tended to enforce the taking the oaths before the Lord Steward, as they were constituted by the Act of 1st of William and Mary, and to prescribe the time and place when and where the oaths were to be taken. The words of the 5th section of chapter the 8th were " And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all persons (other than such concerning whom other provision shall be made in this or in any other Act of this present Session of Parliament) that shall hereafter be admitted into any office or employment, ecclesiastical or civil, or come into any capacity in respect of, or by reason whereof they should have been obliged by any Statute to take the said abrogated oaths, or either of them, shall take the oaths hereby appointed in such manner, and at such times, before such persons, and in such courts and places as they should or ought to have taken the said former oaths, or either of them, in case the same had not been abrogated as aforesaid; and that every such person who shall neglect or refuse to take the same, shall incur and be liable to the same penalties, forfeitures, disabilities, and incapacities as by any such Statute was appointed for, or upon neglect or refusal to take the said former oaths hereby abrogated, or either of them." He could not help suspecting that it was the intention of the Act of William and Mary to provide for the administration of the oaths to Members, intending to serve in future Parliaments, and for administration of the oaths before the officer of the Crown, the Lord Steward. If it were not, as a new Parliament was assembled soon after, it was not to be doubted that some individual or other would have declaimed against the oaths, and if the Act had admitted of any legal doubts, somebody would have claimed the benefit of them. In 1689, a few months after passing the Act, there was a new Parliament-that was before the expiration of the year. If it were intended to found an argument on the fact of its not being originally required to take the oaths before the Lord Steward, some records of individuals refusing to take the oaths would be found. If that were the case, was it possible that the Journal of the House of Commons for March 20, 1689, should have an entry, describ

ing the coming into the House of the Earl of Devonshire, the Lord Steward, and he there administering the oaths to several Members? The same entry stated, that he appointed a Commission of Members to administer the oaths to the remaining Members; and after which they were to proceed to the election of a Speaker. It was clear, therefore, that in 1688, it was acknowledged to be the duty of the Members to take the oaths before the Lord Steward; for the Lord Steward even appointed Deputies to administer them in his absence. The Lord Steward, it was admitted, in 1689 had to administer the oaths, as by the other Statutes, and it was not reasonable to suppose that, in so short a time after the passing of the first Act, the Legislature had the intention of repealing the oaths. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who spoke last, contended that if there were any doubts-that if the reasons were equiponderant, it was proper to give the individual the benefit of the doubts who was claiming the privilege at the hands of Parliament. If this case were a question before a Court of Justice; if it were as to the infliction of a penalty, he should be ready to admit the propriety of this principle, and would give the benefit of the doubt to the individual. But the question related to the privileges of Parliament, not to the rights of individuals. The House was bound to decide by the strict construction of the law, without any reference to the Hon. Member claiming the privilege, and without any reference to considerations of expediency or convenience. It was then too late to discuss the merits or wisdom of the law which made Mr. O'Connell's case an exception to its general provisions. That might have been contended when the Bill was passing; he might then have been brought within the operation of the Relief Bill; but he was not, and therefore all the House had to do was to construe the Act by all the common rules of construing any other Act of Parliament. It might have been proposed to give Mr. O'Connell the benefit of the Act, but it was then too late. In coming to a decision it was painful to be obliged to disclaim all personal motives and all personal feelings. He had no personal feelings-it was not possible he

should have; and he looked on it-if he might make the dis tinction-as the case of an individual, but not a personal case. Mr. O'Connell was, undoubtedly the only individual who could be in such circumstances; but if the case had been that of the Member for Horsham (Lord Surrey), instead of the Member for Clare, he should have acted on precisely the same principles, and in the same manner. He contended that the Act was wholly prospective, and Mr. O'Connell professing the Roman Catholic religion was disqualified by the operation of the Law to sit in Parliament when he was elected. This fact was well known to the Honourable Member for Clare, and he presumed it was also known to his constituents when they returned him: There was nothing unjust in saying to him, your title is defective under the former law, but "You are not deprived of any of the advantages of the new law." The law for repealing the Act against Transubstantiation did not make Mr. O'Connell's case worse; it left him where he was, subject to take the oaths which he was subject to take at the time of his election. In all other cases officers were bound to take those oaths that were in force when they were elected or appointed. There was nothing whatever in that part of Mr. O'Connell's argument which went to shew that an act of injustice was done to him. He asked them not for an act of justice, but to go out of their way to pass an Act of grace and favour to allow him to come into Parliament without taking the oaths that were ordered to be taken by Roman Catholics at the time he was elected, and he asked to have the benefit of an Act of Parliament that was not in existence at the period of his election. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman who spoke last, seemed to think there was great force in that argument of Mr. O'Connell's, which stated that the House of Commons was not competent, by the Act of Union, to compel Mr. O'Connell to take the oaths. The Act of Union prescribed that all persons elected to serve in any future Parliament, should take the oaths of Supremacy and Abjuration, &c., till otherwise provided. Mr. O'Connell says, that Parliament has

