MICROFILMED 1991 COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK Ci as part of the Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project" Funded by the NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITffiS Reproductions may not be made without permission from Columbia University Library COPYRIGHT STATEMENT The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United States Code ~ concerns the making of photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material... Columbia University Library reserves the right to refuse to accept a copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order would involve violation of the copyright law. AUTHOR: .isH** V r <. f t-^ *>»»>, . ^ LL DANIEL TITLE: TO THE FRS OF THE PLACE: LO m Restrictions on Use: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIIiS PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROrORM TAR G ET Master Negative // Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 93G.^^O'GonT-.^ll, Dsni^L ai5-^6^^ ^ ^ Le.He.r :o Vne. merno^rs or -l-he House. oP comrnons... on fne. Itoal rioh^ of "Rorns^n cafnoiicS) ^o si+ in PsrUrne-nV... London ^fc^a 0. 3'"Ja i' No. J ofa vofuinc ofpamphlctfl. FILM SIZE: ST/ /^ TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA REDUCTION RATIO: I /k IMAgE PLACEMENT: lA ^11^ ID IIB DAfE FILMED: ^^Jjj"?/ _ INITIALS K^'^ FILMED BY: RESEARCH PUDLICATIONS. INC WOODURIDGE. CT \z Association for Information and Image Management 1100 Wayne Avenue, Suite 1100 Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 301/587-8202 Centimeter 12 3 4 5 UlUMiuliluulUi^ UN 6 iiliiii 7 8 iiiliiiiliiiilii 9 10 11 iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 12 13 14 15 mm iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiil rr-rry Inches T rrr T .0 I.I 1.25 1^ 2.8 2.5 1^ 32 2.2 ■ 63 an 36 vs. 1 4.0 2.0 Ui •- u kibu 1.8 1.4 1.6 TTT MPNUFfiCTURED TO flllM STRNDPRDS BY APPLIED IMRGE, INC. \ r/ LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS OP THE UNITED PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, *C. ^C. i'C. 5*'- M i • 1\) 0.3. A LETTER TO THE MEMBERS OP raz HOUSE OF COMMONS V op THB a UNITED PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND, bUNNKLL AND SHKARUAlt, KALISBfRY »QVAR] y ON THE LEGAL RIGHT OF JXoman Cfatfiolicg to ^it in mxMtmtnt ; TO WHICH IS ADDED A REPLY TO EDWARD BURTENSHAW SUGDEN, Esq., ONE OF HIS majesty's COUNSEL, &C. &C. &C. BY DAiNlEL O^CONNELL, ESQ., M.P. LONDON: JAMES RIDGWAY, 1C9, PICCADILLY MDCCCXXIX. .\ V\. LETTERS, " Quid enim ultra fieri ad placandos Deos, mitigandosque homines, potuit, quam quod tios feciinus ? Qui finis erit discordiarum ? Ecquando uuam urbem habere, ecquando cvmmunem hanc esse patriam, licebit ? victi nos aequiore animo quiescimus quam vos victores." — Liv. Merrion Square^ Dublin^ Feb. 2, 1829. Gentlemen, — It vvillbe readily admitted that the question upon my right to take my seat and exercise all the duties of a member of the House of Commons is one of great impor- tance to the people of these countries. If the decision shall be, as I am satisfied it ought to be, in favour of that right, it will tend to tranquillize Ireland and strengthen Great Britain. If it shall happen that I am un- justly and illegally deprived of that right, the consequences cannot but be pernicious, and may be most disastrous. 1 am a lawyer of thirty years' standing. Experience alone ought to have taught me something of the law; and here I deliberately assert my most sincere conviction of my right to sit, speak, and vote in Parliament, without taking any oath inconsistent with the Catholic religion. I think I shall convince every lawyer in the country, who is not biassed by political or other motives, that my right to sit, speak, and vote in the House of Commons, is perfectly clear and incontrovertible,' 1 trust, too, I shall be able to carry the same conviction home to the minds of every one of you; but as very many of you are not lawyers, I will use as little technical language as possible, and divide the subject into separate and dis- tinct propositions, in order to avoid confusion or intricacy. B My first proposition is, that it is a maxim both of constitu- tional and judicial law, " that penal and restrictive statutes are to be construed strictly, and not to be extended by im- plication beyond the words thereof." This is a universal rule, founded on plain common sense. The law would create a miserable servitude if it were other- wise. Men should have distinct and accurate information of that which the law constitutes an otfence, or defines to be a crime ; and men should also have distinct and accurate information given by the law itself, and not by any inter- preter, of the nature, quantity, and quality of the punish- ment or penalty to be incurred by the commission of such ofl'ence or crime. This principle