Star.
London, England, 1829-05-19 00:00:00

1 pot .u... 841 *frame' relict to Hoin24ofitelhOlicis taSthat
Tool
'ids mine Inas, to be considered ilfitielkaltlf!ltltTlk, l.t)
449..efor"tidhimi nativirydiret b .-,42-swilrblrtre'.u:4;
ad the Bilk $t I eitrieinly.might Isuleflsite,
144 by those who 4uppoerd .4te ReMelosfaittbone Re-
lief Bill, that it was a 841 tomiet ..oe1101111:Allinstk
sides. and heast-barnings; 'that it was a return for
.by-gone- wrongs; . and that by it the foundation
was to be laid for a solid and substantial building.
dedicated to unanimity' and peace. If die House 4e-
cidcd against his daimithat was the infeietice whiCh
mutt arise but that thaelief Bill was a Bill not appli;
cable to. gamin Catlielici generally—that its peculiar
features might be distorted—that the words of which
it- was composed /night be wrenched from their ordi-
nary meaning-and that what was granted as a civil
right was not, in fact, a civil right, but that some pre-
text ora4cuse might be found for overturning it?,-
The decision of the present question then, affected the
wisdom and policy of the late Act, for what ,other,
construction could unlearned persons. orArnald the pub.
lic generally, put on it, if his claim was denied,, than
that he bad pvinted out? Under all the circumstances,
he respectfully submitted that his right to sit and fete'
in that house was a civil right, clearly and 'plainly re-
cognised by the late•statute. That statute was 1111;01116
prehensive in its enactments--it grips all comprehensive
in its recital--it was allcomprehensive in its language—
and the words 44 with the exception hereafter named,"
demonstrated that all which remained, all not included
in the exceptions so named, was a right belonging to
all persons without farther exception. On that statute
he stood, and claimed the benefit of its principle and

its provisions.
Mr. 043einestt then vrkhdrew from the bar amidst di Ayers.
After. Mr. o*Courvat. bad withdrawn from idst
, the Bar there was
payee (or monk minutes, occasioned by Members and strangers
quitting the House. As soon es the bunk bad in sense degree
subsided.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL rose and said, that,
as the Hon. Member for the county of Clare had with-1
drawn from the bar after stating his claims with an
ability worthy of so distinguished ao advocate, and
with a temper and moderation which did him credit as
a man and a Gentleman—k now became the . duty of
the House first to discuss and debate, and then to come)
Ito a consideration and decision on the question wising '
upon the Honourable Gentleman's claim. la coming
to that decision he trusted that the Hou-e would dis-
card every thing like party or political feeling, and dia.
cuss the question strictly on its merits, as a matter of
duty. Such, he could assure the House, was the temper
lof his own mind,, he would ;endeavour to consider
the question which now arose as if he was 'called upon'
to give an opinion on a long obsolete and by-gone Act
of Parliament, the actors in framing which had long
riacee left the stage. He trusted the House would bear
with him whilst be stated the ground on which he had
formod an opinion, different, perhaps, to that which
others had formed, and Which was, that the Hon. Gem.
who bad just addressed the House was not entitled to sit
and vote without Gist taking the oath of _supremacy.
,The Hon. Gentleman's argument embraced two dis-
tinct point; to which he should address himielf. In
the first place the Hon. Gentleman relied upon the Act
lot Union, which, be contended, had virtually done away
with the necessity of-taking the oath of supremacy. The
other branch of the Hon. Gentleman's argument was
solely and entirely directed to the force and rl •aning
of the late Act of Parliapient for the relief of .his Ma.
jetty's Roman Catholic subjects. These were the dis-
tinct branches to which the Hon. Member directed his-
argument, and though there were other argoments, they
were perfectly Independent of the privilege he claims of
sitting or voting, and many Of them must be to
be unconnected with the question on ihich the House
had to decide. Coming to the first of the Hon. Gen-
deman's arguments, he found that the Hon. Gentle-
man held that the enactments and the peculiar penal-
ties and disabilities to be found in the Act of Char lesll.
were not imported nor to be found in the Act of Union.
-Now, if it had been in his tthe Solicitor General's)
power to come to this C011C1114041 ,at tb the state of the
law, be admitted that he should '
not be sorry for it,
because, if it. appeared that, since she Union with
Ireland, Roman Catholics had no necelsity to take
oaths or snake declarations, such a conviction would
tend much to reconcile differences and animosities on
the one side, and heartburnings. on the other, for it
mould then appear that the Catholics possessed since the
Union what they had so often suisequently prayed for,
and that by the late measur 3 the Leglature bad given
op no secutities at all. He was boned, however,
to say, in honesty, that, until the Roman Catholic Relief
Bill passed, there was a valid and substantial.securily
against Roman Catholics quieting this House of Parlia-
ment. He had no difficulty whatever in saying that be-
fore the passing of the late Act the Catholics were Oc-
cluded. He would first take into consideration the oaths
required to be taken up to period when the Catholic
Relief Bill passed, and then he would advert to the state
of the law as it was affected by that Bill. Upon the first.
