; but here now before me a Statute whose peen. " • " Roman object is to open the doors to the Roman Catholics, leigh, f "just claim : The citizens were and to annihilate the bar that has hitherto impeded by the sword neoght to acknowledge the Pope their their progress. First, I say that this Relief Bill, Lord, though they knew not by what right." This like manv others, sometimes takes up a portion of is a plain definition and descriptien of civil right. It the siihject in the middle—then it goes at once to cannot mean " franchise," because franchise has the earnmencemento and again reverts to some other already been included—it cannot mean " p r operty," part of the subject : at ail events, it is not so me- because property is included in the 23d section of thod:cal in its construction; as to enable me to give the Act, which requires no oath at all for the en• at once an analysis of its content?: Thee second ac- joyment of it :—" From and after the passing of tion provides for this case, for all Roman Catholics this Act no oath, or oaths, shall be tendered to, or being Peers, and it enables them to sit and vote on required to be taken by, his Majesty's subjects pro taking the new oaths. It applies as well to the feising tlip Roman Catholic religion, for enabling Peers din the period that intervened between them to hold or enjoy any real or personal property , the Statute create of Charles IL and the present day, as Thus, then, " civil right" in this Act does not well as to those Peers whose titles and rights ex isted mean property ; it does not mean franchise, but it p r iGr to that Statute : of these there were two who means a just claim, a political privilege, au imam were deprived. I may now say, because it has been alty of any kind whatever. Common sense here ntimitted in the Legislature, by an unju s t attainder Fhews nihat the law sanctions — that by civil rig h t —Lord lienmare and Lord Baron French : they necessarily tmmst bn concluded the right to sit and wore created Peers during the period when it was vote. Another observetion is, that this section re impossible for either of them to enerehia the, right of fates to the :time and manner of taking the oaths; the Peerage by sitting and voting in Parliamene,— but suppose I were to concede that no time arid This Act has admitted them to those rights. As manner are expressed, yet the civil right being the prerogative of the Crown has been restored to granted ooder the oaths directed, anti the time and its full effect by means of this Statute, so the right manner beii.g the only condition, necessarily would of representation has been male an etosol right; as supply the condition:, %%'e have in the 19th section the Royal Prerogative has been perfectly successful, the mode of taking the oatig; for corporate offices, the - privilege of the people ought to be equally a nd in the 20th the time and manner of taking the potential. There are, however, these words in the 1 oaths for other offices; but I will not detain the second section :--° or who shall after the commence- House upon that point, because in the 23d section merit of the Act be returned as a Member of the the Legislature has wisely provided for the case: it House of Commons to sit and vote in either House declares, " That the oath, herein appointed arid set of Parliament respectively." After the passing of i forth being taken and subscribed in any of the the Act, every body is to be entitled to the benefit; Courts, or before any of the persons above men ead I beg the House to reflect, that if Ibe not by tioned, cell be of the sante force and effect, to all the second section included, lam not excluded by intents and purposes, as, and shall stand in the place it : though it does not affirmatively establish my of, all oaths and decioretions, required or prescribed right, it does not negative it by any enactment ; it ' by any law now in force forthe relief of his Majesty's may not he sufficient to admit me, but there is no- Roman Catholic subjects from any disabilities, ince thing to shut me out. One point alone includes pacifies, or penolties." That is the second portion ' me, and it is a point of legal construction, slepend- of the 23d section, and in one mode of punctuation it 100 on the authority of cases which I shall not now will bear the meaning I attribute to it. However, as analyse. I might do so as a lawyer were I address- I there is no punctuation in Acts of Parliament, I shall ing a Bench of Judges, but before a popular asseme not oneuble the House with any special pleading on bly I ought not to occupy time in . any such at- particular words, but come to the remaining and dis eempt ; I only allude to them in order that if a tinct portion of the section :—" And the proper Court should hereafter decide that my argument is officer of any of the seeterts above-mentioned in valid, it would impose upon me the necessity of ' which any person professing the Aoman Catholic taking no oaths at all, or else protect me against the religion shall demand to take and oni3a.tribe the exaction of the penalty. The construction which a oath herein appointed and set forth, is hereby aotho lawyer may put upon the Statute, I apprehend, rised and required to administer the said oath to would be, that he who was returned before the pass- such person ; arid such officer shall make, sign, and ing of the Act was embraced within its provisions; deliver a certificate, of such oath having been duly and the House will give me leave just to mention, taken and subscribed." There ie the time, and that that it has lately been solemnly decided iyi the case time is when it is demanded. The Courts are also of a will, that notwithstanding the peculiar wording specified, viz. the King's Bench, Common Pleas, of it