The Catholic World, Vol. 18, October, 1873, to March, 1874.: A Monthly Magazine of General Literature and ScienceVarious
Religion
The Catholic World, Vol. 18, October, 1873, to March, 1874.: A Monthly Magazine of General Literature and Science
Various
Catholic Church -- Periodicals
Many persons fondly thought that this law had laid the fell spirit of
Protestant bigotry for ever; but it was not so. The snake was only
scotched, not killed. It required another blow to render it completely
innoxious. O'Connell, who had been elected before the bill passed,
claimed a right to a seat in the Commons, even though a Catholic, and
in support of that claim presented himself early in the session. The
scene that ensued is thus described by an eye-witness:
"It is impossible to convey a perfect idea of the silent, the
almost breathless attention with which O'Connell was watched and
perused, when, in compliance with the request of the speaker, he
advanced to the table. So large a number of peers had never been
previously seen in that House. Two members of the aristocracy
accompanied O'Connell, and, as a matter of form, introduced him
to the House. Their names were Ebrington and Dungannon. As he
passed the bar of the House, every eye was fixed on him. The
first oath tendered to O'Connell was that of the supremacy, which
he was seen, by the silent and watching multitude, to wave away
and refuse. They heard him say: 'I apply to take my seat under
the new act. I am ready to take the oath directed to be taken by
Roman Catholic members. I do not feel that I am bound to take
_these_ oaths.' As he uttered these last words, he passed his
hand over the oaths which he objected to, and which were affixed
to pasteboards. 'You will be good enough,' added O'Connell, 'to
inform the speaker that I do not think I am bound to take these
oaths.' The chief clerk gathered up the pieces of pasteboard, and
hurried up with them to the speaker, where he was seen pointing
out to that functionary the oaths which O'Connell refused to take.
The speaker then rose and said that, unless the new member took
the old oaths, he must withdraw. The speaker alluded to those
blasphemous oaths whose injustice was so flagrant that they had
been just repealed. O'Connell, it is said, requested that the oath
of qualification, stating that he possessed six hundred a year,
should be administered to him; but this was likewise refused.
During all this time, the speaker's manner and expression of
countenance towards O'Connell, on whom he fixed his regards, were
extremely courteous, but the declaration that he must withdraw firm
and authoritative. O'Connell looked round, as if expecting support;
but this failing, he bowed, and stood facing the speaker in perfect
silence. At this moment, Brougham was seen to rise; but before he
could address the house, the speaker exclaimed 'Order!' and again
intimated to O'Connell that he must withdraw. The latter bowed
respectfully, and, without uttering a single syllable, withdrew.
After his departure, Brougham, who was still on his legs, addressed
the house in a subdued tone, and, after some discussion, the debate
was postponed.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account