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

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 de.
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,?, could bring our minds to form an opinion in
favour of fireH".and Learned Gentleman'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, these 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 taken since the Union with Ireland;