stated that there were in the House some Hon. Members who were above entertaining a doubt upon the question, and who were ready to vote upon it; and God knows who were the nien by whom the strongest doubts were expressed upon it. His Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Peterborough, who had spent years, he might say a whole life, in dealing with questions of doubt and difficulty-a man who was confessedly, and by general consent, at the very head of a profession, the business of which was to solve doubt, and reconcile and explain difficulties-that Hon. and Learned Gentleman had told them (and it was not assertion merely, for he had stated how and why) that his mind laboured under such a difficulty upon the question, that he feared coming to such a discussion at all. His Right Hon Friend introduced argument after argument in order to shew the difficulty of the question; he quoted points, which though contradictory in themselves, still when brought together, and weighed as a whole, would, he feared, lead him to a decision which he should much regret. An Honourable Member who has been in the habit of weighing and nicely discriminating all Parliamentary questions, told them that he entertained doubts upon it; as he feared the difficulty on the one hand, would lead to greater difficulty on the other, he was prepared to vote in favour of the admission of Mr. O'Connell. He doubting as he did, felt those facts and arguments which ought to induce them to pause, and not come to a hasty decision against that Gentleman. He admitted the weight of the arguments used by Honourable and Learned Gentlemen on the other side, but he confessed that the two Solicitors-General opposite, did not in his view of the case, succeed in removing the difficulties raised by his Honourable Friend behind him. Let them inquire how the case stood. And first, he would observe, that the main argument upon which Mr. O'Connell mainly relied was left wholly untouched: it was passed over with a single word, as if it was a quibbleas if it was unworthy of an answer-and yet he was declared incapable of taking his seat. The argument was this; that by

the Act of Union it was provided that no persons should sit in Parliament without taking the usual oaths, until Parliament provided other regulations on the subject. There was no question of pains and penalties. This part of the question had been so triumphantly settled by his Honourable and Learned Friend, the Member for Peterborough, that he should feel ashamed to trouble the House with a single observation upon it. But the question for their consideration was, had Parliament come to any other regulation by which persons sat in Parliament without taking the oaths contained in the Act of Union? He contended that it had. The late Act provided certain other oaths and forms, particularly as to declarations, which enabled persons before excluded to sit under the new law. From the passing of that Act all was changed-all was new; and those who could not take their seats before might take them now. The contrary, however, was contended; and the objection was confined to one individual, although he was entitled to his seat under the Act of Union coupled with the late Act. If this were not so, what was the meaning of the oaths prescribed by the Act of Union, "until Parliament provided some other regulation?" They had all heard the able and manly, though modest and unobstrusive manner in which Mr. O'Connell had urged his claims at the Bar. That argument, he (Mr. Brougham) contended, had not been touched. His Hon. and Learned Friend over the way appeared to have mistaken the argument. He contended that the Act was altogether prospective; if this were so, many of his (Mr. Brougham's) doubts and difficulties would be removed; but such, he contended, was not the fact. The Hon. Member for Weymouth, who had argued this question with such ingenuity, would find considerable difficulty in reconciling the differences in certain Acts to which he alluded. It was quite natural that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman should wish to do so-if he could- he might try to do it, and he might think he had done so; but he should remember he had another party to satisfy, namely, the Legislature by whom these Acts were framed. They all knew-and he was sorry to make the admission, but

sub was the fact that there were clauses in certain Acts of Parliament which the greatest acuteness, the greatest ability, could not reconcile; and why? Because it was impossible to reconcile a contradiction. He did not think such was the case in the present Acts; it was, perhaps, possible to reconcile their contradictions. All he pretended to assert was, that the mode of reconciling them had not yet been pointed out by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite. He was aware that the inquiry produced by the Law officers of the Crown had been constructed by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman with as much calmness and temper as persons placed in their situation were able to bring to it. If the House had to deal with an Act of Parliament which had been framed 150 years ago, little difficulty would be found in dealing with it. But when the men were living by whom an Act was framed, it must be expected that they entertained an allowable feeling in its favour; for no man liked to strangle his own bantling. Persons so placed might, therefore, in the language of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite, support a Bill, although he admitted the existence of some little doubts against it. He did not consider the late Act as a prospective measure; neither did he consider it to be a retrospective measure; he looked upon it as partly the one, and partly the other. But the Bill did not say which part was prospective, and what part was retrospective; so that they were left to find their way in the dark as to the application of the different parts of the Bill. That Mr. O'Connell's case was not provided for, was the argument of all. Well, if that case be provided for by one part of the Bill, it was their duty to inquire whether it was not provided for by another part of it. And he would ask whether his right of admission was not provided for by the preamble and by the title of the Bill? The Solicitor-General had, in the course of his speech, shewn enough to shew that Mr. O'Connell's case was at least within the spirit of the late Act. Mr. Sugden did not go so far, and here the difficulty of the question becomes increased-for if two men, tending to the same point, and having the same object, differ as to the course, surely the