of common sense has been fully and un- equivocally adopted by the British law. Our Judges, in one thousand instances on record, have not only asserted the principle that penal and restrictive laws are to be con- strued most strictly, and not to be extended by implica- tion, but have boasted of the adoption of this principle, as one decisive evidence of the perfect conformity of British law with common sense and natural justice. I am tempted by my forensic habits to cite authorities, and to refer to the dicta of great and eminent Judges, as proofs of the extent to which this principle has been adopt- ed, asserted, and lauded by our Judges in every century, modern as well as remote. But 1 refrain. I am address- ino- men who are not professional lawyers; and it is enough for them to know, that this maxim of common sense is also a maxim of common law, that penal or restrictive statutes are to be construed strictly. It was declared in the reign of Edward VL, " that there is a principle in the common law, that penal statutes should be taken strictly, and shall not be extended by equity to the prejudice of them upon whom the penalty is inflicted." You can, therefore, easily comprehend that no tribunal, nor any authority whatsoever — save the Legislature — can add" words" to complete a supposed or implied intention of the Legislature in a penal statute. That would be to legislate, not to expound ; that would / be to place the judicial over the legislative povrer, and in a penal matter too. The law is particularly strict on this subject, as indeed it ought to be. It is so strict, that even when the Legislature in a penal statute uses words of a doubtful nature, the Judges have laid it down as a rule, "that doubtful words shall never be construed to the prejudice of a supposed offender." Perhaps I shall be deemed improperly prolix on this in- troductory part of my case ; but it is absolutely necessary that this rule and maxim of the law should be distinctly un- derstood — " that penal laws are to be construed strictly, and are never to be extended by implication." It is so impor- tant that this matter of law should be understood, that 1 am induced to mention another rule laid down by the Judges, as resulting from the maxim of construing penal statutes strictly : it is this—" That affirmative words in an Act of Parliament never take away a common law right." This rule may be quoted in many ancient authorities, and IS not inaptly illustrated by what Lord Eldon, presiding in the House of Lords, is reported to have said in the case of the corporation of Galway. An Irish Act of Parliament had enacted that "the free- men of Galway should reside in that town." Persons, not resident, have claimed the rights of freemen of Galway. The question on this point was, whether constant and un- doubted non-residence disentitled them to claim these rights ? Lord Eldon is reported to have declared that it did not ; that the statute was merely affirmative, directing the free- men to reside in the town, and only implying that none should be freemen but those who so resided. However, such implication could not be allowed to destroy the rights of the non-residents. It was a penal statute, and therefore would have required negative words to take away the sub- ject's rights. This law, reported to have been laid down by Lord Eldon, will be admitted by every well-informed lawyer to be perfectly ace urates b2 To deprive the subjects otherwise entitled to the freedom of the corporation of Galway of that right, it would have been absolutely necessary that the statute should have con- tained not only an enactment "that all freemen should reside in Galway," but it should have added, "that no persons who did not reside in Galway should enjoy the rights of freemen of that town." I now beg of you, in considering the case I shall lay before you on my own behalf, io carry in your minds these truths — 1. That penal and restrictive statutes are to be construed strictly, 2. That penal and restrictive statutes cannot be extended bv construction or implication. ' 3. That no tribunal can add " words" to any penal or re- strictive statute. 4. That the doubtful words of a penal or restrictive sta- tute are to be construed in favour of the supposed offender. 