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

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 etch ; 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
nsoeaotuetti which is Well under-
stood on 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,
ourhe ;;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
tiletait
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 Ws„.„ 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. mode 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 case, 'l-Al
it, and that the only fair mode of construing a" 411
of Parliament is by studying the general beariq
the various sections, I- think that no doubt
entertainedla tthe Hon. is
thatiemwbeerforshallC
icaoremlevatsonithisetk
.acoennel;p..
that ,
51.6
he supposed that under the tenth section was'eeta%:
prehended a right for him to sit and vat,' jolt%
House of Parliament. If the matter .were
.of .#°,f
value, I should be willing to make the conceaft
that if there were no word but ." cis,: right" in t",..
Act, and no section but the tenth sectioir,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 nier‘"le
applying to inferior offices after the superior-One's
a Member of this House has been disposed oil/
the first and second section. I have, perhaps; talCell
up more of the time of the House than I ought e_.,an
this subject—but as I look upon it as a mere '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 have
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, that the privileges of '
this House might be preserved inviolable. I have
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 vote in this House unless 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 who should hereafter be returned
to the House of Commons. It was difficult, heat"
mated, to forget the circumstances of the times ,"
which they lived; but if they could suppose
generation passed away, and the Statute commence"
on by a generation who had never heard 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? The' •
would say that it was not proposed to make aq
distinction between the persons returned before Of
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 of the
Duchess of Gloucester, a doubt arose as to vvhewed
peeresses wire entitled to the benefit of clergy, dull
an Act was in consequence passed, stating 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 upon, list
it was very much when the case of the Duchess 0.
Kingston was before the public, it was not suppose°.
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 those
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 right
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 roue
how how it laid itself open to the imputation of levelling
this Act against an individual.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. FERGUSSON said, if there could 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; but
the best consideration that he had been able to }rtg
to the subject, be thought that it was as clear a;
possible. It appeared to him, that it was sever
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" toe.
made no difference in the case; and that up to the°
time of the present Act of Parliament, no chang:
had been made ; so that every Member was ban
%
to take the prescribed oaths before the Lord Stews"
and again at the table of the House. In opPel
the metion made in favour of the Hon. Gent., he did
it with considerable reluctance; for if he could have
brought his mind to believe that he had a right ";
sit, he was convinced, from what he had seen of le
lion. Gent. that night, that be would be a valuab
acquisition to the House; but looking at the queste o
simply in a judicial point of view, he took it, tv a.
on the Act of Parliament it was impossible to coratit
to the conclusion that he could be admitted witt,
taking the oath' of supremacy. He could not aVog
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!Ore;(
if the Hon. Gent, was not distinctly adinittedby
se,
he was to all intents arid purposes excluded. They' „as
with all Acts of Parliament was, that the effect of 01;4
commenced from the day of passing the Act, sla
pot retrospectively, which course would in this, le.
almost all other instances, be productive of cons' tett
able inconvenience. There was one thing i° lot
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 'bat
the Hon. Gent. would have had a right to sit ;ues
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 fug
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 110
admission into Parliament of nechltorean •Catb%ol
ns were retuned after the passing Of the Act ; ;Oa
in another part that Roman Catholics were admisatlf •
to civil rights—bet this term meant lights °°`bisee
higher nature than civil or military office, Italic „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 tilt
Hon. Member for Clare, he should certainly eoteL.,s
the motion of the Solicitor-Generel,—(HeaN,,re
Though Hon. Gent. might laugh he could ass
tee House had given his vote for Catheoi
Emancipation with as cordial a feeling as atil.°!ati
' who heard him; and if he thought that chi. „90i"-I.'etf
which he had now pronounced could be atWP",,. told
to any Inkewartnness on his part, he certainly tYQ