children born after tine date of the instrument Exchequer, and Chancery. The time is as universal were included in its provisions. I will only remind as th,e benefit of the Statute was intended to be, and 1 the House of these technical rules, which, I trust, every thing is complete for my purpose. The ob. will never be earried into effect at the e...aoence of jection vanishes, because the time is as extensive as any whom I am addressing. I repeat, that if the can be demanded. I have taken that oath in one of second section does not include, it does not exclude the Courts named. lam reedit .to prove it. I pro me. It may be said that it was framed for other duced the certificate at the table; and Layip , ?; taken objects—to let in persons who have such claims as that oath, rants produced that certificate, I turn mend those of the Earl of Surrey ; and here let nee c l a im and respectfully as:so why lam not to be allowed to the assistance of the legal gentlemen in the House, , exercise my rights ? La it be remembered that my Beyond a doubt—and I call their particular atten- I ease cannot be drawn into preendent ;it can never lion to the fact—if the second section does not aid occur again; and I ask the House, in construing the me, it cannot possibly injure my right t o s it. and Art, whether it intends to make it an outlawry vote. I come, then, at once to the right—l come against a single individual ?—(Hear, hear.) —If the to it under the tenth section of the Act ; and I im- Act were meant to meet my case, why was riot my plore you to forgive me for trespassing so long upon case specified in it ? It existed whorl the Act was other matters, when I have this section before me, passed; it was upon the records of the House, for a which seems to render doubt impossible. Committee had sat while the Bill was pending, and " And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any a, hod given in its report upon oath. Why, I ask his Majesty's subjects profrssini• the Roman Catholic Re- agoio, was not my case specified ? Because it was ligion to hold, exercise, and enjoy al) civil and military not intended to be included. Where, then, is the offices and places of trust or profit tinder his Majesty, his individual whowoold. think it ought to be included? ...... heirs or successors, and to exercise any other franchise or Let me call the attention of the House to the recital civil right, except as hereinafter excepted, upon takifig .% r the Statute•—" Whereas by vas:inite Acts of Par and . subscribing, at the times anti hi the manner herein tiament neertain restraints and disabilities are imposahl after mentioned, the oath hereinbefare appointed and set forth, instead of the oaths of allegiance, alarremacy, and on the ROttitia ,c4tholic subjects of his Majesty , to :abjuration, and instead of such other oath or e ' oaz.lut as are which other sulijecte of his Majesty are not or may he now by law required to be taken for the perpose liable." It includes all resiraint; arid disabilitie s aforesaid by any of his Majesty's subjects professing the affecting Roman Catholics ; and proceeds e --" And Roman Catholic Religion." whereas ie is expedient that such restraints and cbee I claim the benefit of that seetioa : it is - plain abilities shah be henceforth discontinued : and and distinct, and includes no technical subtleties : whereas by various Acts certain oaths and certain there is nothing to throw A cloud over its clearness, ,declarations, &c., are or may be required to be taken, and having read it, I might stand upon that alone. made, and subscribed by the subjects o f hi s Majesty If then I touch upon other mattes, it iS only be- as qualificatiorss for sitting and voting in Parlianneeto cause, not having the right of reply, it i,; necessary and for the enjoyment of certain offices, franchises, -for me to endeavour to ontiekoateO If, iirooranxiety and civil rights: Be it enacted, &c., that such re . - so remove all objectiOnsaPd obstacles, I attribute to , stroints and disabilities shall be from henceforth disc 'lion. Members weak arguments they would not continued." All are to be discontinued. What do • have used, and which they may gravely disclaim, 111 claim ? That they shall be discontinued. It is a hope I shall be foigiven. This section introduces, maxim of law that the recital of a statute shall not the franchise: in Common parlance, indeed, the ' control the enactments,—but with this qualification, franchise was introduced b e f ore ; b ecause t h e sth that although a particular recital cannot control a section provides that Roman Catholi cs shall rote at 1 general enactment, there is no rule of law that a all elections of cities, counties, and towns; and it ' general recital shall not explain a particular, enact provides a new oath to be taken. Therefore, as far meet. But I have a general recital, and a general sts franchise can mean the elective franchise, the riot 1 enactment too, in my favour, If to sit and vote be not a civil right, what civil right was intended by the word, for every other is provided for ? Why should this be excluded ? Look - at the recital and look at the intention of the statute, and shall I then be told that a doubt can arise as to the right to sit and vote? If I have not that right, what is - to be done ? Is the statute of Charles 11., enabling the, House to exclude me still in force. What is to .be come of me ? Am Ito remain the Representative for Clare ? Will the House not let me in, and is it not able to turn me out ? What, I ask again, is to become of me ? I call the attention of the House to that—what is to become of me ?—(f tear, and laughter.)