5. That affirmative words in an Act of Parliament do not take away a common law right. And, 6, That the right of the elected representative of a county to sit and vote in Parliament is a common law right of the highest nature. These are truisms familiar to those whose profession has initiated them in legal details; and I state them only be- cause this letter is addressed to gentlemen whose habits and pursuits render it necessary to rouse their attention to the principles which ought to govern any legal decision in my case. If these principles are kept steadily in view, my case wdl be found to be one which cannot create any doubt or diffi- culty. I now proceed to consider the present state of the statute law relative to the oaths necessary to be taken by members of the House of Commons. You will recollect that 1 assert my right to sit and vote in that House, without taking any oaths inconsistent with the Catholic religion. I shall say nothing with respect to the oaths of allegiance and at)ji;ration. I have taken both those oaths fioquently. A I am ready to take them as often as any justifiable occasion requires me to swear. No man is more ready than 1 am to pay due allegiance to the Sovereign, or to maintain the title of his family to the throne of this realm. No man more thoroughly abjures, than 1 do, any foreign Prince, Potentate, Pope, or Prelate, in all temporal or civil affairs. The oaths of allegiance and abjuration being thus out of the question, I proceed to my second proposition. It is this: — " That I am entitled to go into the House of Commons, and to take mv seat without taking any oaths inconsistent with the Catholic religfion, out of the House itself." It has been asserted, and repeated in print, that it is ne- cessary to take the oaths of allegiance and supremacy in the Lord Steward's office, previous to entering the House of Commons. I deny that any such obligation exists : it is quite true that it did exist, but it exists no longer. The oblifration to take these oaths was created bv the stat. 5th Elizabeth, cap. 1, sec. 16, and 7th James I., cap. C, sec. 8. But mark, besides other objections, both those statutes, as far as they relate to oaths of allegiance and supremacy, are repealed by the express words of the statute 1st William and Mary. 1 defy any lawyer to controvert this statement by point- ing out any statute now of force, requiring a member of the House of Commons to take the oath of supremacy be- fore the Lord Steward or his Deputy, prior to his entering the House. This brings me into the body of the House, and here 1 have a third proposition to adduce and prove. Before 1 do so, let me make two observations. The first is, that even if the statutes of he 5th Elizabeth, and 7th James I., above cited, had ni^t ueen repealed, yet I could successfully contend that t'tey were rendered in- operative by the act of Union between Great Britain and Ireland. The second is, that the oath of supremacy, in the 5th Eli- zabeth, is an affirmative oath, asserting that the Sovereign I- I 'I is the head of the church — an oath which Dissenters and Presbyterians equally reject with Catholics. I now come to the third proposition — it is this : " That I incur no penalty, privation, or forfeiture, by sitting, speak- ino-, and votinir* in the House without takinof the oath of supreniacy, or makinof the solemn declaration against tran- substantiation in the House itself." This is the main point in the case : if I prove this propo- sition, I establish my right incontrovertibly. It is plain that here I am called on to prove a negative. — But I am prepared to do so. I will raise the objections to mv sittino- and votinof fairly, and 1 intend to solve them completely. The statutes which require oaths and declarations to be taken and made are these— the 30th Charles H., sec.2, cap. 1, and 1st William and ^lary, cap. 1. The first of these statutes was enacted under the in- fluence of that fanatic folly and barbarity which disgraced that period of English history, by the countenance given to the sanguinary fable called Titus Oates's Plot. By the second section, that statute required every mem- ber of the House of Commons to take the oaths of alle- giance and supremacy, and to make the declaration that here is no transubstantiation in the elements after conse- cration ; and that the sacrifice of the mass, and the invoca- tion of the saints, as used in the Church of Rome, are im- pious and idolatrous. The third section provides a tribunal before which these oaths are to be taken — namely, the House of Commons, with the Speaker in the chair. The fourth section enacts disabilities, penalties, and for- feitures of a most grievous nature ; disability to hold any office or place of trust, civil or military, under the crown ; disabdity from thenceforth to sit or vote in either House of Parliament ; disability to sue as plaintiff in any court of law or equity; disability to be guardian of any child; disabi- lity to be executor or administrator to any person, or to take any legacy or deed of gift, and also a forfeiture of 500/. to be recovered by any common informer. The seventh section directs in the event of any member of the House of Commons refusing to take these oaths that a new writ should issue to return a new member in the place of such defaulter. Thus the plan of enforcing these horrible oaths was com- plete— it consisted of these particulars:— 1st. It directed every member of the House of Commons to take these oaths previous to sitting or votmg. 