The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-20 00:00:00

d 11"aea64
- -
move a 'reAolution, which is T app.& tit (0 whew. a
precedent in such eases as the prey !"t• , and- it
party has been declared to be duly e. lecte°, f, ist d
recuired to take the oaths, and has rt. too
to do so, the practice has been to ct: dl upon of
Speaker to issue his warrant to the • Clerk .
the Crown for a new writ, that the place may
not remain unrepresented. I therefo re move—s-
" That Mr, Speaker do issue his wart ant to the
Clerk of the Crown for a new writ fort :he election
of a Knight to serve in Parliament for the county-
of Clare, in the room of Daniel O'Conn' 14 Esq. he
having refused to take the oath of supre sett v."
The motion being eeeonded—
Mr. C. W. WYNN said, that he thought the
House could not adopt the course sus tgested by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman's moti, an. Under the
ell in the Dublin
Al take place, a
after the publicati on of each ti
.;ow, thei
he contended that there was lioti•-e at all,
~as
AGoczteotfteU,
forty days had not Na .elaps _
-e the pas,. of
notice toratlilnoiadn; erbill'oeefoer%tversialtilo'syuhi.oeditebileetti°itnlsisteseuer:t:
r,y
vs
waetzier
htCShepriAoselawprkA:rei coPrtctE.deooeEdlieni siskuaeci ii:clth:littsibtt. °Na*v.
('air'lr:e.riea‘evsntti°Ntvrtlirtooi r%u:gtai ,when
'ltltehreikti of the
convenient course would be to adopt the suggestion
of is Honl.vaarri.rdanLt,
..m.hrene‘dv
oFut:dendde.layttliei
ea:puree h:ellitl•cto
en the C Jerk of
otbheediCenrcoivnforrec,ehieVrie•d
the (o;lferkeo
course
et hteheCcrlo:..ka
,he
legallyvarriasilsiut e dt. It could
oblige
that
started by
not be cetea4o that
clSlolPt.tieltdakiestliric:tusiri aitch:rguel6olf this,
s
tlitilcb. tantweals4 itled7di not:
nothing in the terms of th
immediate issue of the writ, .
of the Crown would be
atioiesoi.estiNevi,ohf
respectth e writto
the Hon. Clent., (Mr. Wynn) he t,
inapply
I h
s,
etrei s care,
over-ruledfo
by
po
ya
sr,thyisis e q ot:e. s
1" f
At heet. A cof
Union t
The
question then merely is, whether the S Pe"el. delay
tile issue of his warrant or not.
Mr. PORTMAN said that he thought . *he House
were bound to pay some attention to the •. question
now before it. The Hon. and Learned Gen, leman
had propounded a measure of the most solemt u&-•
lure without any notice to the House ; Lnd' the
last half hour the House had not the least intim:, -
tion that such a course would have been adopted,
and he thought, under the very pectil ar circum-
stances of the case, and as the Hon. Member for-
Limerick had given notice of a motion, calling upon
the House to appoint a day for the discussion of
the subject, he was extremely anxious that the House
would not come to any premature discussion.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, that if
there were no precedents to ju!tify the House in
adopting the course he had thought it right to suggest,
he would readily acquiesce in affording further time :
but, looking at the Journals, he found that this
was the ordinary practice on the refusal of a Mem-
ber to take the oaths.
Sir J. MACINTOSH considered that there
was no precedent on the Journals applicable to the
particular case before the House.—(Hear, bear.)—
in all former cases, the warrant was capable
of immediate obedience, which seas not so here.
He believed that there was no precedent of the is-
suing of a hypothetical writ, which this would be;
and unless it could be shown that there was an au-
thority for acting in the way recommended by the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he thought the
House wonld be departing from all former prece-
dents.
Mr. PEEL thought there was good reason why
the House should give some immediate order with
respect to the sear, when the Hon. Member halt
been twice heard at the bar, and once at the table,
and now refused•to take the oath. It should be recol-
lected that on the prorogation of Parliament no- writ
could issue, and unless the Speaker issued his war-
, rant the county of Clare would remain • unrepre-
sented. Under these circumstances he thought the
House would be justified in making its own laws to
Meet particular exigencies, where no precedent could
be found.

Mr. HUSKISSON said that the Hon. Member
g4Quid.remember that at present there was no con-
a tituent body in' Ireland, which was a.material-differ-
erice between the present case and any former pre.
cedent.. A few-days back the House adjourned- a
discussion upon whether the Hon. Member for
',Clare was to be heard at the bar or at the table of
he Houk and surely they ought to adjourn upon a
of such importance as that which now had
sugg,,,cd.—(l-kar, hear.)
POilf MAN now rose, and moved that the
u!,,,sidtration of the question should be postpoatd
until Thursday next.

Mr. BROUGHAM said he felt strongly inclined
to agree with the motion for delay, which could
neither prejudice the case of the individnd, nor the
situation in which the House stood. He thought
!. as no evil Consequence could arise from it, that they
, ought to take time. He did not Conceive him-
self to be bound by former precedents in this in-
stance. There were but three precedent!i, and those
were the ones he had quoted on a former evehing-
the cases of Lord Morison, Lord Fatishawe, and "-Mr
Archdale, the Quaker. In the two first of theite
cases the Hon. Members had been discharged fruit'
attending their duties at the House prior to the
House ordering a new writ for the places which they
represented ; but in the case of Archdale- the
new writ was issued instanter. The difference be-
tween these cases might be owing to the difference
of situation in which the -parties *ere placed.
Though precedent was of importance in ascertain-
ing the rights and privileges of the House, still a
course of precedents was nothing as compared to ex-
pediency, for the House was not always bound to
act up to their rights in any particular case, nor
was it bound to act as it had dune before,
unless a deviation from such course would be at-
tended with inconvenience. The grounds of pro-
ceeding instanter in former cases was not that of
proceeding in penam, but where the privileges of the
House were-concerned, as well as the privileges .of
those whom that House represented or weresuppos-
ed to represent, it was necessary that the •-Hotitir
lie kept full with ass little delay as possible. .But
in the present case it was of no consequence whether
the writ was issued now or ten nights hence ; he
could not therefore see any ground of resistance to
the motion for adjournment.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he hoped he " had
throughout shown a disposition to treat this matter
simply as a judicial question, and on the first dis-
cussion he had himself entreated an adjournment.
He ,could not still fOrget that it was 'a iudicial
question, and though he felt himself justified in his
own mind upon the subject, yet, if others entertained
a doubt, and wished for two days to consider of it,
he was most anxious to concede to them the same
courtesy they had formerly conceded to bim. They
had sufficiently vindicated the privileges of the
House, by taking the matter up instanter, and on
Thursday it would be resumed as an adjourned
debate, and take precedence of all other business.
He begged to say he should not object to either of
the suggestions of the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr.
W. Wynn.)
Mr. F. LEWIS expressed a hope that his Hon.
and Learned Friend would alter his motion, so as
that it should not appear on the Journals of the
House that a new writ had been issued within forty
days'afteethe passing of the Act, contrary to one of
its express enactments.
Mr.' HUSICIOON said, that his lion. Friend
had adduced aAher reason for postponing the
motion, to whichli';'9posal he was glad his Right.
Hon. Friend the Secretary of State had assented.
The SOLICITOR-G-B,I%IEIIAL observed that
if it were the opinion of the Members of that House
that the course proposed would be advisable, he
had not the slightest objection CO remodel the notice
of motion.

Lord J. RUSSELL observed,'that there was no
precedent to this case; the ca
,e of the first per-
son who had•objected to take the oaths; could not
be analogous to the present case, becalm. that

$.•