justifiable attack upon the rights of property. To this it was answered, that, beyond all doubt, the Irish fortyshilling franchise had not been beneficial to its possessor, and had been most detrimental to the country in which it was exercised. From it had sprung the splitting of the lands into small farms, the excessive increase of the population, the general squalor and wretchedness of the country. At no time since 1793 had these freeholders been their own masters. From 1793 till 1825, they had regularly been driven by their landlords, at elections, to the county town, and locked up, till they gave their votes for his candidate. Since 1825 they had been equally the creatures of the priests against the landlords. The former had proved the more powerful interest; and it was an interest against which, knowing as we now did what it could effect, it was both fair and necessary to provide an adequate security. Neither was there any real hardship imposed. We were about to give the Roman Catholic a great compensation; he was now under a stigma of exclusion and humiliation; we were about to say to him, we will place you upright in your free and natural position; and, in return for a concession such as this, we were entitled to demand his ready acquiescence in a measure like the present. In acting thus, we did not consent to place the present measure on the ground of a penalty directed against the Roman Catholics. It was not an exclusive penalty; the fact was, if it were a penalty towards any, it was an equal penalty towards all. It would affect Protestant and Catholic alike. But, on the subject of penalty, if we took the case of any one Roman Catholic fortyshilling freeholder, who had registered his privilege in compliance with the directions of his landlord,-of one of these marksmen, who could not write his name,—if we looked at the individual loss that would be sustained, we should find that it could not be very great. Mr. Peel mentioned the following instance of the power of the priests as having occurred at the Clare election. At the commencement of that election, a landlord of the county had promised what was called his interest to Mr. V. Fitzgerald; the landlord had a voter on his estate, who was under great personal obligations to him, and previous to the commencement of the contest, he said to this voter, "I shall vote for Mr. Fitzgerald, I suppose you mean to do the same," The man was only astonished at the implied doubt which his landlord's mode of expression appeared to convey, and declared his determination to imitate the example of his patron at the approaching election. Well, as the struggle grew nearer, a degree of excitement was produced to which it was only necessary to allude: the freeholder did not escape its effects he came to his landlord with 607. in his hands, and addressed him thus:-"I have saved this sum while your tenant, and upon your property. I cannot redeem the promise which I gave you, there-take the 60l., make use of it to promote the interests of Mr. Fitzgerald, but my vote I must give to O'Connell.” Could any thing be so painful as the situation of him who was obliged to perform such a partto observe such a doubtful contest between his religion and his con science? The bill was calculated, when carried into effect, to raise up a real, substantial, independent yeomanry in Ireland, and rescue the forty-shilling freeholders from the consequences of such conflicts. These grounds should not be omitted in a consideration of the question; but at the same time it was certain, he admitted, that except we were able to promise a satisfactory adjustment of the Roman Catholic question, there was not the least chance of this measure being listened to. It would have been impossible to withdraw existing privileges, however they might have been abused, without offering a compensation, by granting the enjoyment of beneficial and legitimate power, in lieu of the dangerous and illegitimate power which was proposed to be taken away. Only seventeen members voted against the bill; and even in Ireland no loud expression of opinion was heard against it. The Association had ceased to sit. O'Connell, who had publicly bound himself to reject even emancipation, if accompanied by such a condition, and to perish in the field, or on the scaffold, in defence of the freeholders whom he affectionately denominated his "forties," had forgotten all his vows, and became silent and acquiescent. His own claims were the next thing that excited attention; they were asserted with much more vivacity, though not with greater success. At the time of the Clare election, he had assured the people that he was entitled to sit in Parliament without taking the oaths which no Catholic could take; on this he had staked his professional reputation, and given assurances that he held other learned opinions to the same purport. His return had been petitioned against, on the ground of his being a Catholic; but the committee, to whom the petition was referred, had reported that he was duly elected. They could come to no other conclusion. The law did not say that a Catholic might not be elected; it only said that no person elected should be capable of sitting, unless he took certain oaths, which oaths involved an abjuration of popery. If a person, known and believed to be a Catholic, could bring himself to take these oaths, and abjure his religion, he was entitled