point these were many things that all parties had
.agseed
to. It could not ha denied, for instance, that trom the
time of the sth of Elizabeth to the Ist of William' and ,
Mai y, it was necessary for Members of thattlouse to 'take
the oath of Supremacy before the High Steward. It was
.contended by some, though he was of a different opi-
nion, that the Act f the Ist of William and Mary re-
pealed the Act of Elizabeth. 11ur to go back to the
Act of Charles the Second, two oaths were-then ordered
to be taken-at the table, together with the new declara-
tion against transubstantiation, and this was the law and
the practice which contitosed and subsisted up to the
time of the Union. Now, the question was, fist, irlff.;
ther she Aet of William and Mary made it no longei .
necessary that the oaths should be taken before the
High 'Steward? and. idly, whether the Act of Union
altered the state of the law as it was left by the 'Act
of William and Mary, by preventing and doing away
the necessity of taking any oaths? Those were thetwo
points, and the only points, on which persons were at
variance on this :object. He would just trouble the
House with a few words on the statute of William and
Mary, which he contended had no effect in rendering
the oaths of supremacy andZ:r unnecessary to
be taken before the Lord High d. He contended
that, before the passing of the late Act, tito man had a
right to enter or vote in that Moan, or to do any act as
a Member, without taking the oaths before the H:gh
Steward, and that, therefore, the Hon. Gentleman had
no right, as a knight, citizen; -ae burgess, to enter the
House;
.and when the light Honoaiablatlentlemtan*
asked what was to he don! witteltizne'be (die Stilicitoe'
General) would repljk that,' in his view, and it theigcluse .
concurred with him subsequentia clisctiteOn:thi
House bad nothing to do but td order a new :wit to be
issued. It was unnecessary, perhilps, Wester iiito any
relation of the circumatinikel tinder'olhkkthal'Aiti of
William and Mary was paiiptilVailbe facts wetelkioin.
to every Member of that House.' Upon'the hodiag.of
Y.ing William and Queen Mary le ttere misslife were
.seat out to protureatiastep4ltiof saisethitigsatttelf
-parliament as could be istrph mitletatthe cireotnl.
`' UP•l4Thf a

colty was found to from *hick of their aliigmeiiir
taken the oaths of supremacy and allegiance Mince eit2r
Highlksward.The difficulty was,that they could tiotiekt
the oath of allegiance to the Prince *he had abdicated,.
and the old oath wi uld. sot apply to the yew Nice;
Some provision. thereto*, was necessary to make whet
Jog .aseecia. ale -amuse •rif talleilatiab•lido-a,abo.
liament. -Upon the meeting of A. contention, there.
fore.- the first proceediog . vows to cam tbe4rst.Act
:anti Mary, chapter tbk lest, b which the.,
convention .was Awned
,it:to a Parliament. the only
.object of that Act was to state • 'that was to lre• stene•
with regard to the taking:of the oath' of supremacy'
and allegiance. •At the. table owety thing that was to
be. done previously•oras 'still required to be done...spa
the Act' has no , tefeiencrto any thing to be doemyre;
luminary to Members entering the House. The Ai* of
Willimas and, Mary stated that certain oaths should be
then taken by Members at the table, but it did not•stime
that the oaths of supremacy and allegiance were to
Aitken at the table,of the H<<use ,and ;not tlsewliwi:
As to whether the statute of William and MerrrePealeil
T„
toot of e,inaueto was quite another question. and.kr
was decidedly of opinion th it the statute of Sods
beth was re it repealed by that of William and-Meiji
but that, alter the passing of the statute of William
and Malty, Members of the Houses of Lords'and
mons tame bound to take the oaths previous to sitting
in Parliament. 'The Legislature clearly did not wee.
in the slightest degree, to repeal the oath's of allegisece
and supremacy by the I.st of William nod Miry. The:
intention.of.the Legislature wa4.-clearlyskfined•by sub.
sequent proceedings. 'Within a year after the statmeof
William and Mary, upon reierence to the Journals of
Parliament, :they would 6od that-commissions meg
given-by the Duke of Devonshire, who was et that lime
the Lord Eigh Steward, to -Dimities, to admiouterthe
oaths to Meinbers.-The lot mss corn issions, as described
in the Act of Elizabeth. were exactly cipied. Ind_ the
moment the Parliament met those commissions aim
issued, which proved to 'demonstration. that the Act
shortly before passed did not affect the oaths to be sakes
out Of the House. It was impossible to sup lose, under
all the circumstances of those times, that it could
have been intended to repeal the oaths to. be taken oat
int: the Wass, and that, it these had been-any cosh
tendon, it would not have been distinctly slated in the
Act. The oaths were administered by that High
Steward in the Goa .yeer of William and liltufsAtißn.
