The Sun.
London, England, 1836-06-08 00:00:00

CRIMINAL LAWS.

Mr. EWART moved for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal
the law which admitted the fact of a previous conviction
to be given in evidence to the jury in the case before them.

Mr. C. FERGUSON thought there could be no harm in
allowing the Hon. Gentleman to bring in his Bill.
MR. BUCKINGHAM'S CASE.
Mr. TULK rose, pursuant to notice, to bring forward the
claims of Mr. Buckingham upon the East India Company,
which have been frequently before the House. The Hon.
Member proposed two resolutions ; the first calling upon the
House to concur in the resolutions of the Select Committee,
which reported on this case on the 14th of August, 1834; and
the second, calling upon the East India Company to pay to
Mr. Buckingham a sum of 10,0001. as indemnification for his
losses. Having called to the recollection of the House the
former proceedings on the claims of Mr. Buckingham, the
Hon. Member contended that there was nothing reprehensible
in the conduct of that Gentleman ; that he was perfectly jus-
tified in publishing the paragraph for which he suffered so se-
rious a loss ; and that the claims were as good at least as those
of Mr. Arnold, who received the sum of 1,6001. from the East

India Company.
The motion being seconded by Mr. CURTEIS, and put
from the Chair,
Mr. VERNON SMITH said it would be a most inconve-
nient course to go through the same discussion over and over
again in the same session. It would be unfair to the East
India Company. They had an opportunity last session of
being heard by Counsel against the Bill ; but they would
have no such opportunity now. The decision of that House
was opposed to the recommendations of the Select Committee ;
and now the Hon. Member came forward with two resolu-

tions, calling upon them to confirm the recommendations of
the Select Committee, and to direct the sum of 10,0001. to be
paid to Mr. Buckingham. Where was the money to come
from? That House would not vote it, nor would the East
India Company pay it, if they called upon them to do so.
They ought not to be generous with the money of other

people.
Mr. POULTER supported the motion.
Mr. ROBINSON denied the right of the House to inter.
fere in this affair.

Mr. HUM E should support the resolutions, because the
only question they had now to decide was, whether or not
they would give their sanction to the proceedings of their own
Committee?
Mr. RIC H ARD S said, as a British subject Mr. Bucking-
ham had a clear right to the protection of that House, and as
he fully agreed that Mr. Buckingham had been hardly treated,
he hoped that justice would done to him.
Mr. ROBINSON thought that the House ought not to
adjudicate between the East India Company and an individual.
Mr. HOGG contended that the conduct of the powers in In-
dia towards Mr. Buckingham had been fully justified. Mr.
Buckingham knew the terms on which alone he could remain
in that country, and, having violated the laws, he clearly had
now no right whatever to complain of injustice. The Hon.
Member proceeded to complain that the tendency of the ar-
ticles of the paper in question was, not merely to bring con-
tempt upon the Government, but also articles were written
in the paper calculated to bring the Church into disrepute.
There were also publications in that paper calculated to pro-
duce insubordination in the army—insomuch so that the Com-
mander-in-Chief felt bound to issue an order to the army in
respect to publications of this description.
Mr. O'CONNELL contended that the question before the
House was not a question of money. The question was, whe-
ther they were to reject or affirm a resolution?
Sir J. C. HOBHO USE was of opinion that a question
already decided by the legal and proper tribunal should not be
again opened by any such resolutions. The Hon. Member
had made three demands ; the first was for 5,0001., this was
afterwards raised to 40,0001., and now it was brought down to
10,000/. If the House, by such a process as a resolution, were
to mulct any man or body of men for the benefit of an indivi-
dual, what security could there be for any decision of the
House of Commons? Nothing could be less objectionable
than the former decision of that House. The Government
had not taken as a body any active part in it, one way or the
other—a fair vote was come to without any Ministerial whip-
ping; or, if there was any whipping, it was by those who sup-
ported the claim.—( Hear.) It was a most unusual and inju-
rious course to introduce such resolutions as these after the re-..

