The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-16 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COADIONS.-(LAST NIGHT.)

The House was opened this day soon after Three
o'clock, shortly afterwards there was a very full
attendance of Members. The Gallery was much
crowded, arid all the passages leading to the House
were thronged with persons, anxious to obtain a view
of Mr. O'Connell.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at five minutes to
Four o'clock, at which time the House presented a
most animated appearance, being crowded with
Members. Mr. Peel entered the House at Four
o'clock. Prayers having been read,
The SPEAKER, requested, if any Hon. Member
was in attendance who had not taken his seat, that
he would come to the table and be sworn.
At this moment all the Members rose, and the
anxiety and curiosity manifested, exceeded every
thing we ever before witnessed. In a few minutes
afterwards,

Mr. O'Connell was introduced by Lords Ebring-
ton and Duncannon, and immediately came forward.
Mr. O'Connell then had a short conversation in an
under tone, with the principal clerk of the House,
The SPEAKER then said—lt is my
which the latter communicated to the Speaker.
duty to
state to the House that the course the Hon. Member
at the table intends to pursue cannot he complied
with, and I must consider I am right, un!ess cor-
rected by the authority of the House. The Hon.
"Gentleman claims to be admitted to take his seat
under the authority of a recent Act of Parliament.
If I properly understand that Act it contains
two points. The first is repealing the oaths
of Transubstantiation, and the second appointing an
oath to be taken by all Homan Catholics, in lieu of
the
this condition that the Hon. Member thus applying
Abjuration and Supremacy, but with
returned after the passing of that Act.--
(miulesotaarb,teha of
hear.)--Now
—Now the Honourable Gentleman

at the table was returned long before the pass-
ing of that Act, and therefore it cannot apply to any
person thus circumstanced. I think I have put the
proper construction upon that Act. It is, therefore,
necessary for the Hon. Gentleman to take the Oaths
of Allegiance and Supremacy before the Lords of
the Privy Council, and those, in conjunction with
the Oath of Abjuration, here, the same as all other
Members, before he can take his seat. t feel it my
duty to state, that the Honourable Gentleman must
now wit hdra w.—( Hear, hear, hear.)—lf I am
wrong in my judgment, there is an appeal open
by petition, or any Honourable Gentleman may
he entrusted with the case, when, if I am wrong in
my opinion, it may be corrected, but at present I
feel it my duty to request the Hon. Gentleman to
withdraw.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. BROUGHAM then rose, and was about to
address the House, when he tvas called to order by
the Speaker.
Mr. O'Connell then withdrew from the table.
Mr. BROUGHAM said he was sure that no
person could bow with greater deference to the
Chair than he did, but with great submission, he
thought, he (the Speaker) was in error when he
came to the conclusion that the Hon. Member for
Clare, according to the usage of Parliament, had not
a right to be heard. The first difficulty in the case
did not present itself until the Hon. Member for
Clare was ordered to withdraw, and then he (Mr.
Brougham) endeavoured to obtain a hearing, but
was called to order by the Chair, until the Hon.
Member had withdrawn. If it was doubtful
whether he could be heard on the floor of the House,
he thought he might have been at liberty to raise
the question then; but as he had now withdrawn,
he should state his view of the question as it stook].
According to all precedent and principle, and accord-
ing to the construction of the law upon the subject,
he thought that the matter ought to be so far sub-
ject to discussion, as to allow the House to satisfy
itself that the course pursued was the correct one,
and also to allow the Honourable Member to
be heard as to his objections to take those oaths.
It was a question of great importance, and the opi-
nion of no single Member ought to be taken as con-
clusive, but the opinion of the whole House ought
to he taken on a question of such moment. What
he wished now to contend for was the right of the
Hon. Member for Clare to be heard in his
place, or, as he had, perhaps, no place, at the table of
the House, without taking the oaths, in order to
state his objection to taking them. There were two
or three precedents directly in point, and he there-
fore thought that this preliminary point should
be decided before the principal question was
entered upon. The first precedent he should
quote was the case of Sir H. Monson, who was re-
turned in 1689. He was called to the table, and
asked as to his objections to the oaths, and he stated
that his objections were of a personal nature. It
appeared by the Parliament history that he had
spoken a few sentences by way of explanation at the
table of the House. The House was not satisfied
with the reasons he assigned, and he was