—The statute of Charles 11. imposA pe nalties for not taking the oaths and signing the de claration ; among others there was a pecuniary pe nalty, and it continued in force until the Union with Ireland. The first question I would ask the law yers of the House, then, is this—Did the Union Act continue those penalties? I take upon me to say it did not. Then, I ask, can any penalty or punish ment be continued on a free-born British subject, when an Act of Parliament, like that of the Union, is silent, and contains no enactment as to penalty ? That is a question of Constitutional law ; and if I were sued to-morrow for the penalty of 5001., I should, of couri:e, instantly demur. If I am right in that position—if the penalty of 5001. could not be recovered, shall the greater infliction remain ? When Courts of Justice would refuse to enforce the fine, shall this House take the law into its own hands, and deprive me of what ought to be more precious— the right to sit and vote as the representative of a divided, a disinterested, and, I had almost said, a martyred people ? The Union Statute, I appre hend, would alone be sufficient ; but I do not stand on that merely. This Relief Bill has abolished . . the oaths and declaration, and abolished with it the punishment for not taking the one and subscribing the other. If the declaration be abolished, does the pecuniary penalty remain ? I answer, no ; and if the pecuniary penalty do not remain, does the heavier penalty of exclusion continue ? Certainly not ;and I respectfully submit to the House, that it has not now jurisdiction to prevent the exercise of my civil right of sitting and voting here. I acknowledge that I should take the oath prescribed by the Relief Bill ; arid then let any individual, by favour of justice, bring an action against me, and if the Court should determine that I ought to pay the penalty of 500/. my exclusion follows as a matter of course. The House should consider that this is a large and com prehensive enactment ; and I ask %Thy this House should interfere in my case, and not leave it to the courts of justice ? Ido not want this House to yield its privileges to the decision of any court or tribunal in existence; but I wish to show that the House, by deciding with me, could not preclude any body from trying the question legally. It is to put my case into that transfer of decision that I am arguiug here; that is the utmost I struggle for. The ques tion is : Is it not my right on this return to take the seat to which I have been duly elected ? Is the question free from doubt ? If there be a doubt, I am entitled to the benefit of that doubt. I maintain that I have a constitutional right, founded on the return of the Sheriff and the voice of the people; and if there be a doubt on the subject, it should be removed. The Statute comes before us to be con strued from the first clause. I did—and I am not ashamed to own it—l did defer to the opinions of others, and was averse from calling for that con struction ; and if it had not been for the interests of those who sent me here, my own right should have been buried in oblivion. But now I require the House to consider it. Will you decide that a civil right does not mean a civil right ? And if this case of mine be not excepted, will you add it as an additional exception ? It might have been said by some of those who supported the Bill that it was intended by that measure to compensate a nation for by-gone wrongs, and to form the foundation stone of a solid and substantial building, to be consecrated to the unity and peace of the empire, But if what is certain may be disturbed ; if what words express may he erased; if civil rights may be determined not to be civil rights ; if we are to be told that, by some excuse or by some pretext, what is not uncer tain may be made so—we shall be put under an im possibility to know what construction we must here after place on the statutes. I have endeavoured to treat this House with respect. My title to sit in it is clear and plain ; and I contend that the statute is is all comprehensive in its intention, in its recital, and in its enactments. It comprehends every prin ciple and measure of relief, with such exceptions as are thereinafter excepted. But while I show my respect for this House, I stand here on my right, and claim the benefit of it. The Hon. and Learned Member then bowed to the House and withdrew, amidst very loud and general cheering. Some time elapsed before the House, which was extremely crowded, was restored to order. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL— The Hon. Member for Clare having now withdrawn from the bar of the House, after stating his claim to the right of sitting and voting without taking the oaths of supremacy and abjuration, with that degree of ability which we expected from so distinguished a member of his profession, I trust the House will permit me to say that the temper which he has shewn does him great credit as a man and a gentle man. (Cheers.) It now becomes the duty of this House—first to discuss and deliberate on the goes don on which he has addressed us at the bar, and Ithen to come to some determination upon it; and I am sure that all the Members of this House will make an endeavour to do so Without any thoughts of party feeling, as this is a question that justly d e . serves to be considered as one strictly judicial. If it were the temper of my mind to look at this question with any party or political bias, I would correct it by reflecting that the Acts of Parliament are long by-gone, and first actors retired from the stage; and if the House will bear with me while 1 state the grounds on which I form my opinion on this question, I think it is not impossible that the House may adopt the same opinion, unless stronger reasons should N used by some Hon. Member on the opposite side. It is my opinion that Mr. O'Con nell, the