The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-18 00:00:00

SPIRti 0T TiT toNooN JouRNAM

(FROM THE Ttl'Es.)
The discussion on gr. O'Connell's case extends
al present only to the subordinate question of what
spot he shell be permitted to address tht House
from in support of his title tt.* sit here under the
recent act. It is to us a trtatter of deep reat, that

. _
any question whether of form or sollntance, should
have arisen at such a moment upon the operation
431 that great statutes 'fiat an act of Parll=ol
proft%sing, and indeed providing for, the ik!ts't valu-
able objects of an enlightened i'ftd benevolent legis-
lation, should be so wordtd as to obstruct one of

the earliest claims to its protection by phrases in-
consistent with its whole character and spirit, can
hardly be held creditable, we do not say to the sin,
verity, hut, beyond a doubt, to the sagacity Of its
authots. After Mr. O'Connell shall have been

beard, we take it for granted that a motion involving
the real question at issue will be made, viz.—that
the Hon. Gentleman be permitted to take thy^ bath

prescribed by the Act of the present Session.
Should this motion be negatived by a majority, the
Non. Gentleman will still (it is presumed) have

the power to vacate his seat, although umworn, en
accepting the Chiltern Hundreds. His MN,leFty's
Ministers must deeply regret the necessity thus

caused for another Clare election, xvhich all the let,
teas from Ireland &CCM confident gill be favourable

to Mr. O'Connell.
;FROM THE MORNV.G CHRONICLE.)
*The adjourned discussion as to whether. Mr.
O'Connell shall be heard comes on to-night. The
discussion on the construction of the Act of Parlia-
ment follows. We hardly ever remember a case of
more marked insult to the nation than this question
as to Mr. O'Connell's right to be heard and sit,
which has been so studiously got up by those who
bswe the direction of the Collective Wisdom. A
tNousand matters of importance claim the attention
of Parliament; and the only reason which can be
w.signed for not entering on the consideration of any
01 them, is the impossibility of doing so during the
'remainder of the Sessicn. Yet this brief period is
to be wasted in the discussion of a question of a
purely isolated character, and which determines no.

thing, for the case can never again occur,—a ques-
tion which, having been contemplated during the
progress of the Relief Bill through?, a House, could
of course have been avoided by the se of different

language. The exemption of I‘'lt O'Connell by
name from the benefit conferred or other Catho-
lics would have done the business effectually. But
it was wished to insult the nation by an idle discus-
sion, at a time when men of any feeling of the im-

portance of the charge, might have had the decency
nt 'exit to affect being very differently employed.—
We are not in the habit of using harsh language, and
ran make allowance for the difficulties with
which men in office have to contend. 'hit

we Omni(' despise ourselves were we to
epeak of this impertinent and most offensive
conduct of Ministers with common patience: It
iA the most wanton and barefaced attempt to bring
Parliament into contempt that we remember. Good

God, only think of men pretending to be Statesmen,
and not candidates for a place in one of Dr. War-
burton's asylums, gravely stultifying themselves
with a mock debate of this nature It is as clear
as sunshine, that the return of Mr. O'Connell before
or after the commencement of the Act, is a matter
of moonshine; and that there can be no good reason
for demanding that he in particular shall take oaths,
which the Legislature has declared ought no longer
to be taken by Catholics. He is a Member of the
House of Commons--that will not be disputed, no
matter when returned ; and why should a►,y repre-
sentative of the people be asked to take oaths,
which have been condemned as an improper restraint
bn Catholics? After the commencement of the
Act, which says that it is expedient that all such
restraints and disabilities as are implied in these
oaths shall be discontinued, who shall say that it is
expedient still to demand the taking of the oaths ?
To ask any man to take an oath which Parliament
says ought from the commencement of a certain
Act to be discontinued, is nothing short of the
arrogation of a dispensing power. However, we
will trot waste words in arguing a ease, which
it would be art insult to the understanding of any
/4 our readers to suppose they deemed to require
bring argued. What we feel indignant at, in com-
mon with the public, is the spectacle of the House
of Commons staving off public business of im-
portance to enter on an idle question, which settles
nothing. No, no, the Honourable House has no
cause to fear being brought into contempt ! Per-
haps Ministers have resolved on this demonstration
of more than asinine folly, as a sort of atonement
to tho IVrong-heads of the country, for the liberal
end moderate course they have lately held. There
roust be some stroke of Machiavelian policy in the
business. Time, we suppose, will afford the solu-
tion. We wish the Honourable House had heard
the compliments which during these two days have
been unsparingly paid to their wisdom !
!FROM THE MORNING PIERALI)•)

This evening, in the House of Commons, the ar•
gs:ment in respect of Mr. O'Connell will come on,
es to whether he shall be heard at the table of the
Bouse, or at the bar. We should think that it will
be decided that he shall be heard at the bar, and
not at the table. But why all this fuss ?—why not
have allowed him to have taken the new oaths and
Isis seat on Friday night ? If he will not be allowed
to take his seat for Clare now, under the new oaths,
he will be allowed to take his seat for Clare at an-
other election, under the same oaths. But why
should he be unnecessarily put to a further expense,
a; Member for Clare ? Now the Catholics have
gained what they wanted, we cannot see why any
sp een should be exhibited towards Mr. O'Connell.
There is no use in it. To refuse him—and an it-
dividual only—would be ripping up old grievances.
That he was the cause of the Catholic Bill being
c.lrried this .!_.ession there can be no doubt. Had
it net been for him, it would not have been
arried for twenty years to come. Perhaps the
Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel intend his
rejection as a retaliation for the mortification
he must have caused them when, some time
since, be called them names so lustily, but that was
before it was known that a Catholic Bill would be
brought into the House by the Government. There
is, however, an old adage which says "forget an(
forgive." We cannot see of what use it possibly
can be the present rejection of Mr. O'Connell. To
exclude him will be mean, and shew the unamiable
sgis it of revenge. That he forced upon the King
ant the Protestants the Bill, and principally beraus)
he called the Duke of Wellington and Mr. Peel
names, we have no doubt. But the King and the
Protestants have almost forgotten the Bill and the
name-calling; why should not the Duke and Mr.
Peel, forget both too ? It is cot improbable but
the old-oath and the new-oath farce may continue
ks. three or four days, and our readers must make
up their minds to read some terribly long-winded,
bothering speeches; and all about that which may
be called " Much Ado about Nothing." Mr.
Mathews and Mr. Yates might make a tolerably
decent representation of the matter if they would
attend in the gallery during the important debate.
Mathews might cause some fine fun hereafter.
(FROM THE MORNING POST.) _ _

The question, or rather the series of questions of
which the discussion is to be resumed to-night in the
House of Commons, are we believe principally in-
debted for the interests they excite in the pullic
mind, to the practice so prevalent among English-
men of backing their opinion 4, as it is called. The
subject has been quite a sporting one, and numerous,
ti versified, and deep are the wagers depending upon
the decision now about to be pronounced, whether
ilie recent Act, intended, as no doubt it was by its
framers, to exclude Mr. O'Connell, is or is not in
this respect efficient, as well as upon the decision, if
hat should also becoate- necessary, of another ques-
tion prior in respect to its date, but secondary and
dependent in the order of discussion, whether Mr.
O'Connell, Mr. C.• Butler, and other Catholic
em, were right in their more recent opinion as