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

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, Cit4zen, 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repealed by the Ist of William and Mary.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,