Member for Clare, is not entitled to sit and vote in this House without first taking the. oaths of supremacy and abjuration. On attending to the argument of the Hon. and Learned Gentle• man this evening at the bar, I observe that it em brace.s.two parts, perfectly distinct from each other; one relating to CO effect of the Act of Union with Ireland, by the articles of he contends that all the oaths and declarations then iequir4d i y law to be taken and subscribed were virtually done away with. The other part of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman's argument arises solely and entirely on the effect of the %teli.f Bill passed this Session. It is perfectly clear that these two arguments are entirely different from, and independent of each other. As to the first point, 1 must say it is cer tain, from the pecnhaF language of the Act of Union with Ireland, that the penalties and dissabili ties originally imposed by tho Acts of the reign of Charles H. were, in the first instance, inenrpoiated into that Act of Union, and made applicable to the new state of things that has arisen since that per i v,?, c ould bring our minds to form an opinion in favour of fireH".and Learned Gentl eman ' s propo sition—if we could persuade onrselves, that since the Union with Ireland, there has existed nr.., :lecesiity to take these oaths, and that Roman Catholics might mtg.: . the House without violating the law, it would undoubtedly tptid greatly to abolish many difficulties and animosities, and keal many heart 7 buntings, and reconcile all parties at onee, by ing that v,-e have only given up what was no se, curity zt all to us. But lam bound in honesty, after the way i,i which this proposition has been stated, to declare that I cannot adopt it. I do think, that from the, Union with P'elai d, down to the present Relief Bill, the se oaths 'ere a valid, snfli ? cient, and substantial secnrity against the intro , duction of Roman Catholics in this House, and that they were prevented from entering it until the passing of the Relief Bill. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman takes two grounds of a quite distinct character. The first argues the case. as if no oaths t could be t a ken since t he Union with Ireland; and next, lie asserts his right to enter th fHouse undo' the Relief Bill, taking the new oath or Roman Catholic:. As to the first argument, there are a greatinany points as to which we must he all agreed. There irirry.be difference of opinion as to whether the takingpf the oaths does not ulti mately resolve itself : intro tWndistinet; points only; for nobody will disputsythat fcotn the ;sth of Eliza beth; to the Ist of Williarn . and 'Mary, it was necessary that every Commoner, before he took his seat, should take the oath of supremacy before the Lord High Steward or his deputies; and it has been contended by some—though I am of a different opinion, and I will shortly state the reasons why I am so—that the Ist of William and Mary did, in fact, repeal the statute of Elizabeth. But if we re fer to the statutes of Charles the Second, we shall find it provided, that all Members of Parliament shall take the oaths, together with the declaration against transubstantiation. There can be no difference of opinion that those statutes compelled the taking of these oaths, and the subscribing of the declaration, and that the practice was continued subsequently up to the Union with Ireland. Nobody can have any doubt that the only question that can arise is as to the obligation of these two statutes; that is, whether the Ist of William and Mary, cap. 1., rendered the oaths ,of supremacy and allegiance no longer necessary to be taken before the Lord High Steward ? The ground on which I contend that this Act did not render the taking •of those oaths unnecessary is, because, if it had done so, it suggests the question, why was the practice conti nued ? Therefore I maintain that the Act of Eli zabeth was valid and subsisting. The words of that Act are, that the oaths required by it shall be taken by every Knight, Cit 4 zen, and Burgess in Parlia ment. If that Act was still in force, the effect of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman making his en trance into this House for any purpose subsequent to this debate, would be, to give the House the imme diate power to dispose of his seat by issuing a new writ for the election of a new Member for the county of Clare.—(Hear, hear.)-1 now come to the ground on which I think the Statute of Elizabeth was not repealed by the Ist of William and Mary. All those who have at all attended to the eventful pe riod when the latter Act was passed, know that on King William's landing, he sent letters missive, under the seal of the Prince of Orange, to call toge ther an assembly which should bear as near a resem blance to a Parliament as the circumstances would allow, the Members of which were all summoned from the different counties, cities, and boroughs, which were entitled to send Members to Parliament. But a; they had come together without taking any oath, it was ascertained that some provision was ne . - cessary to give authority to this Assembly, which, resembling a Parliament, was in terms and in fact a mere convention. The Act of the Ist of William and Mary, cap.l,was passed for the purpose of quieting the difficulties and disputes as to the title of the Con vention, and also for the purpose of turning the Convention into a Parliament. Any proviyion in that Act as to taking the oaths was not necessary. The only object of the statute of the Zith of Eliza beth was, to enforce the taking of the oaths of alle giance and supremacy, and the declaration against transubstantiation. The oath of supremacy is a merely negative oath; the party swears