"It is an undeniable principle of law," he said, "that the mere repeal of a declaratory Act does not renounce the principle of it, and it is clear to common sense that nothing but a final renouncing of the principle of this law is adequate to our security. With regard to this law of George I. the maxim I have mentioned obtains with peculiar force. What is the title of the law? It is an Act for the better securing the dependency of Ireland. On the face of it, therefore, it imports expressly that dependency did before exist, and that by consequence it must continue after unless renounced. It had, indeed, too strong an antecedent existence to be destroyed by any weak implications. The first authority of law known to the English Constitution is that of the great Lord Coke; his authority is expressly against us and in favour of the English Parliament. Will any lawyer say that the clear and decided opinion of Lord Coke, in a matter of law, is to be contemned } Add to this a number of statutes made by the English Parliament and acquiesced in by the Irish nation, antecedent to the declaratory law of George I., and will any man be so rash, so foolish, or so corrupt, as to say that such pretension is to be overlooked? or that it can be rationally stated to be so void of principle and colour as that a bare repeal of a subsequent and declaratory Act can annihilate it?"[1]
Grattan, on the other hand, contended that the simple repeal of this statute was abundantly sufficient
- ↑ "Irish Debates," vol. i. pp. 417, 418.