to take his seat. Mr. O'Connell had not made the attempt under the old law: prudent advice had kept him back from a proceeding which would have been irritating in itself, and which must either have been desperate, or if successful, would only have proved practically that the Relief bill was unnecessary; since, even under the law which it was intended to alter, Catholics were not excluded from Parliament. The new act did not seem to forward his pretensions. The oath, indeed, which it substituted for those that were abrogated, could be taken by a Catholic as well as by a Protestant; but then that provision was expressly limited to the case of "6 any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, who shall after the commencement of this act be returned as a member of the House of Commons." But Mr. O'Connell had been returned long before the commencement of the new act. His claims had arisen under the old law, and by that old law they were to be decided. This seemed to be plain enough; but Mr. O'Connell and his friends took a different view of the statute. By the first clause, all the provisions of former acts requiring the declarations against transubstantiation, and the invocation of saints, were declared to be repealed "from and after the commencement of this act." They held, therefore, that from the moment the bill received the royal assent, there was an end to the power of administering any of these oaths, or demanding any of these declarations which then stood repealed. The only existing oath, thenceforward, was the oath contained in the new law; the House of Commons could tender no other, for the legislative authority of all others had perished. Mr. O'Connell, therefore, would be entitled to take his seat, because he would be willing to take the only oath which, in this view, the House was entitled to administer. Accordingly, on the 15th of May, Mr. O'Connell, when the House met, came forward to the table to be sworn, accompanied by lord Ebrington and lord Duncannon. The clerk produced the oath which had been repealed by the late act, and a brief conversation thereupon took place between them, which the clerk communicated to the Speaker, who immediately addressed the House: "It is my duty to state, if I have been correctly informed, that the course, which the honourable member has proposed to take, is a course which, until overruled by stronger authority, I do not conceive it my duty to acquiesce in. I understand that he proposes to take the oath prescribed to be taken by Roman Catholics, as it is to be found in an act of parliament recently passed. As I read that act of parliament, it is my impression -and on that impression it is my duty to act-that it involves two points relative to the course to be pursued in taking seats in this House. The first point is that of repealing the declaration against transubstantiation; the other, that of appointing an oath to be taken by such members of this House as profess the Roman Catholic creed; but with this condition, that those members should be returned subsequently to, the passing of the act. Now, the honourable member was returned, as the House is well aware, long before the passing of this act. I have, therefore, only to refer to the law affecting all the members of this House until the late act passed; and,, with the single exception of repeating the declaration against transubstantiation, I have to state, that the construction which has been uniformly put on the law of the land, and which has been repeatedly sanctioned and confirmed by act of parliament, is, that every member, before taking his seat, shall take the Oath of Allegiance and Supremacy before the lord steward, and the oath of abjuration at the table of this House. is the course, which by law the dignity and the privileges of this House require. I state this the rather, because it is well known that this House is open to an appeal by petition, or it may be brought forward by any member in this House. In that case, the House will be better able to judge, and to state its opinion of the propriety of the conduct which it ap peared to me to be my duty to pursue. I therefore state to the hon. gentleman, that he must withdraw." This Mr. O'Connell having withdrawn, Mr. Brougham moved, that he should be called back, and heard at the table in support of his claim to be admitted on taking no other oath than that contained in the late act. It was clear that Mr. O'Connell must be heard somewhere, by himself, or by his counsel. Whether he should be heard at the table, or at the bar as a petitioner, was of less importance though not unimportant-but heard he must be, and there were precedents which showed that he was entitled to be heard at the table. There was the case of sir Henry Monson, which occurred on the 13th of February, 1689, and also that of sir Michael Fanshawe, who appeared, one after the other, at the table of the House. Sir Henry Monson was called on to take the oath, but would not. A discussion then took place, and the result of that discussion was, that the Speaker called sir Henry Monson in, by direction of the House, and asked whether he had any objection to take the oath. He stated, in answer, that his feelings on the subject were of a nature personal to himself, and not tending to disturb the settlement. It appears from the report of the parliamentary debate, that sir Henry Monson spoke at least three sentences