that " no Foreign Prince, Prelate, or Potentate bath any power, authority, or jurisdiction within this Realm." To my mind, by the Act of William and Mary, the legislature only meant to declare that the oaths should be taken in the body of the House, and was not intended to repeal the taking of the oaths before the Lord High Steward. The opinion I now sup ra is that which was sanctioned by the authority of Lord Chief Justice Holt, Sir George Treby,and Sir John Somers, who was afterwards the great Lord Somers, and their names were surely sufficient to leave no doubt us to the state of the law. We find, accordingly, that under this Statute, the Members of this House have continued to take the oaths down to the present day. We find, too, a reference to this very Statute in the Act of Union with Scot land, continuing its provisions in force. We come next to the Act of Union with Ireland. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman satisfied himself with a very short statement of the grounds on which he founds his aTument, that by this Act it was rendered unnecessary to take the oaths. He con- tends, as there are no distinct words inflicting the penalties and disabilities which before attended the omission of the oaths, the Act of Union cannot be carried into force as the former Acts were. Now, I always understood that Acts of Parliament were to be construed by the natural and fair import of the words they contained. Besides, it should be borne in mind, that at the very moment this Act was passed, the Irish Parliament took the same oaths, subscribed the same declaration, except that they did not do it before the Lord High Steward. But the Members of both Parliaments had precisely the same laws, as to these oaths and declarations, and were subject to the same penalties and disabilities if they neglected to take them. If there had ever been a doubt as to the necessity of taking these oaths, in the Irish Parliament, it was removed by the Yelver- ton Act, in 1782 or 1783, which declared all the Acts of the English or British Parliament, by which oaths were imposed on the Members of the Irish Parliament, were declared valid. It was a natural consequence that the two Parliaments, when united, should continue to take the same oaths. By the Bth section of the Act of Union with Ireland, it is provided, that " every Member of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom shall, in the first and all succeeding Parliaments, till Parliament shall otherwise provide, take the oaths, and make and subscribe the declaration now by law en joined to be taken and made by the Lords and Commons of the Parliament of Great Britain." The meaning of the word " enjoined," shews that the intention of this section was, that the same legal obligation was to be continued in the united Parliament that had previously existed in the two separate Parliaments. If there were any thins else necessary to prove the soundness of this opinion, it is to be found in the repeated instances in which ap, plications have been made to the Legislature for in demnity for neglecting to take these oaths. Only four years after the Union, there was an Act of Indem nity for Lard John Thynne. It is always reckoned that the judgment of a Court of Justice, on any particular subject, is a matter of great weight and interest; but when any point of privilege comes before this House judicially, such as where a party disqualifies himself from sitting in Parliament, the soieran decision of this House is infinitely more im portant than arty judgment of a Court of Record. The next case is in 1812 and in 1814 ; there were Acts of Indemnity for Mr. Charles Grant, and two or three others. Thee form a strong corroboration of the opinion I maintain, and which I think it is im possible to oveieome. The Hon. and Learned Gent. contends that by the Relief Bill he is entitled to enter this House, hut the very first clause of that Bill does in effect admit what I have been contending fOr. That clause rtins in theSe words :—" Whereas; by yaiiopp Acts pf parliament, certain restraints ithd disabilities are imposed on the Roma 9 c - tholie subjects of his Majesty, to which other subjects of his Majesty are not liable. And whereas it is expedient that such restraints and disabilities should be from henceforth discontinued, &c. Be iz epzcV?,d, that from and after the commencement Of this Act, all such parts cf ;he said Acts as require the said declarations, or either of them, to be tsiade or subscribed by any of his Majesty!s subjects as a quelification for sitting and. voting iii Parliament; or for the exereie PF eipyrtielit of any office, franchise, or civil right, be, and the same are sarri'e, herev inafter provided and excepted) hereby repealed. On the argument of the Hon. and Learned Gentle man, this Act was altogether unnecessary. If the Act of Union removed the necessity of taking the oaths, the Relief.,BiP is nothing. But when we see that in the Act of Union these oaths are specially continued " until Parliament shall otherwise provide," surely no more explicit proof can be given of their existence and validity. The words must be construed in their ordinary tense. The Hop. and Learned Gentlernatt has contended that Pariiarpent has pow otherwise, provided, anti therefore be is eraed to admission without taking the ,oat*::Oteir it had been • thought advisable to try,t.he'expvilpietit of admitting Roman Catholics nto the Houser of Lords merely, and in the House of Commonallie oaths had con tinued to be required, would the*Hen: and Learned Gentleman have felt himself justified in saying, " Parliament has otherwise provided by this change, and I therefore am entitled to sit in this House without taking the oaths ?" Having said thus much concerning the argument