The Sun.
London, England, 1830-05-26 00:00:00

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(LAST NIGHT.)

Mr. lIOBHOUSE presented a petition signed by 7,000
or 8,000 journeymen bakers employed in London, South-
wark, Westminster, and in different other places within
ten miles of the metropolis, praying that the House would
adopt some measure to prevent the necessity of their pur-
suing their worldly avocations on the Lord's-day.
Sir T. BARING observed that this petition, coming as
it did from a large body of Christians, who felt them-
selves called on to pray for relief from a Christian Legis-
lature, deserved serious attention. The custom of break-
ing and profaning the Sabbath was a greatly increasing
evil, and when individuals came to the House and called
on the Legislature to enable them to keep that day holy,
he thought their petition should be complied with. 'While
be was touching on this subject, he could not avoid ad-
verting to the admonitory letter recently sent forth by a
Right Rev. Prelate, which, in his opinion, did that Right
Rev. Personage infinite credit. Whatever odium might
be attempted to be cast on that Right Rev. Prelate, or
whatever taunts might be levelled at him by certain in-
dividuals, on account of his having written that letter, still
he was of opinion that the thanks of every real friend to
religion in the community WJS due to the Right Rev.
Prelate for his exertions on this occasion.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON supported the prayer of
the petition ; and hoped that the Hon. Member for West-
minster would move for a Committee to inquire into the

subject.
Mr. HUME saw no necessity for considering the sub-
ject at all. The master bakers had the remedy in their
own hands. They might, if they pleased, shut up their
shops on Sunday.—Laid on the table.
Mr. Alderman WOOD presented a similar petition,
signed between 700 and 800 master-bakers, of London,
Southwark, and within ten miles of the Royal Exchange.
After a few words from Sir T. BARING in support of
the petition, and from Mr. IlumE and Mr. SLANEY
against it, the petition was laid on the table.
Petitions were presented by Mr. Hobhouse, from Chi-
ches'er for the abolition of Negro Slavery ;—by Mr.
Alderman Wood, from the Minister and Churchwardens
and Inhabitants of the parish of St. Mary, Whitechapel,
and also front the inhabitants of the parish of St. Luke,
against the Scotch and Irish Vagrant Removal Bill;—by
Mr. Guest, from Honiton, against the punishment of death
for forgery ;—by Sir R. Vyvyan, from the Hundred of
Sholton, Cornwall, against the sale of Bcer Bill ;—by Sir
M. S. Stewart, from Lanark, against the East India Coin-
pony's monopoly ;—by Sir J. Newport, from the parish of
Glanmore, county of Kilkenny, against the Irish Vestries
Act;.--by Mr. King, from the county of Cork, against
an incro.se of the Newspaper Duties; by Sir M. Somer-
ville, from the county of Meath, against the Tythe System,
and also a petition from the same place against the Vestry
Act ; and by Mr. R. Colborne, from the Governors of the
poor of the parish of St. George, Hanover-square, against
the Scotch and Irish Vagraat Removal Bill.
SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.

Lord F. L. GOWER brought up the report of the
Committee which was appointed, on Saturday, to draw
up an address to the throne, praying for the removal of
Sir Jonah Barrington from his office of Judge of the
High Court of Admiralty in Ireland.
The address, after adverting to the importance of the
office, and pointing out the malversation of Sir J. Bar-
rington on several occasions, concluded by praying that
his Majesty would be pleased to di,miss Sir J. Barrington
from the situation.

