to meet those doubts, he now requested leave of the House to withdraw his motion for the purpose of adding a few words, making the issuing of the new writ subject to the provisions of the Statute. He trusted that the House would find no difficulty in granting him this leave; and he should, therefore, move to withdraw the resolution, and then to present it again to the House with the addition he had mentioned.

Mr. S. Rice said, that in pursuance of the notice he had given, he rose for the purpose of moving an Amendment, both to what was now proposed, and to the proposition that had been formerly made. He must take the liberty earnestly of entreating the kind indulgence of the House in affording him its best attention; for he could assure them, that no individual had ever felt so deeply the necessity of asking for an indulgence of that nature, although no individual ever felt more confident that if it appeared to the British House of Commons that what he did was done in the discharge of a great duty; of a duty imposed on him; however they might differ from him, or however they might feel inclined to oppose his motion, he was confident they would afford him the indulgence he prayed, and they would afford it him if they felt he was discharging a duty, although in discharging that duty he might trespass somewhat on their time and attention. Before he went into his argument, which he should take the liberty of doing at some length; he wished to state, in the first instance, that the motion he was about to make was wholly unconnected with the individual whose name was mentioned in it; he meant to say, that it neither proceeded from the suggestion of that individual, nor had there been regarding it any communication, direct or indirect on his (Mr. Rice's) own part, or on the part of any individual he was connected with, and at that moment he did not know what were the feelings and wishes of that individual on the subject. He need only further say that it was a motion unconnected with any species of party feeling. The events which characterised the application to that House the manner in which that application had been treated, namely, as purely a judicial case; the events which had recently oc

curred, shewed that it was not to be considered as a measure of party. On the contrary, he was ready to admit, that whilst he was discharging this duty, he felt that it was strictly a personal duty, and in the same manner that he was strictly responsible for it. There was no individual in that House more ready to express, as an Irishman, the obligations he owed the Government for the measure they had lately carried through Parliament. It was not therefore in hostility to them, but as he had before stated, with reference to Ireland, with reference to the tranquillity of the country, and with reference to the due execution of the law which had been passed; with reference to the respect, the House, the Government, and the Legislature were entitled to claim in Ireland, that he made the motion. It was not necessary for the purposes of the argument that he should go into the Relief Bill. He admitted, for the sake of the argument, that the effect of that Bill must be taken for granted. He would not question. the decision of a majority of that House that, under the provisions of the Law, Mr. O'Connell having refused to take the oaths, was ineligible to sit at that moment as a Member there. The question he should raise was founded on that proposition; and he trusted that when Hon. Members came to consider the case, they would find that, although they were right in affirming, as they had done, under a given state of the Law, that Mr. O'Connell was not entitled to a seat, they might be disposed to say that the state of the Law called for redress. That was his measure, and to that measure he hoped for their assent. He should not have brought forward this motion at all, but for the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. What he should recommend was not, he admitted, good per se, but it was a measure better, on grounds of public expediency, than the motion which was made by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. Before he applied himself to this question, he would refer to an occurrence which took place in the Committee on the Roman Catholic Relief Bill, to which reference had been made, and to which he felt it his duty to allude. Honourable Gentlemen would recollect that, in the Committee

on that Bill, the Hon. Member for Dublin, seeing what would be the consequence of the Bill as it then stood, suggested the propriety of amending that particular clause of the Bill which applied to Roman Catholic Members of Parliament who had been elected before that Bill was brought in; a clause which applied specifically, though not in terms, to Mr. O'Connell. On that occasion he (Mr. Rice) stated on the part of Mr. O'Connell, that he did not wish any question personal to himself to be introduced on the passing of that Bill, which might be calculated to injure the effect or arrest the progress of that measure, from which he anticipated so much benefit to the country. He believed he was correct, but it was in the recollection of those who attended to what might fall from so humble an individual as himself; and he might say, that on that occasion he spoke for another, and expressed no opinion directly or indirectly on his own behalf; and as that was a point which might be mistaken, but ought not to be misrepresented, he would take the liberty of repeating what a Right Honourable Friend of his, a Member of the King's Government, had said to him on that occasion. That Right Honourable Gentleman spoke to him on that occasion, and observed with what caution he had made the communication, and had abstained from making any remark whatever; and if Mr. O'Connell was at that time a petitioner at that Bar, seeking relief from the operation of that Bill, the declaration he had made might be stated in bar of his request. But it was not, as he would take the liberty of repeating, only Mr. O'Connell who was concerned in the present proposition-it was a question that related to the peace of Ireland; and no act of Mr. O'Connell, nor of any other man, ought to distract that House from the real issue before them, which was that it was their duty to do that which would convey to the community at large the greatest sum of happiness. To that issue he would proceed to apply his observations; and he now came, in the first instance, to consider the proposition of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. It was on Tuesday last that, after a protracted debate which took place on reading the Order of