when All tbepersons were alive who had been Dam-
mental in raising the Act.- The persons likely to be
called upon to advise the. Crown pt this time were load
Chief Justice Holt, Sir John Creeeey, the Attorney
P General, and Sir John -Somers, afterwards .the toed
!Lord 8 amen, who was, then Geoiral. Some of
thegreatest and best-men of that age were, 'bertha',
consulted on this Act, end it Was abundantly midget
m
from all the citcustaoCet.. thai. the *statute Of Willies"
anJ Mary did not repeal the oaths to becakenbeime the
Lord High Steward -as to subsequent Parliaments The
oaths to besakeo remained she eel y.sante from the use
of William and 'Meg to the passing cf the Act 'Alias
with Ireland. In all that long interval it had never hem
urged that those oaths were to be repealed; and on a
point which-concerned their own privileges. and 'Ouch
must have come frequently before tbe 14 Iv', it was
impossible not to build with some Outdate on the fact
that no.objection was ever made to takiatthose oaths
on the ground that they had been repealed. Up to
the period. of the Union, then, the oaths•of .septe
fancy add allegiance were -still neceseary.to.be. taken,
and the statute of Elizabeth was still in' force...ile
thought he could tasisty the House, by a short Oa*
ment, that the Act of Union did not alter the liw.oek•
respect to the oaths to be taken.• or the peoaltits ant
disabilities which followed -I(ons"any aighlerintakieg
those oaths.. The. penalties
.and disabijitiea. evaded
to a breach of the Act Making it necessity .for Aka
ben to take the oaths -were important and .*eighty
considerations; 'might he allowed-. to.'ay
that an_ Act •of .Parliament could only bt iliderttoid
according to its "subject matter and felt interpre-
tation. The Act in heland .in force before the
Union. aid requiring oaths t 6 betaken by-Menthe:4,as
ezattly_the same as in England. eccept as to*the witba
before the Lord High Steward. Tile omits to lattakaa
.at the 'Ask were precisely the same is Iffliaalle is
England.. The oaths &supremacy and allegiaote woe
the same, for which it was not necessary for him is
mention any authorities. As the force of the -
William the Third was doubted, on the ground. dist
the Irish Parliament was not a party, Yelyersoe's
Act was passed in 1782 or 1783, and removed all
doubts, and from that time all the oaths imposed
in England were also imposed in Ireland. in Abe
eats! manner as in England. Thera cauld..bet ea
doubt, then, that up to the -time of the Union the same
'Sethi and disabilities were in force in -both commit%
Two nations, then, having the same oaths end &sal*
ties in force, entered into a solemn contract to =fel
their Parliaments, in order that one Parliament AO
:represent the whole; and .nothing could be moot
reasonable abduatural than'thai the laws and dude.
Jitiek which were common to both Parliaments ail
sapprite should be applied to .the- united Palianalle
The natural consequence was, that thesaurus laws whit
*ere in -force in both cOinitries. aould Dave the sawed.
(ect and operation in the united Parliament. Butit Di
sot rest these, foe these was a direct declitaticia is de
eighth section of the Act of Udion. That settlen sod
that the Members of all succeeding Parliaments shoed
take the. oaths and subscribe to the regulations "ft
enjoined.... Thin could pale tie coastreed to mesa dm
* same obligations and the' Male legal coaseqesese
tillire still in kris.' And such was' the practical coo
don given to fidiliectkdo of the Act of Pukes fa
up to the present *metes the oaths of supremacy ssl
allegiance were' taken by all Members without iff
doubt. until a new -light broke in upon the Hosoll!w_
Gentleman: The Act of Union expressly and Mien/
statedthat Peers voting for tepresentative Pease.°
take the oaths required to be taken by limbered
the Upper Howe. If any person neglected to ail'
those oaths they uniformly applied for an Act
Indemnity, and those Acts of Indemnity fool
'strong Legislative declarations that the oaths still obi
iisted'in full force notwithstanding the Act of US!
In 1806 a Noble Lord entered the House mithouttekfl
the oaths, and that act was followed by a pin
demnity, which, consing,four years 'after .the Act !I
Polon. must be considered as of. greater weigto:
proving the necessity which still existed for taking
oaths than the act of any Court of record. In the lo'1o'
;1812 an&1818 similar Acts of Indemnity were PIN".
:(tine is the case of Mr. Charles. Grant), and b. ~.ce
'tended that those Acts, being solemn declaim",
t*, the 'Hon**. keeled -strong aid ipsonootsuP
torellboptool4 in proof of the ropositigai with svbia._llo
ept valaelyobsit *oaths of sspremecl 5",,,
'since ww..stilt tot be taken. The 45th of Ge0....t
~theseoaths, and the 10"7,,
he copoe Avaally admitted that up to':
F 3fB was Crary to take the oaths. The tie
wi
!bib...very "bet, -declared 'the neeetill .":71
'nisi:top to tbit time for caking the oaths; butt

~s~~.