of the Hon. Member for Clare, as to his admissibility to this House under the law as it formerly stood, I now come to the second part of his argument, which he advanced to slew that he had a right to take his seat under the Act recently passed for the relief of his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects. Now, Sir, I must say, that if any Hon. Gentleman will give his attention to the framing of that Bill, I think that it will be evident to him that it sets the question at rest; so that there can be no doubt of what was the intention of the Legislature on the questio►a. In order to understand this, let us remember how the law stood at the time of the passing of the Bill. I will state what it was—at least what it was as 1 view the subject. Up to the moment of the pas sing of that Bill, no Member could take his seat in this House without first taking the oaths of allegi ance and supremacy; no person, then, up to that time, could be considered as a Member but by those two means; but then comes the present Statute, containing the declaration under which Roman Catholics shall be adniisible to Parliament, repeal ing so much of the former law as related to the oath of supremacy. If the new Act of Parliament had stopped at the end of the first section, merely repealing the oaths as they had formerly stood, the argument of the Honourable Member for Clare would have had considerable weight in it; but the next clause goes on to state, " that from and after the commencement of this Act, it shall be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, being a Peer, or who shall after the commencement of this Act be returned as a Member of the House of Commons," &c. There fore, I ask, to what class of Roman Catholics does this Act apply ? Not to all, clearly, because the words expressly are, " who shall after the com mencement of this Act be returned ;" and, there fore, since no man before the passing of this Act could enter the House without taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy, by what authority are we now to say that the application is general, and that no one, whensoever returned, is required to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy ? My argu tnent then, Sir, is, that by looking at these two sec- Lions of the new Act of Parliament, we shall find a clew by which to interpret the intention of the Le gislature. Allow me also to state, that the reason which runs in favour of the intention of the Legis lature, as I interpret it, is also consistent with the real justice of the case, because it is well known to every body that there was a measure, which, though it was not actually included in this Act of Parliament, was made an accompaniment of it, and the effect of which was to disfranchise an entire class of the freeholders of Ireland : the exclusion, therefore, of any Members elected pre vious to the passing of that Act, seems to me to be no more than justice, if the effect of that measure is fairly taken into consideration; for, as that accom panying Act may be looked upon as the price paid for the new privilege obtained through the medium of the Relief Bill, it is but consistent that those only who come in under the new state of things should reap the privilege for which the price has been paid.—(Hear, hear.)—lf this were not so, the effect will be that the Hon. Member for Clare, or any other person, who might have been elected un der the old system, having the benefits which that old system was able to give, will now be able to claim also the benefits of the new systera.—( Hear, hear.)—l therefore again say, that it appears to me perfectly just and right that none should claim the privileges to be derived from the new Act, without giving up those which belonged to the old Act. All this, however, would not have been material ; nor should I have said so much upon -it, but for the imputation which the Hon. Member for Clare seemed to throw out, that something personal to wards him was intended in the provisions of the new Act. I can assure the House that I have no such feeling in my mind, and that my only desire is to deal with the meaning of the Act, as I believe to be within the intention of the Legislature. By look ing at the first two sections of the Act, it appears that only a limited class of Catholics are admissible upon the terms prescribed in those sections, and if the matter rested there, I should say at once that the Hon. Member for Clare is not one of those who are entitled to take advantage of those provisions. I know that it has been contended—but the Hon. Gentleman himself does not appear to have relied much upon it—that a Member 'who is returned be fore the passing of the Act is also returned after the passing of it; or, in other words, that once re turned is always returned; but though this may be a very palatable doctrine to many gentlemen, I am sure that no one will think of insisting upon the weight of such an argument. Let us, then, go a little further, and consider the rest of the Hon. Gentleman's argument. We have seen that the first two sections relate to the right of voting in Par liament; the tenth section, upon which the Hon. Gentleman appears chiefly to rely, provides that Roman Catholics shall enjoy all civil rights upon taking the oath that is set out in the Act, but the only argument of the Hon. Gentleman upon this point is, that the words " Civil Right," include the right to sit and vote in Parliament. I know that the Hon. Member for Clare is a gentleman of high legal attainments; but nevertheless, with all deference to him, I must say that nothing can be so clear as that the Legislature has given distinct interpre tatioa as to the different rights of the Roman Ca tholics.—(Hear, hear.)