2 Come, Sir, you can- not deny it. Even the strange and futile attempt which you have made by a subsequent pamphlet— a species of postli- minious preface to your former— to do away the force of the clear provisions of the 1st William and Mary, c. 1, proves beyond controversy, that if you had not been ignorant of the existence of that statute when you wrote, printed, and cir- 30 ciliated your first pamphlet, you would have deemed it ne- cessary to canvass its provisions. It would, perhaps, be more suited to the courtesy with which I should desire to treat you, in despite of your most unnecessary, and certainly most ill-judg-ed interference in this question, — it would, I say, be more suitable to suppose, that if you had been aware of the existence of the decisive act of the 1st William and Mary, c. I, you either would not have written any pamphlet at all on this subject, or at all events you would have omitted that part of your work, by which you attempt to prove that the oath of supremacy must be taken by members of the Commons before they enter the House. But, sacred Heaven, how could you have been ignorant of that statute? Why, it was not only a most important act in matter of law, but it was an historical document of the most signal interest and value in the constitutional and po- litical history of this country. It was the statute which first enabled Presbyterians and Protestant Dissenters to sit in Parliament. It was in that respect a wise, salutary, and beneficent act of emancipation to a large class of most valuable subjects. The former statutes recited by you re- quired an affirmative oath of supremacy," that the King was supreme head of the church." No Protestant Dissen- ter could take that oath any more than a Catholic. The act 1st William and Mary, c. 1, repealed that oath, and sub- stituted for it, with reference to members of Parliament, a negative oath — a mere denial that any foreign Prince or Prelate had spiritual authority in England, and thus flung open the doors of Parliament to Presbyterians and other Protestant Dissenters. How is it possible that you were ignorant of that act? You, Sir, were ignorant of this act — of this all-important act, — you rush headlong into print, and decide a most im- portant question with ti jejune flippancy not to be exceeded even by this demonstration of your ignorance. Thank Heaven you are not as yet a Judge ! You have, before you ascend the steps of that tribunal (whatever it be) to which your professional reputation and Parliamentary propensities seem to destine you, time to reflect and to cor- 31 rect yourself. May this be the last occasion on which you shall take upon you to decide before you comprehend, and to infringe, by your unfounded judgment, upon a most valuable and almost sacred right— O, non sic omnia ! ! ! But I gladly turn from the contemplation of that part of the subject which presents you in so unfavourable a point of view, and 1 come to argue the question which is at issue be- tween us. You assert as a result from the statute-law, that the oath of supremacy must be taken by every member of Parliament before he enters the House. 1 draw the directly contrary inference, and assert with great confidence, that it is not necessary for any member of Parliament to take the oath of supremacy before he en- ters the House. This was my first practical position in my letter to the members of the House of Commons— namely, that it is not now necessary to take the oath of supremacy in the Lord Steward's office or elsewhere, before entering into the body of the House. Whether any such oath be necessary within the House it- self, is another question ; the negative of which I am quite prepared to maintain ; but at present I confine myself to the preliminary inquiry. I assert that it is not necessary to take the oath of supre- ^ macy before I enter the House. You assert that it is : the proof of the affirmative lies on you, and you accordingly proceed in your attempt to establish it. Your case is this :— You, in the first place, cite the 5th Eliz. c. I, and the 3 Jac. c. 3, and the 7th Jac. c. 6. These statutes, I admit, prove your case as far as they go. I concede that they provided, not by means of any implica- tion or extension by equity, but in the only way in which they could do it— by positive and explicit enactment— that every member of the Commons should take the oath of supremacy in the Lord Steward's office before he should be permitted to enter the House. This is express, and these statutes would at once decide the question against me, if they be still of force ; but they are not. You, yourself, admit that they are not now of 32 force, nor have thev been so since the revolution in 1688, There is an end, therefore, of jour first proof. It