Constitutional Whig. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1824-1832, 1829-06-30

out TAKING tne Oath OF supremacy" |
MIR. u. w. Wynn said, his conviction was from the
first that the honorable member should he heard; and
he did not think It was of any consequence whether
at the bar or the table.
Mr.. Brougham was in favor of having Mr.. O'Con-
nell hcardot the table; but on the ground of eXpcdi-
ency would acquiescc in tho amendment.
There were at this time at least 500 members in
tho House.
The question "that Mr.. O'Counell be heard at the
bar by himself, his counsel, or his agents." was then
put, and carried in the affirmative.
Dir. DrouStlain thought, that the sooner the House
proceeded tn business the better, with the perfect un-
dcrs,andlng that the House will not only commence,
but continue and finish the discussion tonight. iIIear,
hcar.)
Mr.. OConncll was then called in, and,
The Speaker Informed him of the decision the
House had come to.
Mr. OConnell then proceeded TO address the
House. He said he claimed his right TO sit and vote
IN the House as the representative of the county of
Ciare, without taking the oath Of supremacy. He
was ready to take the oath OF allegiance, provided by
the recent statue, entitled san Act FOR the relief of
his Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects" He was
dcsirous to have that oath administered, and of course
must be prepared to verify his qualification in point
Of Property; and whether the house should be ofopin-
Ion that he ought to be permitted to take the new
oath or not, he respectfully required to be allowed
to take the qualification oath. If he was allowed to
take that oath, be it then at his own hazard to sit i'm
the house. His right to sit and vote in that house
was in it's nature perfectly plain. lie had been re-
turned duly elected by the proper officer, and that re-
turn had been confirmed by the unanimous decision of
a committee eflhe house. He therefore had as good
a right to sit and vote in the house, according to the
prIncIple OF the constitution, as any of the right hon.
or hon. gentlemen by whom he was surrounded.
The voice ofthe people had sent him there. lie was
the representative of the people. The question as
1t affected his righ: to sit and vote in the house,
could not arise at common law, but only on statute
law. 1T was n question of statute law whether q
representative of the people WINS bound before he en-
tered on the execution Of his duty to his constitu.
ents, to take oaths ofuny dcscription.-He was cur
rect IN saying, that up TO the reign of Elizabeth no
oaths were required. The 30th Of Charles III. first
required oaths to be taken in the house itself. That
statute required the oath Of allegiance to be taken,
and no man could be more ready to take the oath of
allegiance than he was. The statute also REQUIRED
the oath Of suprcInacy to be taken, together with the
dcc!aration then, Tor the first time, introduced into
the statute. The oath Of supremacy he would not
take, and. he believed there were many in the house
who would not take the then existing oath of SUI
Temacy. That statute not only required those oaths
to be taken, but it went On and provided remedies
against individuals who should neglect or refuse to
take them. Up to the period of the legislative union
with ireland, the statute was, by means of other acts
continued III force,-tiiat was to say, partly in force;
the declaration was i'll force, but he found, by refer
eicc to the library belonging to the house, that the
oaths were repealed by the LIST of Wiliiun and Mary.
section 1, chapter /. That statute altered tho form
OF the oatiis cf allegiance and supremacy. BY the
statute of Charles the oath of supremacy was
affirmative of the kings supremacy in spiritual
matters. By the other, the oath only ncnatived
foreign supremacy and spiritual jurisdiction. This
was the state ottho statute law up to The period of
legislative union with Ireland. At that period. in his
humble opinion, an alteration took place in the effect
OF the statute law. lie most respectfiIllv submitted
that the alteration which took place at the period of
the legislative union IN the statute law, as established
by the LIST OF William and Mary, w!.:ch was one of
pains, penalties, and disabilities, against uny person
who sat and voted without taking the prescribed oaths.
was, that there was still a direction to take the oatbs,
but no pains, penalties, and disabilities CONSEQUENT
| uDOu their NOT taking ttpuD - ] NOM ,I,;,,,t ~.
TO sit and vote without taking the oaths bv the act
OF union with Ireland; and, secondly, he claimed to
SIT and vote under the relief bill, without takinp
the declarations; thirdly, no claimed, accordlnu To the
effect OF the relief bill, to sit and vote without taking
the oath of supremacy; and, fourthly, he claimed under
the positive enactinents OF the relief bill, to sit and
vote without taking any other oath than that men
toned IN the relief bill itself He would endsavour
to go over these several points as briefly as possible.
The act OF union with Ireland certainly directed The
oaths to be taken, and II was equally certain that it
Cd not enact any pans and penalties for not doinn so.
lie next came to his claim, founded on tho relief hill
lie insisted that the effect of the relief bill was 20
do away with the obligations directed by tho union
act. The union act directed that the oaths should
be taken for a particular period, and for a particular
period only. The words of the act Of union were
That every member of the House of Commons In
the hrst and all succeeding Pariiaments shall, until
the Parliament oil the United Kingdom shall other.
wise provide, take the oatls, and make and subscribe
the declaration, and take and subscribe the onth now
NY law enloifled to be taken. made, and subscribed bv
tbc Lords and Commons of the Parliament of Great
Britain" He could not now do that, for tho direc-
ton was at an end. On that direction depended the
oath of supremacy. If under that direction the oat h
Of supremacy could not be required, then he sncceeded
at once. He contended that the period had arrived
when that direction was 10 longer in force. Tie
period of the existence Of the direction was limited
by the adverb of time 'until." The oaths were di-
rccted to be taken until something should bhnnan.
Had that thing happened That was the only oucs-
ton. He would see whether he could answer it.
lie said that thing had happened. How did he prove
IT. lie took up the act of relief passed this session,
ana De FOUND the declaration totally abolished. Had
not Parliament now otherwise provided" He
would not detajn the House by going ninutelv
through the act, he would rest his claim upon the 10Li
clause, which conferred the right Of exercising evorv
clvll rlght upon Catholics If he should be asked
whether the right of sitting end votingi in Parliament
were q civil rioht. be Mould renlu. IL = rninht ho -