—The Hon. Gentleman well knows that the only rule of law by which a Statute is to be construed is to look at every part of it, and to consider the bearing of e tch ; this is the principle that Lord Coke distinctly laid down, when he states that the whole of an Act of Parliament must be looked at quasi ex viscerihus actis : following up the rule thus laid down, let us try to eviscerate the meaning of the Act from the general bearing of the various sections; and in order to do this effectually, I pray you to look back to the first section ; after the preamble has recited, that by various former Acts certain oaths were required to be taken, the first section goes on to state, that " for sitting and voting in Parliament," which is one of the divisions contemplated, and " for the exercise or enjoyment of any office, franchise, or civil right," which are the other two divisions within the contemplation of the Act, those oaths shall be repealed. So that by this arrangement the Legislature appeared to make a triple distinction of the disabilities of the Ro man Catholics. The first three sections of the Act were taken up by the question of citing and voting in Parliament, and prescribing the oath and declaration to qualify for that then, that ques tion being disposed of, it goes on to the right of holding office, and gives the particulars on that head; and thirdly, it alludes to the subject of fran chise and civil right, and lays down the oath to be taken in all cases. But the Hon. Member for Clare puts his finger on a single word, and dragging it forth from the tenth section, contends, that when it has received his interpretation, it is to be taken as the whale spirit of the Act. Now , Sir, I am ready to contend, that, on the Hon. Gentleman's own shotBtosin, f ns o ea o t u e t ti which is We ll under stood o n Court ; for if we look at the 10th section, on which lie founds his right, we find that it says, " that it shall be lawful for any ing, our he ;;ofe of his Majesty's subjects professing the Roman Ca tholic religion to hold, exercise, and enjoy all civil and military offices, &c., upon taking and subscribing at the times, and in the manlier hereinafter mention ed, the oath, &C." Now the Hon. Gentleman has not taken the oath "in the manner hereinafter men tioned," but claims upon the oath previoasly ticined . —sC that; in fact, he merely takes up a part of the sentence, without following it up through the femainios conclusions, 13ut, besides this, there is i another answer 0114 in my mind, is concluStieC',..l til e tait if there is any foundation in thelion.: -Gentle right argument, that "civil right"- inclUdes thc sitting and voting in . ParliaMent, .the only-s!7: that it would be necessary for the Honour Gentleman, or for any Roman Catholio.to_._,,. o Po W s „.„ would be to go before a justice of the . peace_ the oath as prescribed; and if .ttrit would AtroliT was to come of the first and second sections of . 11 , Act, in which the Legislature.had withistiel,% and anxiety pointed out the only. mo d e by Roman Catholic could qualify himself to sit.sagkaur" .. „,. as a Member of that House ? If the Housesvill bear in mind that a single word is not to-belli,' i. out of an Act of Parliament, and have , the'ltt!; 4 0 meaning comprehended by it, in any c ase, ' l - A l it, and that the only f a i r mo d e o f constru i n g a" 411 of Parliament is by studying the general beariq the various sections, I- think that no doubt entertainedla tthe Hon. is that iem w b e erfor shall C i c a o re m l e va t s o ni th is e tk .acoennel;p.. that , 5 1 .6 he supposed that u nd er th e tent h sect i on was'eeta%: prehended a right for him to sit and vat,' jo lt % House of Parliament. If the matter .were . of .#°,f value, I should be willing to make the conceaft that if there were no wo r d b u t ." cis , : right" i n t ",.. Act, and no section b u t th e tent h sect i oir ,thelPt; Gent. would then have a right to the weight of 7. 1 argument in its fullest extent ; but the great peiiat which I rest is, that the tenth section is nie r ‘"le applying to inf er i or o ff ices a f ter t h e super i o r -One's a Member of this House has been disposed oil/ the first and second secti on . I h ave , per h a ps; ta l C ell up more of the time of the House than I ought e_ . , a n this subject—but as I l oo k upon i t as a me re 'eV , question.—(Hear, hear.)-1 thought that by 5° doing I might be able to excite the minds of those who have taken a different view of the matter 'to' canvass and answer the objections which I hav e urged. This is the reason that I have thus early i° the debate presented myself to the attention of the House, and I can assure it that I have done so with out the least reference to the particular individaai concerned, and without the least desire of keepil him from a seat in this House.—(Hear, hear.)" Such a course would be the last thing in the world by which I should be actuated : the sole feeling bY, which have been guided is, th a t the privileges o f ' this House might be preserved inviolable. I hav e looked only at what appeared to me to be the law of the subject; and from the conclusion which I have drawn I feel it to be my duty to conclude by me" ing—" That Mr. O'Connell, having been returned a Member of this House before the passing of the Act for the Relief of the Roman Catholics he i° not entitled to sit or v ot e i n t hi s H ou se un less he first takes the oath of supremacy." Mr. G. LAMB would state to the House the WHY in which he read the clauses of the Act : the de claration contained in the preamble expressly stated that every disability should hereafter be removed.' . in the second clause he found an arrangement tha,, related to persons wh o s h ou ld h erea f ter be return e d to the House of Commons. It was