consisted of statutes not now operative propria virfore. You then take up the second part of your case, and you assert that a subsequent statute substituted a different form of oath of supremacy for the members of the House of Commons, and required them to take such substituted oath in the Lord Steward's office before they should enter the House. To prove this part of your case, on which the question hinges, you cite the 1st of William and Mary, c. 8, and in particular you rely on the 5th section of that act. Of tliat act you allege these two things — first, that it pre- scribed a new oath of supremacy to be taken by members of the Commons; and, secondly, that the 5th section regu- lated the time, manner, and place of taking the new oath by such members, and so regulated them by a direct adop- tion in that respect of the former statutes.^ I deny both these allegations. I first deny that the 1st of William and Mary, c. 8, enacts any thing relative to mem- bers of the House of Commons ; secondly, I deny that the 5th section is at all applicable to such members. Now, let that act be read patiently, and 1 think every candid lawyer will admit that it does not apply at all to members of the House of Commons. First — It does not purport to apply to members of that House, nor are members of the Commons ever named in it, from the beginning to the end. Secondly — There are in the act several enumerations of persons who are thereby directed to take these oaths, and as members of the Commons are not mentioned in it, the rule of law directly applies, expressio unins est exclusio alterius. Thirdly — Such enumeration includes persons of degrees much inferior to the members of Parliament, down to the local magistrates of boroughs and port towns. I assume you are aware of another rule of law, which decides that whenever any of the statutes particularly enumerates per- sons or things of inferior rank or quality, such act must 33 be construed to exclude persons or things of superior rank or quality. This rule completely excludes members of Par- liament from the operation of the act in question. Fourthly. — You are of course aware that all the acts of each session constitute but one statute, therefore the 8th chapter of the statute 1st William and Mary must be con- strued in conjunction with the 1st chapter of the same sta- tute. Now that first chapter expressly abrogates the acts of the 5 Elizabeth, c. 1. 3 Jac. c. 4, and 7 Jac. c. 6, as far as they relate to the oaths of supremacy and allegiance to be taken by members of Parliament. It would therefore be absurd to the last degree of absurdity, to consider the 8th chapter of the statute as regulating by implication any matter relative to the former oaths of members of Parlia ment, when these oaths had been already abolished by the 1st chapter of the very same statute. Fifthly.— The 5th section of the 8th chapter of the 3d William and Mary, which you have cited at length, is quite decisive against you — so decisive as to render your case quite hopeless. Because, while it certainly includes by express words in its enactment, all persons who were there* fore bound to take the oath of supremacy, it as certainly excludes by proviso from such enactment, all such persons concerning whom other provision should be made in that act, or in any ether act of that present session of Parlia- ment. Now, provision was made on that behalf concerning members of Parliament by another act of the same session, namely, the first chapter. It follows, by the plainest logic, that the regulation which you rely on as to the time and manner of taking the oaths cannot possibly apply to mem- bers of Parliament. Allow me to observe that, there being a reference in the 5th section to other acts of that session regulating these oaths, it is passing strange that, with the reference before your eyes, you should have omitted to make search for such acts. It was excessive neglect on your part not to make a search ^o which you were thus invited. Had your object been merely to afford an excuse to the " laymen'* of the House of Commons for making in my case an unjust mi 34 and illeg'al decision, you would have omitted to search for acts of Parliament confirmatory of my ri^ht ; but, as 1 take you to be totally incapable of any such motive, I confine myself to expressing again my astonishment at your mira- culous neglect and oversight. Let it now be once again observed, that you insist that the oath of supremacy must be taken by members of the House of Commons before they enter the House. The abstract of your proof is this — that the statutes 5th Eliz. c. 1. 