4 M

now otherwise provided, and therefore it is no longer competent to enforce those oaths on him. This was relied on as the strongest argument by Mr. O'Connell, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman; but, speaking it with all respect, he never heard a more futile argument in his life. Parliament administered the former oaths till otherwise provided. Pariiament had made a partial provision for the Roman Catholics, but because it had made that partial alteration, did that ooliterate and destroy all former enactments? He would call on the House to look at what such an argument would lead to. If the argument were worth any thing, it would prove that Parliament could not administer these oaths to any Protestant Member, and could not administer any oath at all. The argument must go to that extent, or it was good for nothing; and since the passing of the Relief Bill the Parliament had no power to administer oaths at all. He never heard a more weak argument employed. Another argument used by Mr. O'Connell was, that he was returned after the commencement of the Session, and therefore entitled to the benefit of the Relief Bill.

Mr. Brougham: Mr. O'Connell disclaimed such an interpretation.

Mr. Peel: Mr. O'Connell mentioned it.

Mr. Brougham: Mr. O'Connell only mentioned it as a fact. Mr. Peel only mentioned it also. When the Enactment was passed he was a Member. Return was a technical term, and signified the Certificate of the Sheriff. The Return was made then before the commencement of the Act; for the Return was dated from the time of the Certificate. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman relied on the proceedings elsewhere, when a Noble Lord (the Lord Chief Justice) had proposed to insert some words as an Amendment, which was overruled. He was quite confident in stating that if Lord Tenterden's Amendment had been carried, it would have made no alteration whatever in Mr. O'Connell's present situation. It would have left the question just where it now stood. If he admitted that the

10th section of the Act, the benefit of which Mr. O'Connell claimed, allowed his introduction into Parliament, he would not be entitled by the second section to sit in Parliament. That section said-" And be it further enacted, that from and after the commencement of this Act, it shall be lawful for any person professing the Roman Catholic religion, being a Peer, or who shall after the commencement of this Act, be returned as a Member of the Commons, to sit and vote in either House of Parliament respectively, being in all other respects duly qualified to sit and vote therein, upon taking and subscribing the oaths stated in the Act of Parliament." He called the attention of the House to the words " duly qualified," which would have left Mr.O'Connell in the same situation as he now stood. The Hon. Member said, that if under the provisions of the Act he might be excluded, yet he could not by the tenth section of the Act, which applied to him. He would not encumber himseif with any consideration of the penalties; he would come at once to the Act of Union, which prescribed that the Members of the United Parliament should take the oaths previously prescribed for the Members of the House of Commons; and till they had taken those oaths they could not sit and vote in the Parliament of Great Britain. He did not doubt the competency of Parliament to alter this law, but as long as it existed (and it was in full force at the time of Mr. O'Connell's election), the duty of the Speaker was to enforce it, and compel its observance. What a Court of law might decide on such a subject he knew not; but looking at the matter in a plain common-sense point of view, he should say that the obligation to take the oaths was imposed on every Member of Parliament by the Act of Union. All the House of Commons had to do was, to attend to the injunctions of the Legislature, and enforce the law. With respect to the 10th section of the Relief Act, on which the Hon. Member relied, he contended that, looking not to that section alone, but to it in conjunction. with all the rest of the Act, it excluded Mr. O'Connell. The 10th section ran thus

"And be it enacted, that it shall be lawful for any of his