with the return, and contended, that the sheriff had no right to make those additions to his return; and that on that ground they could not be received. Nothing could be received as evidence but the return. In some particular cases the sheriff might no doubt receive evidence; for instance, in that of a boy of tender age, and notoriously a minor, he might receive evidence of the fact, and append it to his return; but in most other cases, and in the present, his office was purely ministe rial, and he was bound to make the return, and any addition to it would be irregular on his part, and could not therefore be admitted as evidence with the return itself. It was suggested to him (Mr. Pollock) by his learned friend Mr. Alderson, that a clergyman entering a register of a baptism, and adding in it the age of the child, the register would be legal evidence of the baptism, but the entry of the age could not be received as evidence of the age, because the party was authorized only to register the fact of the baptism, and not the age. In like manner an entry or addition to the return, which the sheriff was not authorized to make, could not be received as evidence of any fact with the return.

Mr. Harrison contended, that the sheriff was bound to state, in his return, the special circumstances of any peculiar case, and to add any evidence that he might have received of those circumstances; and that such addition must be received along with the return. As to the case which his learned friend had cited, the entry of the clergyman of the age of the child could not be legally received, because the clergyman could not know the fact of his own knowledge.

Mr. Pollock, in reply, observed, that let the same test be put to the case before the committee, and it would at once put an end to his learned friend's argument. How, he asked, could the sheriff know any thing of the affidavit? It was banded to him as sworn; but how could he know that fact, or know that it was true?

After some further discussion, the room was cleared, and strangers were excluded for about 20 minutes.

On the return of counsel, they were informed by the Chair

man, that the documents appended to the writ might be read: but that reading was not to be considered as evidence of the truth of their contents.

The documents were then read by the clerk, after which Colonel Fitzgerald was put into the box, and proved that he had heard Mr. O'Connell declare at the hustings that the freeholders had to choose between him and Mr. Vesey Fitgerald; that Mr. Fitgerald had sworn, on taking his seat in Parliament, that their religion (that of the Catholics) was impious and idolatrous, and was ready to swear it again, should he be returned; but that he (Mr. O'Connell) being a Roman Catholic, would never take any such oath,-that he would sooner die first

On his cross-examination, Colonel Fitzgerald admitted that Mr. O'Connell more than once declared that it was not necessary that he, as a Catholic, should take the oaths,--that he would try that question.

Mr. Dillon Macnamara gave similar testimony as to the declarations of Mr. O'Connell of his being a Catholic.

In his cross-examination, he made the same admission as to Mr. O'Connell's assertion, that it would not be necessary for him to take the oaths previously to his taking his seat.

In answer to another question, as to whether Mr. O'Connell had not expressed his determination to try the right, witness replied, that no doubt he had, but the right could not be tried till the return was made. This produced a laugh among Mr. O'Connell's friends; and Mr. O'Connell observed to one of his counsel—" Certainly it could not, and that is the whole of the case."

Harrison said he should call no further evidence on this part of his case.

The Chairman, after consulting with the committee, declared it would be advisable to adjourn the committee till the following day, when it again met and Mr. Pollock intimated that it was not intended to examine any witnesses on the part of Mr. O'Connnel.,

Mr. Adam said that that would throw some difficulty in his

period in show that

way, and then proceeded to argue in support of the petition The learned gentleman, in the first instance, directed his attention to the various text writers and authorities, proving the necessity of taking the oaths of allegiance and supremacy before the Lord Steward, prior to any member's being admitted, under the law of the 1st of Elizabeth to enter the House of Commons. The principal act, however, on which he relied in this part of his case, was the 3d William and Mary, e.? which extended to Ireland the provisions of the statute 30th Charles II.; and he referred to the history of that support of his construction of this act, in order to the object of it was to exclude Papists. That was effected by one of the clauses, which declared the Invocation of the Virgin Mary and the sacrifice of the mass to be superstitious and idolatrous, which was a test that the Catholic could not get over. That, however, was not the only test. It had been attempted to be denied that Yelverton's Act, which recognized these statutes, did not adopt them so as to create exclusion. But a very slight consideration of the very words of the statute would suffice to prove the futility of such an argument. From the passing of that, act up to the time of the Union. Members of Parliament took the oaths prescribed by the English statute of Charles II., and it was not until lately that this new light broke in, by which it appeared that these statutes had no reference to Ireland at all. The 9th section of the act of 1793, which relieved the Catholics, also mentioned that no one could sit in Parliament unless the oaths and declarations were made and subscribed according to the law as then in force, thereby expressly recognizing the act of William and Mary. If the act of Union did, as he contended, continue the law, it was certain that no Catholic could sit in Parliament; and if even there were any doubt upon that act, the 41st Geo. III. ch. 52, 101, left no doubt upon the subject, and seemed as if framed in anticipation of the arguments used at the other side. It could not be deduced from either of them that it was the intention of the legislature at the time of the Union to let Roman Catholics into Parliament. He admitted that if the prohibi

