of his country has much to hope. I own I have great hope, and that hope shall never forsake me until I find the Catholic Body growing apathetic until I find the Rent declining, and above all, until I find our brave and inimitable peasantry forgetting the counsel which we have now, and which we have for ever given them-to be obedient, entirely and altogether obedient to the law. After some further observations, the Learned Gentleman concluded by proposing, that a Requisition should be addressed to the Secretary of the Catholics to call an Aggregate Meeting for the 29th. He said, it was rumoured that the Protestant friends of civil and religious liberty intended a meeting on that day. If this rumour should turn out well founded, the Catholics would readily give way, and hail the demonstration on the Protestant side as a new ground of hope that all honest men would speedily be united for Ireland-old Ireland. [The Learned Gentleman intimating that his other propositions he would take leave to submit on Thursday, sat down amid plaudits which continued for several moments].

The period was now fast approaching when the great question was to be tried of the elegibility of Mr. O'Connell to sit in the House of Commons pursuant of his return as member for the County of Clare. It was evident to every one, under the existing law that no individual could sit or vote in either House of Parliament, without having taken those preliminary oaths which no Roman Catholic could venture to swear without objuring his religion. A Mr. Charles Buller, however a lawyer of reputation and a Catholic, came out soon after the Clare Election with an argument on the effect of the several statutes prescribing the oaths to be taken by Members of Parliament, to prove that a Roman Catholic, elected for Clare could enforce his privileges as a member without taking the Anti-Catholic oaths. This opinion of Mr. Buller, was most ably met by Mr. Sugden, who, as far as a faithful recital of Acts of Parliament, and a clear and intelligible construction f them could go towards overturning a plausible though

perverse error, completely settled the question of any man taking his seat in Parliament, without having previously sworn and signed the oaths and declarations which are invariably subscribed to by members of the imperial legislature.

At a meeting however of the Catholic Association held on Thursday the 8th of January, Mr. O Connell delivered his own sentiments on the subject in the following manner.

I will, at the close of this week, publish my own views of the case, in a series of clear propositions, which will show, that unless the House infringe upon their own rights, and upon the principles of the constitution, they cannot legally exclude me. I have been elected to fill that place by the unbought suffrages of the people. It remains to be seen if the House of Commons will venture to disfranchise a whole county-I might say a nation. I shall not express at length my opinions in this room, because they may be misunderstood. When I spoke before upon this subject, I forgot I was speaking to persons who were ignorant of the law; and no blame to them, for I would be glad to know who is truly learned in it. I will now, however, throw out my mind in a narrow compass upon the state in which I am placed, and I will put the question in the worst and strongest light against myself. In England there are two Acts of Parliament requiring certain oaths from members before they can sit and vote in the honourable House. One of these is the statute of Elizabeth, and the other was passed in the reign of the second Charles. They are both of the following description:-The first binds the member who takes it to deny the spiritual supremacy of the Pope. I never can, never will deny that. Not all the grandeur of all the thrones upon earth could seduce me to a denial of that power. I admit it from my heart. But I have sworn, and am ready to swear again, that no foreign power or Pope hath, or ought to have, any temporal power, superiority, or pre-eminence, directly or indirectly, within these realms.' The second of these oaths asserts that the sacrifice of the mass and the invocation of saints, as used in the Catholic church, are impious and idolatrous. The latter I think a good and holy rite, the

other I believe to be an adorable sacrifice of the new law, and I can never subscribe, much less swear, to a denial of either. I have stated, that in point of law, these statutes exist in England; but in Ireland we have no such Act of Parliament. 'Tis true, the Parliament of William and Mary, after the infraction of the Treaty of Limerick, passed such a law; but it was the English, and not the Irish Parliament. And, I say, the English legislature had no right to enact any laws binding the Irish nation. What! the English Parliament make a law for Ireland, when the land was not under its control!! Soon after 1782, Yelverton, then Attorney-General, brought in certain Acts, sanctioning some British Acts of Parliament, but not the Acts making the oaths imperative. I think, therefore, Charles Butler has taken a strong ground when he says Yelverton's Act did not sanction the unjust usurpation of prerogative on the part of England in the reign of William and Mary. It has been said, that at the time of the Union, the Acts requiring these oaths existed in England and in Ireland. These caths went still further, for they were penal, inasmuch as any member who took his seat without first swallowing the oaths, was subject to a penalty of 500%. for every hour, he should so sit, together with a forfeiture of his seat, and of his capacity to serve the King, or hold any place of trust or emolument under the Crown. If these clauses were not embodied in the Act, it could not be penal. Then came the Union. By the articles of Union the oaths were prescribed, but the penalties were not repeated. The Act of Union has not provided a forfeiture of seat, nor of right to enjoy place, neither does it enjoin a penalty of 500l. an hour. I say so, because the statute is penal; and a penal statute cannot be proceeded upon by implication; the offence and the penalty must be expressed. I now defy the base herd of my own profession, who are working their brains out to make a case against me, to deny or disprove this position. I ask them, could they, under the existing laws, sustain an action against me, for the rccovery of the 500l. per hour? They dare not say they could. In the Act of Union between Eng

