The Sun.
London, England, 1829-02-09 00:00:00

and supremacy, arc repealed by the express words of the
statute Ist William and Milli.
I defy any lawyer to controvert this statement by point-
ing out any statute,., now of fire,
.requiring a member of
the House of Commons to take the oath of supremacy be-
fore the Lord Steward or his Deputy, prior to his entering
the House. - •
This brings me into the body of the House, and here I
have. a third proposition to adduce and prove. Before I
do so, let me make two observations.
The first is, that even if the statutes of the sth Eliza-
beth, and 7th James 1., above sited, had not been reppled,
yet I could successfully contend that they: were remlered
inoperative by the act of Union between Great Britain and
Ireland.
The second is, that the oath of supremacy, in the sth
Elizabeth, is an affirmative oath, asserting that the; So-
vereign is the head of the church—an oath which Dissen-
ters and Presbyterians equally reject with Catholics.
I now come to the third proposition—it is this: "That
I incar no penalty, privation, or forfeiture, by sitting,
.e speaking, and voting, in the House, without taking the
re
oath of supremacy, or making the solemn declaration against
ay transubstantiation in the House itself."
ag This is the main point in the case: if I prove this pro-
ik position, I establish my right incontrovertibly.
It is plain that here lam called on to prove a negative.
Bat lain prepared to do so. 'I will raise the objections to
my sitting and voting fairly, and I intend to .salve them
completely.
The statutes which require oaths and declarations to be
takera'and made are these—the 30th Charles H. section 2,
cap. 1, and Ist William and Mary, cap. 1.
The first of these statutes was enacted under the in-
fluence of that fanatic folly and barbarity which disgraced
that period of English history, by the countenance given to
the sanguinary fable called Titus Oates' Plot.
By the second section, that statute required every mem-
ber of the House of Commons to take the oaths of alle-
giance and supremacy, and to make the declaration that
there is no transubstantiation in the elements after conse-
cration ; and that the sacrifice of the mass, and the invo;.
cation of saints, as used in the Church of Rome, are im-
pions and idolatrous.
The third section provides a tribunal before which these
oaths are to be taken—namely, the House of Commons,
with the Speaker in the chair.
The fourth section enacts disabilities, penalties, and for-
feitures of a most grievous nature : disability to hold any
office or place of trust, civil or military, under the Crown;
disability from thenceforth to sit or vote in either House
of Parliament ; disability to sue as plaintiff in any court
of law or equity ; disability to be guardian of any child ;
disability to be executor or administrator to any person, or
to take any legacy or deed of gift, and also a forfeiture of
5001., to be recovered by any common informer.
The seventh section direets in the event of any Member
of the House of Commons refusing to take these oaths,
that a new writ should issue to return a new Member in
the place of such defaulter.
Thais the plan of enforcing these horrible oaths was
complete—it consisted of these particulars :-
Ist. It directed every Member of the House of Com-
mons to take these oaths previous to sitting or voting.
2d. It framed a tribunal to administer the oaths.
3d. It created a disability to continue a MeMber of the
House in case of refusal to take these oaths before that tri-
bunal. And
4th. It provided a remedy by authorizing the Speaker
to issue a new writ, in ease these oaths were not taken
before that tribunal.
Now, whilst we are upon this statute, let me implore
your deliberate attention to the following train of thought.
Suppose for one moment that the statute of the 30th of
Charles 11., which I have just analyzed, had contained
only the first of the four preceding clauses, and even only
part of that ; suppose it merely directed the oaths to be
taken by the member of the House of Commons, without
limiting any time within which the oath should be taken,
and that it did not frame any tribunal or create any autho-
rity to administer the oath, amid that it did net create any
disability, forfeiture, or penalty, for refusing or declining to
take that oath, and that it provided no remedy in the event
of such refusal. Suppose all these things, and see whether
the following propositions do not inevitably result :-
Ist, That every member would have the entire Parlia-
ment to comply with the injunction of the statute.
2d. That the House of Commons would not have any
jurisdiction to administer the oath, and could not admi-
nister it. The House has no inherent jurisdiction to ad-
minister an oath.
3d. That the House of Commons could not punish any
man for not taking that oath. The House of Commons is
not a court of criminal jurisprudence, nor indeed any court
of justice at all.
4th. That the House of Commons would not have any
remedy in its power, or jurisdiction in the event of a neg-
lect to take the oath.
I think I may say with great confidence, and I do say it
with perfect confidence, that there is not a lawyer in the
British dominions, whose opinion can have weight, tha
will controvert any of the four propositions I have thug
laid down.

