The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-19 00:00:00

O'Brien, be entered as read, proceeded to move that
fir. with O'Brien, who hld been convicted of
tie,sou, sbuuld ue exeell_d The Nouit:
Lord, in making the motion, said that the course he in-
tended to pursue he believed to be withcut precedent,
but although it was so, the crime of which the individual
had been convicted was of such a nature as totally to in-
capacitate him from holding a seat in that House.
The precedents he had been a'ale to find upon the
subject had no reference whatever to the present ca,e.
Thy se precedents were of two kinds. The first was
with respect to high treason. The tint case on the sub,
ject was on the 10th of May, 1715. In that case Mr. Foster,
a Member of that House, having been taken on a writ
of rebellion for high treason was expelled the House, and
in another case, on the 22d of June, 1716, the

House being inForeced that J. Carnegie, Esq., a
Member of the House, had been is open retellien in
Scotland, witnesses were called to the bar who proved
the fact, and he was expelled the House, and
a new writ was issued. The other eases he had
discovered were cases with regard to which there
might be some doubt as to the nature of the offence,
but they were cases of perjury, conspiracy, and
various offences in the nature of misdemeanour, in
which there might be a doubt whether they were of the
nature to require that the House should proceed
to the severe penalty of expulsion. The present
case of Mr. Smith O'Brien was one, as regarded
the House, totally without precedent, and was not
similar to the case of Members with respect to
whom a similar proceeding had been taken to the
one he was now about to adopt. When it was said
that he was in arms against her Majesty, the house
did not take any notice of the fact, but waited
till the conclusion of the proceedings against him.
Mr. Smith O'Brien being convicted of high
treason in Ireland, brought a writ of error against that
conviction in the House of Lords, and that House having
sustained that conviction and affirmed the decision of the
courts in Ireland, it became necessary that he should
make the present motion for Mr. O'Bi-ien's ex-
pulsion from that House. It was unnecessary that
he should say one word on the nature of the,
offence, because nothing could be more complete
than the conviction and the judgment. With re-
gard to the consequences following on such en
offence, he need only observe that it was
an offence totally unlike the misdemeanours he had re-
ferred to, it was high treason, and all writers declared
that it was the law of Parliament that all persons
guilty of it were unable to sit in that House.
The consequence was, therefore, that Mr. Smith O'Brien
having been convicted of high treason, he was civilly dead,
and could not be elected, nor hold a seat in that House;
but he believed it was not prudent to establish a prece
dent in modern time of expelling a Member. He had,
therefore, consulted with the Speaker and other
authorities as to the course to be taken in the case, and
he had come to the resolution of moving the two follow-
ing resolutions: —" Whereas it appears by the records of
this House that Mr. Smith O'Brien has been convicted of
high treason;" and when that resolution was agreed to,
he should proceed to move—" That a new writ be issued
for election of a knight of the shire for the county of
Limerick, in the room of Mr. William Smith O'Brien,
who had been convicted of high treason." The Noble
Lord then moved the first resolution.

Sir FREDERICK THESIGER suggested that the
word "convicted" had better be altered to " attainted,"
as attainder did not follow conviction, but judgment.
Mr. Smith O'Brien would not be civilly dead until
judgment had been passed upon him.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL thought the proper
words would be " adjudged guilty of high treason," and,
The resolution having been so altered, it was put from
the chair, and agreed to.
Lord J. RUSSELL then moved that the Speaker do
issue his warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to issue a
new writ for the county of Limerick, in the room of
William Smith O'Brien.
Mr. F. O'CONNOR said that, after seeing the reso-
lution as-it originally stood, it was his intention to move
as an amendment that an humble address be presented
to her Majesty, praying that she would be gracicu,ly
pleased to extend a tree pardon to William Smith
O'Brien.—(ol), oh.) He had not intended to introduce
that amendment by an inflammatory speech; but having
ascertained that the relatives of Mr. Smith O'Brien
wished that his case should remain iu the hands of her
Majesty's Ministers, he thought it would be exceedingly
improper fur any individual Member of the House to
take up the subject, and he would, therefore, not move
his amendment.—(Hear, hear.)
The resolution was then agreed to.
PRIVILEGE—STRANGERS EXCLUDED.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
On clause 1 being proposed,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL rose, and pointing to the reporters'
gallery, said, " Sir, I observe strangers present."
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and they
did so accordingly, reporters of course amongst them.
Daring our exclusion (about half past seven) the mes-
senger connected with the gallery handed to us the fol-
lowing statement of a division which had taken place:—
Question put on clause 1, line 3, that the words " and
that I do not believe," stacd part of the clause.
The Committee divided—
Ayes
Noes

... 62
... 164
Majority ... ...-102
At ten minutes past eight o'clock the gallery was re,
opened.