3 Jac. c. 4, and 7 Jac. c. 6, rendered it neces- sarv to take that oath in the Lord Steward's office, before a member could be permitted to enter the House. Your next proof is the 1st William and Mary, c. 8, sec. 5, which, adopting the substituted oath of supremacy, required it to be taken by the same persons, in the same manner, at the same time and place, as the original oath of supremacy was required to be taken. Such is the full abstract of your case. The abstract of my reply is this : — 1. 1 admit that the statutes of Elizabeth, and of James L require each member of the Commons to take the oath of supremacy in the Lord Steward's office, before he enters the House. In this we are both agreed. 2. I assert that those statutes have been in this regard re- pealed. You admit this, and therefore on this second point we are both agreed. 3. I assert that this repeal was effected by the 1st chapter of the statute Ist William and Mary. You assert that it was effected by the eighth chapter of the same statute. Here we distinctly differ. 4. I assert that the act of the 1st William and Mary, cap. 1. directs members of Parliament to take the oaths within the House, and not elsewhere. You overlooked this act al- together in your first pamphlet, and in your second misre- presented it. This is the very point in dispute. If it be true that it is the eighth chapter which has abrogated the former oath of supremacy to be taken by members of Parliament, and substituted a new oath for them ; in that case 1 offer to ad- 'im ^^^' 35 mit that the 5th section does sufficiently revive the time and place of taking that oath, and consequently that you would be right in asserting that every member of the Bri- tish Parliament was bound to take that oath before he en- tered the He use. But it is not true that it was the 8th chapter which did this or any of this ; for, in the first place, the 8th chapter could not abrogate the former oaths for members of Par- liament, simply because that was already done by the 1st chapter. In the second place, it was not the 8th chapter which substituted tlie new oath for such members, because that was already done by the 1st chapter. In the third place, the 5th section of the 8th chapter does not, and can- not possibly apply to members of Parliament, because it is expressly declared in that very section itself, that it docs not apply to persons concerning whom any provision was made by any other act of that session. Now provision was actually made concerning members of Parliament by the first act of that very session. Thus, Sir, it is perfectly plain that you totally fail in pro- ving that the oath of supremacy should be taken by mem- bers before enterino^ the House. The act of Parliament which you rely on totally fails you. Thus, too, I have shewn that there is no act requiring the oaths of allegiance and supremacy to be taken by members of Parliament before they enter the House. But my case is stronger still, because the 4th section of the 1st William and Mary, c. I, expressly enacts that the substituted oaths of supremacy and allegiance shall be taken by the members of Parliament, together with the oaths and declarations in the 30th Charles II., and within the time, and in manner and form as prescribed by that act, — that is, in the House itself, the Speaker being in the chair ; and there are these emphatic words — " and not at any other time or in any other manner." Taking up the question at the Irish Union, the law stood thus, — there was not only no act requiring the oath of supre- macy to be taken by a member before he entered the House, as you have asserted, but there was a positive act directing, 36 in express and most unequivocal words, that such onth should be taken within the House, the Speaker bein^ in the chair, and not in any other manner whatsoever. See how distinctly this statute bears out my origlna! position in my letter to the members of tlie present House of Commons,— namely, " that I am entitled to go into the House and claim my seat, without taking any oaths incon- sistent with the Catholic reli<^ion out of the House itself. You, Sir, asserted the contrary, and your high profes- sional character gave great weight to the assertion ; but you were at that time totally ignorant of the existence of the act of Parliament which directed the oath of supre- macy to be taken in the House, and not elsewhere. 