difficult, hea t " mated, to forget the circum s t ances o f the times ," which they lived; but if they could suppose generation passed away, an d th e S tatute commenc e " on by a generation who had never h ear d of the PO' ticular circumstances attending its passing into a law, what would be the observation on that section which confined the privileges contained in the Act to those who should be hereafter elected? T he ' • would say that it was not proposed to make aq distinction between the pe rs o ns re t ur n e d before O f Act and those returned after, but that the cases e . those returned before the Act were omitted by at; dent. In the reign of Henry VI. on the trial o f t he Duchess of Gloucester, a do u bt arose a s to vvhew e d peeresses wire entitled to the b ene fi t of clergy, d ull an Act was in consequence passed, s t a ting that s Noble Ladies, whether Duchesses, Countessesve- Baronesses, were entitled to that benefit, entirelY omitting to mention either Marchionesses or VW countesses. When this Act was commented u pon, lis t it was very much when th e c ase o f the Duchess 0. Kingston was b e f ore th e p u bli c , i t w as not suppo se° . that there was any intention of purposely ornitug the latter titles, but it was rather thought probable that there were none at that time holding such rank; the same thing would probably be said about this Act, and the case of the Hon. Member for doe being forgotten, it would be supposed by after sear tors, that the Act was only made to apply to thos e elected after the passing of the Act, because there were none elected before its passing and awaiting for its operation.—(Hear, hear.)—lf they were to go on and look at the question under the tenth section, he certainly did not know how they the right of sitting in Parliament but as a civil righ t but then the question arose—were the two clauses at. appeared issue with each other ? Not at all, as it to him. The second clause only referred to the par ticular case of persons elected after the paesl.ll of the Act, but the tenth applied generally. to a , civil rights of all Roman Catholics; and it therefore to this general arrangement that they We; to look in Mr. O'Connell's case. He trusted th!!_ he had argued this question, as a dry legal quest,ieu°: were to define the and he trusted that the House would be ro ue how how it laid itself open to the imputation of level l i ng this Act against an individual.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. FERGUSSON said, if there co uld be SPY doubt upon the mind of the House, as to which WHY . it ought to decide, the petitioner, was certainly eno titled to receive the benefit of that doubt; bu t the best consideration that he had been able to }r t g to the subject, be thought that it was as clear a; possible. It appeared to him, that it was se ver contemplated to include the case of the Hon. Membe! for Clare within the Act. He should nit We" upon the Act of Union, as he thought the Solicitor; General had sufficiently proved that the Act of U" to e . made no di ff erence in the case; and that up to t he° time of the present Act of Parliament, no cha n g: had been made ; so that every Member was ban % to take the prescribed oaths befo r e th e Lord Stew s " and again at the table of the House. In opPel the metion made in favou r o f th e H on . G e nt., he did it with considerable r e l uc t ance; f or if h e could ha ve brought his mind to b e li eve t h at h e h a d a right "; sit, he was convinced, from what he had seen of l e lion. Gent. that night, that be would be a valua b acquisition to the House; but looking at the ques t e o simply in a judicial point of view, he took it, tv a. on the Act of Parliament it was impossible to cora tit to the conclusion that he could be admitted witt, taking the oath' of supremacy. He could not aV og with the Hon. Gent. in thinking that he was s et excluded by the new Act of Parliament. That was strictly an Act of admission, and cosiseir!Or e ;( if the Hon. Gent, was not distinctly adinittedby se , he was to all intents arid purposes excl u d e d. They' „ a s with all Acts of Parliament was, that the e ff ect of 0 1;4 commenced from the day of passing the Act, s la pot retrospectively, which course would in this , le. almost all other instances, be prod uc tiv e of cons' tett able inconvenience. There was one thing i° l ot Act which must strike the mind of every lawyer, a d he therefore wondered that the Hon. Gent. had ) 11 • felt its force. If the Act had gone no further the mere point of civil rights, he would admit ' ba t the Hon. Gent. would have had a right to sit ;ue s the words were, civil and military office, frane , " o or civil light; and it was a settled point, that . if 0 Act treated of an inferior person or thing, it f ug not include a per,on or thing of superior den/ Then how did the case stand ? In one Part e' Act they found that provision was 'made for 1 10 admission into Parliament of nechltorean • Cat b %ol ns were retuned after t h e pas s ing Of the Act ; ;Oa in another part that Roman Catholics were admi sa t lf • to civil rights—bet this term meant lights ° ° `bisee higher nature than civil or military office, Itali c „ ea or civil right. This was a point that must be to every lawyer; and, therefore, believing that was no part of this Act applicable to the case of til t Hon. Member for Clare, he should c er t a i n ly eoteL., s the motion of the Solicitor-Generel,—(HeaN,, r e Though Hon. Gent. might laugh he could a ss tee House had given hi s vo t e f or Cathe o i Emancipation with as cordial a feeling as atil.°! at i ' who heard him; and if h e tho ug h t that chi. „90i"- I .' e tf which he had now pronounc e d cou ld b e atWP",,. t old to any Inkewartnness on his part, he certainly tYQ