On the question " That this address be read the second
time,"
Mr. D. W. HARVEY addressed the House in behalf
of Sir J. Barrington, whose case he described as one of
very considerable hardship and severity. The Hon. Member
read several letters from Mr. Lamb (now Lord Melbourne)
to Sir Jonah Barrington, dated March, 1828, which
letters, the lion. Member contended, clearly proved that
Mr. Lamb had negotiated with Sir J. Barrington for the
retirement of the latter on the usual pension, Mr. Lamb
promising that on this condition all proceedings against Sir
Jonah should be dropped. The Hon. Member said, that
Mr. Lamb must at this time have been aware of Mr.
Pineau's evidence ; and he could not therefore help con-
sidering the present proeeedings as putting Sir Jonah on
lain trial a second time. With respect to Sir Jonah having
been go long absent from the country, the Learned Judge
said he had a right to absent himself, if he pleased, be-
cause his patent allowed him to appoint a deputy. This
view he could support by the authority of a Learned Gen-
tleman opposite (Mr.- Doherty) now Solicitor-General for
Ireland. The Hon. Member then read a letter from Mr.
Doherty to Sir Jonah Barrington, which admitted Sir
Jonah's right to appoint a deputy ; but stated, that with-
out an adequate remuneration, he (Mr. Doherty) could
not fill that office. Now, although the Learned Gentle-
man (Mr. Doherty) was not at the time he wrote thi.
letter Solicitor-General, yet his appointment to that office
could not, he presumed, have altered the Learned Gentle-
man's view of Sir Jonah's right to appoint a depoty. Under
these circumstances, he thought they ought not to agree
to an address which must fix an indelible stain and disgrace
upon the innocent descendants of this infirm, decrepit,
and dying man.
Lord F. L. GOWER could not see very clearly what he
could possibly have have had to do with the conduct of his
predecessor in office—(Hear, hear,)—even if the Hon.
Member for Colchester had made out any case against that
predecessor. But the fact was that the lion. Member had
made out no case against Lord Melbourne. Instead of it
being true that Lord Melbourne had been conversant with
the evidence of Mr. Pineau, the fact was directly the re-
verse. As to the argument respecting Sir Jonah Barring-
ton's patent, it might be a very good one, if he had made
t! e absence of Sir Jonah from the country any part of the
ground on which he preferred these charges against that
Judge. But he had not. He thought the letter of his
Learned Friend—(Mr. Doherty)—a private and confiden-
tial letter, be it remembered—(Hear, ltear)—which had
been produced, contained nothing which was not creditable
to his Learned Friend, which at the time he wrote it was
not in office. Ile was totally at a loss to discover, in the
speech of the Hon, Member for Colchester, any single
reason for taking up any more of the time of the House in
discussing this question.
Sir J. NEWPORT (as we understood) could not un-
derstacd why a private and confidential letter, written
from one friend to another should have been dragged for-
ward on this occasion.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought nothing could be more un-
just than to attribute any thing improper to the Noble
Lord (F. L. Gower) who had conducted this business.
Allow hint, as a Member of the Irish bar, to protest
against the production of that confidential letter which !dad
been read by the Hon. Member• for Colchester. He
agreed that the contents of that letter were creditable to
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who wrote it; but why
had it been produced ? Did it prove any thing with re-
gard to this case ? No, it did not. He had read the
report of the Commissioners and the Select Committee.
If he had found any thing in them creditable to Sir Jonah
Barrington, he should have been glad to have brought it
forward, but he had found nothing. He heartily compas-
sionated him, but he could not vindicat.a. him•
Air. D. W. HARVEY, in explanation, said that with
respect to the letter of the Host, and Learned Gectleman
(Mr. Doherty) opposite, he had t 01.4 both that Hon. Gen-
tleman and the Hon. Member for Clara O'Connell)
that he bad the letter, and meant to read it: neither of
them objected, and he thought, therefore, that tie non.
Member for Clare had gone not a little out of his way to
protest, after it was too late, against the production of
such a document.
Mr. DOHERTY could assure the Hon. Metaiher that
he did not object to the production of that letter. When
gentlemen considered the distressing situation of the in-
dividual in whose possession the letter was, how could
any one object to the production of it, if that individual
fancied it could do him any good? When he first joined
the profesaion, Sir Jonah Barrington was at the head of

his circuit. Sir Jonah had always treated him with a
degree of kindness and friendship which he could not f
get—which made him rejoice that he was not called upon
to take any very active part in these distressing, but, he
must add, just and necessary proceedings.
On the question that the address be agreed to.
Mr. D. N. HARVEY said he had a petition to present
from Sir J. Barrington. It expressed the petitioner's re-
gret that his Counsel at the bar should have confined him-
self in his speech to constitutional grounds, and prayed
that he might he allowed to offer evidence at the bar.
The address was then agreed to ; Lord F. L. Gower to
carry the same to the Lords, and to desire their concur-
rence thereto at a conference.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY had a question to put to the
Right Hon. Gentleman (Sir R. Peel) opposite. An ad-
dress for the removal of Sir J. Barrington had been agreed
to, and a Noble Lord was now on his way to the other
House to request the concurrence of their Lordships to it.
Suppose both Houses sanctioned the address, then the
Crown would have, on deliberation, to determine whether
the request contained in the address should be granted.
The question, therefore, which he had to ask, and he
asked it merely fir information, arose out of the very de-
licate matter which had last night been communicated to
the House. Would his Majesty exercise the Royal consi-
deration with respect to this address ; or, was it intended
that the persons who were to be appointed in consequence
of the message of last night, should exercise the Royal de-
liberation as well as the performance of the mechanical
office of signing public documents ?
Sir R. PEEL said, that the Hon. Member appeared to
him to mistake altogether the object of the message of last
night. His Majesty was perfectly capable of exercising
discretion and deliberation, and the message of last night
merely stated that bodily indisposition made it inconve-
nient and painful for his Majesty to sign with his own
hand those public instruments which required his sign
manual. No Minister would presume to attach his Ma-
jesty's signature to any document upon which the pleasure
of the Crown had not been taken ; touch less to an instru-
ment for the removal of a Judge. His Majesty's pleasure
would be taken upon this, as it was taken upon every
other case ; for he had the satisfaction of assuring the
House, that his Majesty was at that moment as compe-
tent to exercise mental discretion as he had ever been at
any other period of his life.—(Cheers.)
Mr. D. W. HARVEY then presented the petition from
Sir Jonah Barrington, which was read at length, and or-
dered to be printed.
Sir J. BRYDGES presented a petition from the mer-
chants and other inhabitants of Coleraine, against the in-
crease of the stamp duties in Ireland : also a petition from
that town and its neighbourhood, against the duty on coals.
The lion. Member expressed his cordial concurrence in
the prayer of both petitions, which were ordered to be
printed.
CASE OF SIR JONAH BARRINGTON.—CON-