F

doubts of third parties must be increased on the subject. His Hon. and Learned Friend, the Member for Peterborough, 1 doubted on the subject, but agreed with the Hon. Member for Weymouth. According to the admission of the Solicitor

General, the 10th section of the Act would admit Mr. O'Connell, if it were not for the provisions of the sections which preceded it; but in the nine preceding sections, there was no provision respecting that Gentleman, and therefore, according to the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, Mr. O'Connell had a right to his seat under the 10th section. He would be as sorry as any mau to introduce into this question any matter which did not lead to the spirit of the inquiry-he felt that it was a legal question, and that they were bound to act judicially upon it. But he called upon them to take into their consideration the mischief that would accrue to the individual if not allowed to take his seat? And again, what mischief could arise from extending to him the benefit of that doubt? It was a single case, and one which by possibility never could come again. This would be taken into consideration in a Court of Law; there was not a Court into which a penal statute was introduced but would weigh the arguments he had just urged. It was not his intention to follow the Honourable and Learned Gentleman through the paths in which he had trodden in his eloquent address; he wished to deal shortly and fairly with the question; he wished to treat it as the Honourable and Learned Member for Clare had treated it-that was, without declamation, without passion. He would put it to the House whether, even if they knew it to be the secret intention of the Legislature, though not openly avowed, to exclude Mr. O'Connell from the provisions of this Bill, they could act upon that knowledge on the present occasion? This they could not know, for it was not the fact; but supposing it so, still he maintained that they were bound to construe it according to the expressions it contained. But he would go a little further. If the Bill contained three or four additional words which provided that the Bill should not extend to those who were elected before it was passed, in thet

case there could be no doubt- no difficulty, and Mr. O'Connell could never have dreamt of taking his seat. In the construction of records in Courts of Law, if it was found that two or three words, which, if inserted, would fully explain the document, were found wanting-the Court, instead of supplying the meaning, held it as an additional objection, and thus the difficulty was increased. The omission in question had he believed, been felt in the other House; and it was proposedhe knew not whether by a Lord or a Layman--to remedy it; but the remedy was rejected. The Honourable and Learned Gentleman said, in conclusion, that as this omission increased the difficulty and doubt, he was prepared to give Mr.

O'Connell the benefit of that doubt.

Mr. Secretary Peel said, that upon a question of doubt, an individual who had not had the benefit of a professional education must naturally feel inclined to express his opinions with diffidence. But as those persons who were so placed were not relieved from the necessity of forming an opinion upon such question, he should deal with it as he did with other questions, hoping that there was nothing presumptuous in offering himself to the House upon it. He had formed his opinion with the more satisfaction to himself, because, though he did not undervalue the law authorities who differed from him he felt himself supported by the opinions of three of the most eminent authorities at the bar-his Honourable and Learned Friend on his right, the Honourable and Learned Member for Peterborough, and his Honourable and Learned Friend the Member for Weymouth. He was not however, prepared to make the cencessions made by some of his Hon. and Learned Friends. He did not believe that the Oaths of Supremacy and Abjuration were repealed by the Act of William and Mary. On the contrary he believed that such had never been the intention of the framers of that Act. He could not believe, on referring to the obligation contained in the Act of William and Mary, that it was intended by it to grant any relief from taking the oaths. By the 8th chapter of William and Mary, it was very possible that Parliament in