The Sun.
London, England, 1829-05-19 00:00:00

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES' BILL.

Mr. PORI MAN brought up the Report on the
Friendly Societies' Bill, which was ordered to be
read a third time to-morrow.

The Six Clerks Office Bill was read a third time
and passed.
About this time the House became crowded with
Member 3, as well in the galleries as in the body of
the House.

Mr. HUME presented two petitions praying for

the repeal of the Corn Laws, from the inhabitants
of Kidderminster and North Grimley, in the county
of Gloucester.

MR• O'CONNELL.

The SPEAKER culled on Mr. Brougham to
move the order of the day, for taking into considers•
tion the question as to whether the Member for
Clare should be heard at the bar or at the table of
the House, in support of his objections to take the
oaths.

Mr. BROUGHAM—Sir, the Right Honour-
able Gentleman opposite moved the adjournment on
Friday, and I therefore think that he is entitled to
open the adjourned debate.
Mr. SUGDEN—Sir, I wish to know from the
Hon. Member opposite, what the oath was which
Daniel O'Connell, Esq., took in the office of the
Lord High Steward.
Mr. HUME—The Hon. Member can discover
that by the certificate. (Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. SUGDEN, the Hon. Member must be aware
that the certificate does not afford any such informa-
tion. (Cheers from the Ministerial Benches.)
There is only one person besides himself who can
give that information and that is the Hon. Member
for Westminster, both of whom were with him upon
the occasion• The certificate only states that Daniel
O'Connell, Esq. took the oaths, but it does not
state what oaths. The word oaths is in the plural
number, but he may have taken only one.
Mr. HUMS, in answer to the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman, said I have to inform you that
Mr. O'Connell took two oaths.—(Cheers and
laughter.)
Mr. Secretary PEEL now moved the Order of
th Day.
.• Mr. SUGDEN again rose and said, that
he put the question to the Honourable Mem-
ber in no ill sense, and he must there-
fore persevere in it. He was actuated by no
ill motives, for he considered it most material the
House should know what oaths were taken. He
was without this information or the means of obtain-
ing it, and when he applied to the tiotl. Member
he declined to give it.
Mr. WYNNE said, if the Hon. Member de-
clined to give an answer, the House had no right
to compel him.

An lien. Member, whose name we could not
hear, said it was the new oath that Mr. O'Connel

The SPEAKER—The question is whether Mr.
0?Connell is to be heard as to his objections to
taking the oaths.

Mr. Secretary PEEL—Sir, by stating my view
of the case, it may serve to shorten the debate
givhiFh is ,I)(4it lo take place. An Honour-
able Member of this House attempted to take his
seat, and contended that he had a right to do
so upon having administered to him the oath of
supremacy. You, Sir, in your duty were compelled
to enforce the law according to your construction of
it. You in consequence hesitated to etl.m4 him to
se'ftt, anti required him to take other' oaths'also.
You required him to take the datlii under a former
Act, but this he objected to, and claimed to take
his seat on taking the oaths passed in the reeent
session of Parliament. The piiS tiOP, is this,
whether the hon. Member for' Clare is to 'heard
at ell ;'and if hay
rd he is to' be heard at
'table cl'r "the bar, With those questions,
sir, I will not attempt to mix up any other. I will
postpone the ulterior question until it shall come
properly bawl the House to be discussed, and I