the Day relating to the first refusal of Mr. O'Connell to take the oaths, an Order was made for the attendance of Mr. O'Connell on the day following. He attended, and the Speaker then read to him the Resolution of the House. They had no right to say that Mr. O'Connell had any notice of that Resolution till it was read to him, for he was not in official possesion of that decision of the Parliament until four o'clock; and what ensued afterwards? The Solicitor-General moved that a new writ should issue for the County of Clare; or, in other words, he moved that Mr. O'Connell, who had been declared duly elected, should cease to be a Member of that House, and that there should be a new election for the County of Clare. He could not but complain of the breathless haste which the Solicitor-General had manifested. If he wished for evidence of that, he might refer to what had taken place that night—a matter unexampled in a deliberative assembly, and with reference to a severe determination-namely, that the measure which he, as the organ of Government, proposed, on a resumed discussion, was not, in his own view of the matter, fit to be adopted without alteration. With regard to what that proposition had been, there had been many misrepresentations existing out of doors. There were Gentlemen who considered that, as a matter of course, the refusal of Mr. O'Connell to take the oaths occasioned a vacancy, and that a new writ must of course be granted. The Solicitor-General, however, would not contend for that proposition; he admitted that it was different from the case of one who had sat and voted, in which case the seat would be at once vacated, and a new writ must issue. If what was now proposed was to be justified at all, it was to be justified solely by the will and pleasure of that House, for certainly there was no statute whatever which called on them to adopt it. The House had the power to act upon it, but to do so or not to do so wa completely within their own province. The Solicitor-General, in making that proposition, had not stated one argument in commendation of it; and it stood before them as a naked proposition, put from the Chair, on the motion of an Hon. Member.

It was founded simply on the precedent afforded by the case of Mr. Archdale. He admitted all that that precedent could prove; he acknowledged that it was the right of that House, under circumstances similar to those which occurred in that case, to direct the issue of a new writ, but the Solicitor-General had not said that it was imperative on them to do so. It was matter of expediency; and being matter of expediency, it was for that House to judge whether it was advisable for them to adopt the course now recommended. He said that the case of Mr. Archdale was the only one applicable to the present subject. The cases of Sir H. Monson and of Lord Fanshawe were totally and entirely within a different principle. That Noble Lord and that Honourable Gentleman were at the time Members of Parliament, had sat and voted in that character, and were subject to that House to call on them to take the oaths. The whole proceeding was one of a different cast from the present. The only case that did apply was that of Mr. Archdale, which came within the rule that was laid down for the case of Mr. O'Connell. He admitted that the proceeding might be justified as to their power to adopt it; and the only question was as to its policy and expediency. He could wish that the measure rested solely on the declaration of the House, that Mr. O'Connell could not take his seat without taking the oaths. What was the case in this instance? Mr. O'Connell might have been permitted to exercise his discretion whether he would or not accept the Chiltern Hundreds; but no such opportunity was afforded him. For the first time, at four o'clock in the afternoon, he heard that the House had decided against his right to take his seat; and at five minutes after four o'clock a new writ was moved for. It had been said that the suspension of the issuing of a new writ was open to many objections; that it was the first necessity and duty of the House to fill up the vacancy that had occurred. To those who felt the weight of that duty the proposition he should make was open to no objection. He proposed that they should take the obviously simple mode of getting over the difficulty by admitting the individual who had been returned.