time, and was then referred to the consideration of a Select Committee; which Committee was instructed to examine and report to the House what other Acts relating to taking the oaths by Members of the House of Commons, besides that of Charles II, ought to be repealed. The Journals were silent on the subject; but he had looked at the original records, and found that such was the case. The Bill, as sent down by the Lords, referred to the Act of the 30th of Charles the Second only; some of the Members of the Lower House wished to extend it further, and an Amendment to that effect was proposed and adopted. The third clause of the Bill in question, so amended, was to the effect, that the Act of the 30th of Charles the Second, and all other Acts concerning the taking of oaths by Members of Parliament, should be repealed. It had been said by his Hon. and Learned Friend that those Acts had no relation to the sitting and voting of Members of Parliament. But if they related to the oaths necessary to be taken before entering the House, they related to the sitting and voting of Members of Parliament. The fourth section of the Bill enacted new oaths, to be taken in the same manner as the former. That Act, however, related only to the Convention Parliament; and if the matter stopped there, it might be said that it was only a repeal pro hac vice. He had looked carefully into the subject, and he had been unable to discover any other Acts relating to oaths but the 30th of Charles the Second, the 5th of Elizabeth, and the 7th of James the First. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman here read at length the Amendment introduced into the Act of the Convention Parliament by the House of Commons, and maintained that if the question turned on the statute alone, and without reference to the usage of Parliament, there could be no doubt that the oaths had been repealed. There could be no reason why the Convention Parliament, who had repealed the Acts which were applicable to themselves, should not repeal the others. The 8th chapter, section 5, of the same Session, his Hon. and Learned Friend said, alluded to Members of Parliament.

The words of it were, that all persons, excepting those concerning whom other provisions were made, should, on entering on any office, take the new oaths. These was some of the circumstances which excited doubts in his mind. Had it not been for the usage of Parliament, all professional men would say that it was a case of repeal. It appeared, however, that in practice, the oaths taken before the Lord High Steward continued to exist-except in the case of Archdale, the Quaker, which occurred ten years after the passing of the Act. In 1698, the House directed Archdale to come to the Table and take the oaths, when they knew that he had not taken the oaths before the Lord High Steward. In many other cases, however, between the year 1698, and the Union, the House experienced great occasional inconvenience from the absence of the Lord High Steward from London; and had on several occasions been obliged to adjourn, because they had no means of adding to their number. This, he was obliged to admit, showed what the practice of the House had been. Bills of Indemnity had been passed in favour of certain individuals, who had violated that practice. That, however, only proved that there was doubt. It did not absolutely decide the subject. A Right Honourable Friend of his, and a Noble Lord, had been the subjects of Bills of Indemnity on this ground; but that did not imply that there was any fixed opinion on the subject, only that great doubts existed respecting it. He now came to the Act of Union with Ireland. He owned he was struck with the argument urged by the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare, that the omission in the Act of Union with Ireland of any Penal Clause was a circumstance well worthy the consideration of the House. A Penal Act affecting any particular Parliament could not by construction be applied to another Parliament not in existence at the time it was passed. Accordingly, in the Act of Union with Scotland, the Act of the 30th of Charles II. and the other Acts containing Penal Clauses, were by name expressly re-enacted, There could be no doubt, therefore, that it was the intention in the Act of Union with Scotland to exclude Roman Catho

lics from Parliament for ever; or as long, at least, as the spirit in which that Act was framed should continue to exist. By this proceeding the Penal Statutes in question were rendered applicable to a Parliament not at the time in existence. That was not the case in the Act of Union with Ireland. The party by which the Union with Ireland was brought about, and of which Mr. Pitt was the principal leader, were evidently anxious to repeal the obnoxious oaths, and to let the Catholics into Parliament. And it must be admitted as not improbable that in framing the Act of Union with Ireland, they contemplated the repeal, at no distant period, of the penal clauses. Under such circumstances, it was not their policy to re-enact those clauses. They thought it sufficient to provide for only a general discretionary power on the part of Parliament to administer to all members the oaths as by law established. He could not agree with his Hon. and Learned Friend that what was applicable to each Parliament separately, was applicable to them both when united. The fact certainly was, that the penal clauses had not been re-enacted. Still, however, it appeared to him that the House was obliged to impose the oaths The Act of Parliament directed it, and it must be obeyed. Having a great admiration for the talents of the Hon. and Learned Member for Clare, and a great wish to see him in that House, he regretted being obliged to come to this conclusion. He now came to the last part of the argument. If he understood the Hon. Member for Clare rightly, he maintained that the Relief Bill, by the tenth section, provided for all cases whatever of civil right, and that the right of sitting and voting in Parliament was a civil right. There could be no question that it was so. His Hon. and Learned Friend had, however, contended that the tenth section was not to be looked upon in an isolated point of view, but must be considered with reference to what preceded it. He (Sir James Scarlett) confessed that he could not put the construction upon the tenth section which the Honourable Member for Clare had put upon it. [The Hon. and Learned Member argued this point at some length, but we were unable to follow him