On our re-admission we found Mr. BERNAL putting
an amendment, on which

Mr. LAW observed that the greater portion of the
Bill having been discussed in the absence of the public,
the remainder might have been equally well considEred
under similar circumstances. He shouki move on the
third reading to exclude the Jews from the operation of
the Bill.

Clause 5 was then agreed to, with amendments.
On clause 6, providing that the Act should not extend
to Roman Catholics, or affect the 10th George IV., c. 7
(the Roman Catholic Relief Act),
Mr. M'CULLAGII moved the omission of the clause.
Having reviewed the relaxations introduced from time to
time in the Roman Catholic disabilities, be urged the
House to put an end to the anomalous state of matters
under which the same oath was alb ged to be taken in
different senses by different Roman Catholic Members.
It was not the Roman Catholic, but the Protestant
Members, who complained that Parliament imposed on
the Roman Catholic Members an ambiguous, abortive,
and obscure test.

Mr. FAGAN complained of the advantage which was
frequently taken of the oath to taunt and insult Catholic
Members. He himself was insulted by the imputation
that he was acting in violation of his oath when he re-
cently brought forward a motion respecting ministers'
money in Ireland. He would not do anything tending
to subvert the Protestant Establishment, but there was
nothing in the oath which he had taken to prevent him
from endeavouring; to 'sake that Establishment more
useful.

Mr. J. O'CONNELL said, that he had not had the
good fortune to be present when his Hon. Friend pro-
posed the amendment, but he approved of its object. For
his own part, he felt not the slightest uneasiness as to
the opinion which any one might form with respect to
his construction of the oath. He had examined the oath
attentively, and he was satisfied that it did not restrict
him from voting upon measures affecting the property of
the Church. If any taunts should be directed against
him from any course ho might take in that House ho
would deal with them in a very summary manner. If
any person accused him of being guilty of perjury, he
would accuse that person of not speaking the truth, and
he would do so in the most compendious form of words.
He swore not to disturb or weaken the Protestant reli-
gion; but money was not religion. Those only who held
that money and religion were convertible terms could
accuse him of disregarding the oath which he had
taken. Again he declared that he would act upon his
conscientious convictions, and was prepared to abide the
result.

Mr. NEWDEGATE complained of the course taken
by the lion. Member for Limerick. At an early period
of the evening strangers had been ordered to withdraw
upon the suggestion of the Hon. Member, in consequence
of which the admirable speeches delivered by the Right
Hon. Member for Tamworth, the Noble Lord at the
head of the Government, and other distinguished Mem-
bers of the House, had not b,en reported.—(Hear, hear.)
Now the Hon. Gentleman gut up and gave a fa!sified and
one-sided resume of the arguments which had been em-
ployed in the unreported debate.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL indignantly repelled the im•
putation.
Mr. NEWDEGATE said that the Hon. Gentleman
had, at least, given a one-sided version of the argu-
ments. It would appear that the Hon. Member's object
in excluding the reporters was to have the advantage
of renewing the debate under circumstances favourable
to himself.—(Hear, hear.)
The Earl of ARUNDEL and SURREY expressed
the great regret he felt, at the exclusion of reporters, a
circumstance which had never occurred but once before
in the course of the twelve years during which he had
sat in Parliament. The circumstance to which he had
referred was the more to be regretted, because the de-
bate had been most interesting and instructive.
Mr. V. SMITH approved of the amendment. The
painful position in which Roman Catholic Members felt
themselves placed at present would be aggravated if the
words which the Bill struck out of the Protestant oath
should be retained in the Catholic one. Weald it not
appear to be something like an imputation of bad faith
to Catholics to call upon them exclusively to swear that
they took the oath required from them without any
equivocation or mental reservation ? During the ab-
sence of those gentlemen who did the public the valu-
able service of communicating to it what passed in that
House, the Hon. Member for Limerick complained that
a speech of a Catholic Member had been compressed
into five lines, whilst that of a Protestant Secretary of
State had been expanded into thirty. As regarded oaths,
however, the case was reversed, for the Catholic would
have to swear to thirty lines, whist the Protestant
would be limited to five.—(A. laugh ) Whether the
Hon. Member for Limerick would d em that a com-
pensation for the grievance to which he had adverted, it
was hard to ray, but he (Mr. V. Smith), being in favour
would support the amendment which had
bofenmS('lvedb
Mr. uniformity,oNEß deprecated the attempt to roped the
Catholic oath, which was held to be one of the safe
guards of the constitution.
Lord J. RUSSELL was glad to find that we had a
constitution left. He had always understood that the
constitution was utterly destroyed and gone when the
Act for the Emancipation of the Catholics passed in
1829.—C' Hear," and laughter.) Now, however, it ap-
peared that the constitution yeas still extant, and that the
Catholic oath was part of it. He did not feel himself
called upon to support the amendment, because the ob-
ject of the Bill was to remove obstacles which prevented
the entrance of parties into Parliament. The Catholics
bad already seats in Parliament.
Mr. WOOD said that political and religious onpiCer.