tions in these acts were established for the first time, they would not amount to a disqualification. But the act enjoined the taking of the oaths before accustomed and known to be taken by the members of both the Parliaments, which were then united; and it was therefore impossible to say that all the consequences which were applicable to English members of Parliament would not equally apply to Irish members. It was said that there was no time, place, or person appointed for the administering the oath, which would leave the act open to this interpretation, that no oath at all need be taken. The nature of the act pointed out a place, for the 30th Ch. II. merely said that the oath was to be taken in the House of Commons, and no more; therefore, it would be absurd to say that there was no place to be found for the purpose. The time, place, and manner were provided by the different acts to which the act of Union referred, and it was not necessary they should be set out modo et forma, as if they were to be inserted in a special declaration. A distinction was drawn also between the act of Union with Ireland and that of Scotland, because in the latter the disabilities were directly declared to follow from the refusal of the oaths, while in the former there is only an injunction to take the oaths theretofore usually taken. Both of them, however, were equally valid; the latter might no doubt have been as special, but it was not reasonable to infer from the absence of special and precise terms, that it was the intention of the Legislature to omit the fulfilment of what it had before enjoined. The learned gentleman then proceeded to argue, that the 41st Geo. III. c. 52, applied to all persons returned to Parliament. In proof of this he referred to the title of the act, which described it as showing "what persons" are disabled from voting and sitting in Parliament. There were three classes of persons so disabled by the act, the first and second of which had no particular reference to placemen, but applied equally to all. The learned gentleman, after concluding this part of his case, proceeded to argue, that if a Papist could not sit and vote, he was not eligible to be returned. He began by asking for what

purpose would a member be sent to Parliament if he coul not sit there, except indeed to give considerable trouble in ur first instance, and to leave a portion of the King's subjects unrepresented. There was nothing more jealously looked for than having a ful! House of Commons, and it was therefore the intention of the Legislature that every member should be able to sit: otherwise the law would allow, what it never does, that something should be done in vain. The 6th section of the 41st Geo. III. proved this; for it said, that "if any person declared incapable, or disabled from sitting and voting, should nevertheless be elected, such return or election was declared null and void. The consequence then must be, that a new writ should be issued, and a new election be had. Assuming therefore, that a Roman Catholic could not sit, he contended that the election of one was void. The learned gentleman supported this argument by several quotations from Blackstone, Douglas, and by reference to the cases of Sir Richard Allen and Mr. Ongly, which arose under the acts of King William and Queen Anne, with respect to placemen. He contended, further, that a member was complete the moment he was returned, before he either sat or voted; and in proof of this he cited" Hatsell, page 88," who instanced, in support of this doctrine, the case of Sir Joseph Jekyll, who was chosen on the committee of secrecy, in 1715, before he took the oaths at the table of the house. He concluded by calling on this committee to look at the history of all these acts, and he was of opinion that they would decide with him, and declare the return of Mr. O'Connell as one who could not sit and vote in the house to be null and void.

Mr. F. Pollock, for Mr. O'Connell, said that he would not follow either the course of argument pursued by his friend Mr. Harrison, the day before, nor would he make any allusion to the first two hours of Mr. Adam's speech. It was unquestionable, that before the Union between Great Britain and Ireland any Catholic refusing to take the oaths would be undoubtedly excluded from sitting or voting in Parliament. Agreeing in all that Mr. Adam stated up to that