reeted to withdraw, and a new writ was
issued thereupon. What, however, he wished to
Ball the attention of the House to, was the

fact, that before the new writ was issued, he was
heard at the table of the House.—(Hear, hear.)—
In the case of Mr. Archdale also, the same course
was pursued, and he was heard previous to being
ordered to withdraw. The Speaker had prevented
(Mr. O'Connell) from being heard before he with-
drew, and his object now was, that the Hon. Mem-
ber should be re-called, and then let the House deal

with the question in its ulterior proceedings as it
might think proper. lie admitted the great import-
ance of the question, and thought each step that was
taken should be taken with the fullest deliberation.
(Hear, hear.)—The lion. and Learned Gentleman
then moved that the Member for Clare be recalled,
and heard at the baT of the House.--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. Secretary PEEL said that he need scarcely.
remind the House that the question before then►

was strictly of a judicial nature, and they must
therefore uct according to precedent in such
cases. He could not himself entertain a doubt
but that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman was

not entitled to be heard on the question ; because,
in that case, every man who was returned to that
House, had an equal right to state his objections to
taking the oaths. By law a Member was bound to
take the oaths before he took his seat; and before
taking the oath, he could not exercise his functions
as a Member. With respect to the precedents
quoted, there had been no time to examine them, and
if there were any doubts on the subject he trusted that
the House would not upon that occasion come to a
decision. Until this point was disposed of, the dis-
cussion of the other would be premature, and lie
would not therefore pronounce an opinion on it on
that occasion. As the point at issue was of import-
ance, he thought they had better postpone it until
Monday, or some other day.
Mr. C. WYNN said that he thought the
precedents of the House v ere in favour of the Ho-
nourable Member's being heard. He agreed that
the Hon. Member ought not to be heard as a Mem-

ber, but upon his light to be admitted as such,
which was a sufficient line of distinction. As
precedents had been spoken of, he begged leave to
refer to a third case which had been decided : he
alluded to the case of Mr. Wilkes. That gentleman
having been returned as a member of Parliament by

a large majority, the House would not receive him,
and declared that he was incapable of sitting in Par-
liament. He presented a petition to the House,
complaining of a breach of privilege as a member
of Parliament, and the House decided to hear the
petitioner make his defence. He asked the House,
" whether situated as be was, he would not incur
the penalties prescribed •by different acts of Parlia-
ment if be came to the House for thakfurpos ?"
and the Speaker said, " It has been customary for
a petitioner to state the allegation of his petition
without taking the oaths, and, in so doing, he is
not guilty of any offence within the intent and
meaning of the acts."—(Hear, hear4--Now it was
the same thing here, and he maintained that every
individual having a wrong to be redressed, should
be heard either at the bar or at the table. In his

opinion, however, it would be much better to ad-
here to the former course. It would be better to

allow the Hon. Member, on his application, to state
at the bar his reason for believing that he was en-
titled to take the new oaths and to reject the old.
It would be proper to hear him at the bar on that
point like any other petitioner, or like any other
person claiming any right of that House. He thought
that there was no question as to which way this
should be done. If a petition or application were
made, setting forth that the Hon. Member wished
to state to the House the grounds on which he con-
ceived that he ought to be admitted to sit in Parlia-
ment on taking the new oaths, (supposing the
House not to know any thing whatever of the
printed document which had been put into, he hands
of Hon. Member.), he was of opinion. that the
House should hear the iippiicant in some shape or
other:—(Hear,).—,He did not care whether the
Hon. Member was heard standing at the table or
staoding at the bar, but it was a principle, founded
on all reason and on all precedent, that when an in-
dividual asked fur this right, he should be allowed
to state the grounds on which he claimed it.
Mr.SUGMN considered that before the Hon.-
Member could be heard in that House it would be
necessary to repeal the sth of El4aheth, as that Act