If such a one be found, let him not overlay the subject
with words, or deviate into extrinsic topics, but let him
come to the point directly,--let him sustain his opinion
by any reasoning he can, and allow me to anticipate his
certain defeat.
Now, any one of these propositions conceded to me, de-
cides the entire question in my favour.
I believe there is not one human being in existence, ac-
quainted with the principles and spirit of our laws, so de-
void of intellect as to assert that the statute of the 30th
Charles 11., if it contained a mere direction to take the
oaths, would have been equally potential as a law as it was
when it limited the time for taking the oath, framed a tri-
bunal to administer the oath, enacted penalties and disabi-
lities for not taking the oath, and provided the remedy, in
the event of a refusal to take the oath.
Yet if this be not practically effected, which could not,
with decency, be asserted, my right to sit, speak, and vote,
unimpeded by any decision of that House, is perfectly clear,
as I shall presently demonstrate.
I return to the second of the statutes I have above cited,
as requiring oaths to be taken within the House of Com-
mons, the Ist of William and Mary, cap. I.
The third section of that statute adopts, by a distinct re-
ference, in terms, the declaration contained in the 30th of
Charles 11., and it substitutes a new oath of supremacy in
the place of the former oath of supremacy, which it re-
pealed by the 2d section.
The former oaths of supremacy asserted positively that
the King was the head of the church—the new oath of su-
premacy contained in the lst of William and Mary, cap. 1,
and repeated, totidem verbis, in the Ist of William and
Mary, cap. 8, is merely negative. It denies to any foreign
power or prelate any spiritual jurisdiction. The Protestant
Dissenters, Presbyterians, &c. could not take the first; all
Protestants, and even infidels, could take the second.
The 3d sec. of the let William and Mary, cap. I, enacts,
that this second or new oath of supremacy, with the decla-
ration contained in the 30th Charles 11., shall be taken and
made by every member of Parliament, within the time, and

in the same manner and form, and under the penalties and
disabilities as by that act are ordained, and not at any other

time or in any other manner. These concluding words are
very important.

T
p reth
ea
nt thectm e3n
tO twh t
ho f
the Charless
t of
lwi
aas embodied
mand by
Mary,
with
this exception, that the oath of supremacy was altered.
And thus by means of these two statutes it is conceded,
that from the commencement of the reign of William and
Maly, to the Union between England and Scotland, any
Member of the House of Commons who refused to take the
oaths within the House incurred various disabilities of the
most grievous nature, and,. amongst them he forfeited his
seat. His refusal before becoming a Member to take the
oaths did not, and could not, disqualify him from being
elected. He was eligible, but he incurred the forfeiture of
his seat, by the act of refusing to take the oaths, he being
then an elected Member of the House.
Such was the state of the law with respect to the Par-
liament of England. It was the English Parliament until
the Union with Scotland, when it became the British
Parliament. It by that means became another and a dif-
ferent body, insomuch so that a mere majority of English
representatives could no longer pass a Bill, even one
relating to England, if opposed by the Scotch Members
It became a new body, in which England could legislate
for Scotland, and Scotland shared the legislation of Eng-
land.

This new body, the British Parliament, could not be
bound by any statute relating exclusively to the former
body, the English Parliament. The 30th of Charles 11.,
and the Ist of William and Mary, would, ae a matter of