land and Scotland, the penal clauses are expressed.-Now, they are useful, or they are not. If not useful, why retain them in the Scotch Act of Union? and if they are useful and necessary, then they cannot apply to Ireland; and therefore there is no law to prevent me from taking my seat. Here is the contrast, and let the Tory lawyers and press, and worse enemies, our base pretended friends, explain it away if they can. I put this to the base offal of my own profession, and to the representatives of the rotten boroughs and corrupt aristocracy of the empire, and I defy them to get out of it in such a manner as will please any sound lawyer. Again I ask, do the Acts of Union of Ireland and of Scotland mean the same? No man of common sense will answer in the affirma、 tive. Therefore, I defy them to deprive me of my right to that place, given to me by the martyred and unbought people of Clare. But I am told the Speaker will dispose of the question in a summary way by sending for his myrmidons and the Serjeant-at-Arms, and ordering them to put me out. I tell him this is not the way to settle a national question. I'll beard Mr. Speaker in his den if he attempt any such unconstitutional settling of the Irish question. I'll say to him, "Sir, the people of Ireland have sent me here to plead their cause and to represent their feelings; I am legally and duly elected to represent a large and independent county in Parliament, but, Mr. Manners Sutton, pray what rotten borough has sent you here to decide upon a people's rights by your nod? If they do not allow me to defend myself, it will be prima facie evidence of the weakness of their case: and all Europe may draw its conclusions. I shall be attended on my journey by the aristocracy and gentry of Ireland, and I know of no country that can boast of a nobler aristocracy. 1 admit the not taking the oaths may be an indictable offence; but I can demur to every one of their indictments, and I defy them to maintain the ground of action. The English Act does not say where or when the oath must be taken. I can therefore enter the House and pass through the session without taking it, and incur no danger of indictment. This, to be sure, is

only a technical argument, but still it is a good and valid on The Irish Act does not say who is to put the oath, neither does it point out the form. They cannot then say who authorized to tender the oath, and therefore it is he who puts the oath, and not he who refuses to take it, that is exposed to the indictment. But, despite of all the host of prejudice I shall have to encounter, if I am but supported by the friends of freedom and of the constitution, I will show Mr. Speaker that I am a better lawyer than he, and that the case is decidedly for me. Thus will emancipation be obtained in the easiest possible way; for if the oaths are once flung into disrepute, their bad effects must soon vanish. I have detained you too long on this subject; for although the subject is on of paramount importance, it is very dry and uninteresting in the detail. If I be admitted to take my seat, what membe will dare, in my presence, to revile my country or insult my creed? How often have we been abused in the House of Commons, on account of tenets we condemn, and doctrines we abjure? I might support a law excluding from place or power men who would entertain such opinions; although I condemn all laws that bind opinion; for it is against acts and not opinions that laws should be made. I recollect having heard an honourable member adduce, as an argument against our claims, the Roman Index Expurgatorius. I would, if in my place, ask the gentleman, if he had ever heard of the Spanish Index Expurgatorius, in which the reading of the Roman one was prohibited? The Pope, as a temporal prince, may, in his own dominions, make any law he pleases, but if he were to attempt to extend them to Ireland, I would scout them as a mere vapour. But when the Speaker brings charges against us, I would remind him to beware, for by the statute of Elizabeth, if he have in his possession a Catholic Bible, he may be fined 57.; if a Prayer Book, 100Z.; and if a Coucher, he may be imprisoned during the King's pleasure.

On the 30th of January. Mr. O'Connell left Dublin for the purpose of taking his seat in the House of Commons, and perhaps no circumstance in the history of that period, created