1 trust I am not inclined to be superstitious; but so many of those events which are often called lucky accidents, have occurred to forward the cause of Catholic liberty, founded as it is on the broad basis of freedom of conscience to alf jnen,— so many of those events bave lately taken place be- yond human expectation, and without man's exertion,— that 1 am inclined, humbly, and with becoming diffidence, to hope that the superior arbiter of human destinies has fixed on this as the period at which the unconquered fidelity of the Catholic people of Ireland shall be rewarded by that equalization of civil rights with all other subjects, which the Irish Catholics were always ready to concede to, and contend for, on behalf of their oppressed Protestant fellow- Christians in every part of the globe. Perhaps there is something of superstitious imagining in that idea ; but it is quite clear that these two circumstances attend my assertion of right to sit and vote in Parliament, first, that no one barrister in England or Ireland has ventured to give his name to the public in denial of my Tifrht, save one who treads the very footsteps of the Bench ; and, secondly, that such one barrister has tarnished his pro- fessional reputation, and totally annihilated his claim for accuracy of research, by thrusting forward his most unsa- tisfactory and unfounded opinions in total and deplorable ignorance of the most important portion of the contro- versy. I 37 This unfortunate exhibition which you have made of your temerity will, 1 trust, deter others from being tempted to be " in the like case offending." There remain some other points in difference between us which 1 intend to make the subject of one or two other let- ters. For the present 1 content myself with having placed beyond any reasonable, or indeed intelligible cavil, my right to go into the body of the House without having taken any oath in the Lord Steward's office, or elsewhere out of the House, inconsistent with the Catholic religion. Your second pamphlet proves nothing but this,— that the fatal blunder contained in the first having been discovered, you wish to cover the discredit of your mistake by a slight specimen of such palpable sophistry that 1 must not conde- scend to unravel it. Before I conclude, let me call even upon you to smile at the senseless folly of some of our newspaper " legalists," who have, forsooth, found out that the usage of Parliament, an usage arising from statutes passed not one hundred and fifty yeaT-s ago, can have the force of a law— and can enable the House to expel a member without the sanction of an act of Parliament. Most sapient critics these are to be sure— most sagacious and constitutional ! ! ! How 1 wish that you or any other lawyer would put his name to any opinion or assertion of that kind ! But no lawyer, no rational man will do it ; and yet unless the House of Commons collectively shall do in my case what not one individual would attempt to do alone, and upon the respon- sibility of his individual character,— and unless the House of Commons shall in my case trample on the law, outrage constitutional principle,— and unless that House shall give an usao-e of twenty-eight years the form of a statute ; and, finally,°unless the House of Commons shall violate the so- lemn treaty of the Union, my right to sit and vote in Parlia- ment is to the full as valid as that of any other member whatsoever. 1 am Sir, with all due deference, your obedient servant, JJover^sircci, Feb. 18. DANIEL OTONNELL. PUBLISHING BY JAMES RIDGWAY, And tchich may be had, by Order, of every Bookseller in the United Kingdom. THE SPEECHES OF THE RIGHT HON. GEORGE CANNING, corrected by Himself; with a Memoir of his Life. By R. Therry, Esq., of Gray's Inn, Barrister at Law; illustrated by a fine Portrait, Fac-similes of his hand-writing-, a Plate exbi- bitive of liis mode of correcting and revising his Speeches, &c., in two important passages from tlie celebrated one on Portugal : 6 vols. 8vo. £3 126'. ** A biog:raphical memoir of the most illustrious statesman and accomplished orator of our age, prefixed to the only authentic edition of his Speeches, has far superior claims to notice and credit over any of those ephemeral and hurried sketches of his life, which, without authority, and for mere abject pui-poses of lucre, have been thickly palmed upon the public attention. ♦ * ♦ It embraces the essence and substance of all the truth that (except it should be through the affec- tionate and venerating zeal of personal friends or kindred) will, probably, ever be told of the life of George Canning."— J/onM/t volume, a facsimile of the proofs of the celebrated Speech on the affairs of Portugal, with all the corrections made by Mr. Canning. Every mark which he made in the letter- press, every reference, and every word written on the margin, is represented as it appeared in his hand-writing in the proofs." — Times. THE SPEECHES OF THE HON. THOMAS (afterwards LORD) ERSKINE, wben at the Bar, on Subjects connected with the Liberty of the Press, and against constructive Treason : 5 vols. 8vo. £2 lOs, ** These Speeches, stored as they are with the soundest political doctrinos, the first moral sentiments, and the purest oratorical beauties, are calculated emi- nently to enlighten, and permanently to please — they are qualified to make men not only wiser, but better — to expand their views, to study their principles, and to ameliorate their heaits — to teach them to pursue the dictates of duty at every pain and peril, and to uphold