with accuracy.] If it could be made out that the general words of the Act admitted the claims of the Hon. Member, it was the duty of the House to say so. He must declare that the House was the only body to which an appeal could be made on the subject. If the question were for a new writ, he should certainly say that he was not prepared to give his vote for such a motion, but he should require postponement; but he could now vote for the proposition of his Hon. Friend. The Member for Clare had not satisfied him that he was entitled to his seat.

Mr. C. W. W. Wynne rose, but spoke so low that the Hon. Member was at times totally inaudible in the Galleries, and at no time distinctly heard. He said he had no doubt that that House was the proper and the only tribunal to decide the rights of its Members; nor could he agree in the opposite doctrine without an absolute and utter abandonment of the privileges of Parliament. After the House had allowed an elected Member to take his seat, it would be such a decided declaration of the opinion of the House, that no Court of Law would venture afterwards to come to a contrary conclusion. The declaration of the House of Commons would always be obligatory in a Court of Law. The first point to consider was the taking of the oaths before the Lord Steward. Upon this he did not feel himself under the necessity of saying very much. If this were a question upon a Statute, he should say that the fifth of Elizabeth had been decidedly repealed, and that there was no necessity whatever to take the oaths prescribed to be taken by that Statute before the Lord Steward. It was evident that none of the Members of the Convention Parliament could have taken the oaths before the Lord Steward, for there existed at that time no such Officer before whom they could have taken them. Afterwards several Members of the House of Commons were made Peers or Judges, and new Members were elected to supply their vacant seats; but yet it did not appear by the Journals of the House that the Lord Steward had administered the oaths to such newly-elected Members. On the first day of the succeeding

Parliament there was evidence that he had administered the oath. The first of William did repeal the Act of Elizabeth ; for it directed that the oaths should be taken at the Table of the House, and not elsewhere. Such were the conclusions to which he should be obliged to come upon considering that Statute; but, in opposition to this, he had the whole current of Parliamentary experience. Nothing was more familiar than to hear it said in Courts of Justice, that if this were an Act upon which we were now called, for the first time, to decide, we should entertain no shadow of a doubt; but we are bound by a long course of practice in the Court, in which a different view of the Act has uniformly prevailed. The practice of this House had put a different construction upon the Act of William; and it had been deemed necessary that the oaths of Elizabeth should be exacted of Members taking their seats in that House. He could refer to a number of cases upon this point. There were four cases of Members of the House of Commons, and three of Members, of the House of Lords, since the Union with Ireland. There were distinct cases of Acts passed to relieve Members from the penalties of having taken their seats and voted, without having previously taken the oaths. In all such cases the House had declared the seats of such Members to have been vacated. They had passed Acts to relieve Members of the penalties, after those penalties had been recovered in Courts of Law; but they had always given effect to that part of the Act by which the seats of the Members who did not take the Oaths were ipso facto vacant. In 1812, the House passed an Act to legalise the oaths taken irregularly before the Lord Steward. The present Act was prospective; there were no negative words; and the question, as the Solicitor-General had declared, was to be decided as it it arose out of an Act 100 years old. He had argued that the House ought to leave out of the question all the House had heard as to the particular reasons which might have induced particular Members to give their assent to the Bill, and to look at the Act itself. If he (Mr. Wynne) took the Act itself, it appeared to him that he could not find out that it was not