in explanation of his reasons for refusing to take the oath. The House was not satisfied, and he was directed to withdraw; and, after consideration, the question being put, his seat was declared vacant, and a new writ was issued. The case of Mr. Archdale, which occurred some years afterwards, is another precedent. He stated, in a letter to the Speaker, his reason for not taking the oaths. He was called on to attend and explain his reasons. He did so, and he was then directed to withdraw. The same thing happened in the case of lord Sandford. The time which they occupied in explanation was of no importance. It was sufficient that the several individuals, in these cases, were heardpreviously to being ordered to withdraw. Mr. W. Wynn, who was clearly of opinion that Mr. O'Connell was entitled to be heard at the bar, and that it made no difference whether he was heard there, or at the table, referred likewise to the case of Mr. Wilkes. That gentleman having been returned, the House would not receive him, and declared that he was incapable of sitting in Parliament. He presented a petition to the House, complaining of a breach of privilege as a member of Parliament, and the House resolved to hear the petitioner make his defence. He asked the House, "whether, situated as he was, he would not incur the penalties prescribed by different acts of Parliament, if he came to the House for that purpose?" and the Speaker said, "It has been customary for a petitioner to state the allegation of his petition without taking the oaths; and in so doing, he is not guilty of any offence within the intent and meaning of the acts.” It was the same thing here. Every individual having a wrong to be redressed, should be heard either at the bar, or at the table. In bis opinion, however, it would be much better to adhere to the former course. Mr. Peel, again thought there was a very great and manifest distinction between hearing the applicant at the table, and at the bar, and that he had no right to be heard at the table; but, as it was a point of some importance, as well as nicety, the debate was adjourned till the following Monday, the 18th. 1 1 1 On that day Mr. Peel stated his opinion, that the House ought to hear Mr. O'Connell, but only at the bar. Mr. Brougham was satisfied that he should be heard; and although there were precedents for hearing a member in the situation of Mr. O'Connell at the table, as well as at the bar, he considered the difference, on the present occasion, at least, of too little moment to justify any farther discussion. It was therefore ordered, on Mr. Peel's motion, "that the member for Clare be heard at the bar, with reference to his claim to sit and vote in the House of Commons without taking the Oath of Supremacy." Mr. O'Connell then appeared at the bar, and delivered an elaborate argument in support of the right which he claimed. He maintained first, that the Act of Union with Ireland entitled him to sit without taking the Oath of Supremacy; secondly, that the act lately passed entitled him to sit without taking the Declaration against Transubstantiation. Thirdly, he claimed, under the spirit and effect of the new statute, to sit without taking. the Oath of Supremacy; and fourthly, he claimed, under its positive enactments, to sit without taking any other oath than what was therein contained. On the first point, the effect of the Act of Union, his argument was, that although by that act, oaths were appointed to be taken, no pains or penalties were imposed in the event of a person sitting without having taken them. It was the 30th of Charles 2nd, which required the Oath of Supremacy to be taken, and introduced, for the first time, the Declaration. That statute was guarded with severe penalties, and the conse quence of a refusal to take the oaths was declared to be the vacating of the seat. Under that statute, he admitted, he could not have taken his seat. But the statute of Charles, he maintained, a statute made in the English Parliament, did not operate on the present Parliament. Nothing could operate in this case but the Act of Union with Ireland, or some act passed subsequently to the Union. Now the Act of Union, though it certainly directed the oaths to be taken, contained no pains or penalties for not having taken them. He could not concede that the House, acting, as in this case it must act, in its judicial capacity, was entitled to supply what the statute had omitted, and guard the mere direction of the Act of Union by introducing as a penalty a disqualification to sit, which was not to be found in the act itself. Next, he argued, that even the mere direction in the Act of Union that the oaths should be taken, guarded as it was by no sanction or penalty, had been repealed by the Relief bill recently passed. The words of the Act of Union were, "That every Member of the House of Commons, in the first and all succeeding Parliaments, shall, until the Parliament of the United Kingdom shall otherwise provide, take the oaths, and make and subscribe the Declaration, and take and subscribe the oath now by law enjoined to be taken, made, and subscribed." This provision was limited to a particular period : it was limited till something should happen, viz. till Parliament should "otherwise provide"-whenever Parliament should "otherwise provide," then the direction of the Act of Union was at an end. But this event, which by the very |