the interests of humanity in every sphere and sea- son." — Morning Chronicle. ** We take the opinion of the country, and of every part of the world where the language is understood, to be that of the most unbounded admiration of these ex- quisite specimens of judicial oratory, and of great obligations to the Editor of the collections." — Eclin. Jicr. Vol. xix. ■^9 • Ml -I .. S*; \^: Valuablt' Works now Publishing by J. Ridgway. THE SPEECHES OF SIR SAMUEL ROMILLY in the House of Commons, with Memoirs of his Life. By William Peter, Esq., Barrister; illustrated by a. fine Portrait by Rey- nolds, after Sir T. Lawrence : 2 vols. 26^. THE SPEECHES OF THE RIGHT HON. CHARLES JAMES FOX in the House of Commons, with a correct Portrait by Opie : 6 vols. £4 8*. Fourth Edition, in 8^0. price \Qs, A SELECTIOiN from the PUBLIC and PRIVATE CORRE- SPONDENCE of VICE-ADMIRAL LORD COLLINGWOOD : interspersed with Memoirs of his Life. By G. L. Newnham CoLLiNGWooD, Esq., F.R.S. Illustrated by a fine Portrait, a Pian of the Battle of Trafalgar, &c. &c. " We have been more highly gratified and instructed than we could possibly have expected by the perusal of the history and letters of this noble and gallant officer, whose name, except on one memorable occasion, has never attracted a prominent share of notice among those which belonged to the public characters of his day \ and yet his services were of the most important nature, and most ably conducted, at a crisis too big with danger, not to England alone, but to all civilised Europe ; but the field of action in which he was chiefly engaged, though extensive, was at a distance from home. » * *. We once more thank the Editor for his highly important and very valuable work. It is one which will occupy a permanent place in the English Library. * * • The portrait of one English worthy more is now secured to posterity." — Quarterly Review, No. 74. *' We do not know when we have met with so delightful a book as this, or one with which we are so well pleased with ourselves for being delighted. Its attraction consists almost entirely in its moral beauty ; and it has the rare merit of filling us with the deepest admiration for heroism, without suborning our judgments into any approbation of the vices and weaknesses with which poor mortal heroism is so often accompanied." — Edinburgh Review, No. 94. Second Edition, in foolscap 8t'o. price 9s, The LIFE and REMAINS of WILMOT WARWICK. Edited by his Friend, Henry Vernon. Contents : Introduction — Life of Wilmot Warwick — Remains — The Odd Gentleman— Christmas Night— The Haunted Mill— The Dead Arm and Ghost of Caesar — The Odd Gentleman and Old Maid— Twelfth Day— The Smuggler- The Poacher— The Wig- Travelling Companions — Henry Halworth — St. Valentine's Day — Gordon — The Painter's Account of Himself. " The tales that follow the Life of Wilmot Warwick are fourteen in number, and are all very well told. We have been particularly pleased with the intro- ductory one, which makes known the writer, and some of the most picturesque, if we may use the term, personages that exhibit in the little volume. It is en- titled the * Odd Gentleman ;' but though we recommend the perusal of the whole book to our readers, yet we cannot deny ourselves the pleasure of per- sonally introducing to their notice our facetious friend. * * * Each tale is good in itself-, but were we to express a preference, it would be in favour of ' Christ- mas Night,' ' Henry Halworth,' and * The Painter's Account or Him- SE! F.' Let, howevtr, every one read and decide for himself. Of this we are quite sure, that whoever does peruse this little work will rise refreshed from it, and will esteem the tone of tender, generous, and manly feeling, that pervades the whole of it."* * ♦ — New Monthly Magazine/or December. \ M Valuables Works now Publishing by J. Ridgway. ** * ♦ ♦ In fact it is a novel, and a novel of a very sHperior order. It consists of a series of tales, picked up amonsr, and written from jjjcidents during an ex- cursion into the country. * • • His talcs are cleverly written, arc aptly chosen, and possess many gems of sentiment. The ' Haunted Mill,' and the * Smug- gler,' are of a very powerful description, particularly the latter. The * Wig' is the most lengthy ; and for a portraiture of its own peculiar feelings, is one of the most accurate delineations we ever perused."* * ♦ — Gentteman''s Magazine for December. A Second Volume ofthe REMAINS of WILMOT WARWICK is preparing for the Press, and will be published as speedily as possible. With a Map and Vignette, price 3s. A GEOGRAPHICAL and HISTORICAL ACCOUNT ofthe GKEAT WORLD : with a Voyage to its several Islands, and a Vocabulary of the Language. " Ces to and from India, with a Narrative of Occurrences whilst resident iu that Country. 2 voU, post Svo. 20^. Gunnefi and Shearman, Safisdurt/ Square.