jection of a private Bill. V The House should not stultify itse
by passing resolutions which no one would, and no one ough
to obey.—( Hear, hear.) If every charge that every one
thought proper to bring against the East India Company were
to be entertained in that House, the public business would be
utterly neglected. He was not disposed to shuffle in such a
trumpery case as this, and in spite of the menaces of the Hon.
Gentleman, who thought proper to attend and hear the debate
that night, and the letters he sent to his constituents and
those of other Hon. Members, he would do his duty, and op-
pose the resolutions. He did not think it a proper course of
proceeding to send about circulars and emissaries to get up
petitions in favour of this claim. If the question were pressed
to a division he would certainly appeal to the House to con-
firm its former vote.—( Hear.)
Mr. BUCKINGHAM said, as the Right Hon. Baronet
referred to his being present at the debate he would merely
say that the question was brought judicially before the House,
and he never understood that a plaintiff was precluded from
hearing his own case argued ; and as to the charge that his
claim, which was originally 5,0001., was afterwards raised to
40,0001., and was now cut down to 10,000/., he would only
observe that the sum of 5,000/. was originally proposed by Sir
C. Forbes at the India Board, when he said that it was not
the tenth part of his losses, and the sum of 10,0001. was now
fixed on as a moderate scale of compensation. He never
directed menaces against the Hon. Member, or any other
Hon. Member, to their constituents, by word or letter ; neither
did he, as the Right Hon. Baronet intimated, write agaiust.
him in the Sheffield Iris, or any other paper, anonymous
letters. He never wrote anything that he did not sign with
his own name, and if he did write letters to any parties, re-
questing their support, he learned the practice from the Go-
vernment, which often solicited him by letter for his vote and
support.—( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Mr. AG LIONB Y supported the motion.
M. D. W. HARVEY would ask the Hon. Member for
Northampton whether the respectable solicitor to the East
India Company did not state before the Committee that 7,000/.
or 8,000/. were the amount of losses that Mr. Buckingham
sustained? If that were so, then so much was due to him ;
and he was sure if it were so the East India Company would
not refuse to repay him.
Mr. V. SMITH said that Mr. Pocock stated before the
Committee that Mr. Buckingham was not entitled to any
compensation ; and being afterwards asked, supposing any-
thing was due to him, what would it be, he replied between
7,000/. and 8,000/.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG thought that Mr. Buckingham had
sustained losses, and would not object to grant him a mode-
rate sum.
Major BEAUCLERK said the attack of the Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir J. Hobliouse) on the Member for Sheffield was
quite unjustifiable, when he said that he wrote letters against
him to his constituents privately, and attacked him in the
Sheffitld Iris. If he had said so to him (Major Beauclerk)
he would hold him to account for it, and make him prove it.
His refusal to entertain this question was a slur on Lord Gle-
nelg, and the other members of the Government, who admitted
the justice of his claims. He himself too was a party to the
measure, as he had been on the Committee.—( Hear, hear.)
Sir J. HOBHOU SE said that so far from being a Member
of the Committee, he was not even in Parliament at that time.
—( Hear, and laughter.)
Major BEAUCLERK begged pardon for having made the
misstatement; he was misled by the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex, who told him what he said.—( Great laughter.)
Sir J. HOB HO U SE—Then the Gallant Member had got
the Hon. Gentleman into a scrape.
Major BEAUCLERK begged to deny that positively. He
did not mean to get his friend into any scrape.—(Laughter
and hear.)
Mr. HUME said it was a mistake altogether. His Gallant
Friend had asked him whether the Right Hon. Baronet was a
Member of the Committee, and he said he was in 1826, but
not in 1831.
Mr. C. PELHAM bad received three letters, which he
begged to ask the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Buckingham) whe-
ther they were not sent by him ? These three letters were
to be sent to Grimsby, Lowth, and Lincoln, and were accom-
panied by a letter regulating the way in which they were to be
used. One of those letters had the effect of inducing the Cor-
poration to send up a petition in favour of Mr. Buckingham.
The other letters did not induce the people to whom they were
sent to entertain the question of a petition. All he could say
was, that he did receive those letters inclosed in one which
bore the signature J. S. Buckingham.
Mr. BUCKINGHAM was desirous of explaining a sub-
ject which it appeared was little understood. The Hon. Ba-
ronet had adverted to a threatening letter, which it was alleged
he (Mr. Buckingham) had sent to the Sheffield Iris, and of
his having in that newspaper used menacing language to him,
with respect to his opposition to his claims for compensation.
He had before distinctly denied, and he did still deny, that
part of the charge, he never having done anything of the
kind.—(Hear, hear.) Disposing of that part of the charge,
he would next allude to the letters. Ile had certainly written
some fifty or sixty letters, the tenor of which he would repeat.
There was in so doing no attempt at concealment, they having
been dated from his own house, signed by his own name, and
addressed to those Members likely to take an interest in his
case. The letters contained a statement of facts, a printed
Report of the Parliamentary Committee, and an expression to
the effect that he should feel happy if the Hon. Member to
whom it was sent would do him the honour to transmit the do-
cuments to his constituents, for them to deal with the subject
as they might think fit.—( Hear.) As the Hon. Member had
stated in his case, one corporation did and another did not,
entertain the petition; but the general result was, that from
90 to 95 petitions from England, Scotland, and Ireland were
sent up to Parliament, signed by 25,000 individuals. In pro-
curing their signatures no magic art had been exercised. He
was not in a condition to spend money very liberally, as other
Hon. Members might be. The moral influence of the facts
themselves had been the only influence employed, and those he
had left to the judgment of the public.—( Hear.)
Mr. BAINES supported the motion in favour of Mr.
Buckingham.
Mr. TULK said that his Right Hon. Friend had ap-
pealed to him to withdraw his motion, a request with which
he could not comply, and he could not but at the same time
complain that this question, which was to have been treated
as a neutral one, had been made a question of party.
The House then divided, when there appeared 60
For the motion ************** 92
Against it —32
*****
nlnd
Mr. V. SMITH moved for leave. to bring in a Bill for the
Majority ................... ...
election
aloefs.chaTrithaeblHe torou.sti‘eleesmibnercosrrciratth oSed that the elec
e
a
-
p rop
counteract political influence, this Bill vin'ith.na Eyiegwa to
tion should be conducted in the same way as the election of
auditors, and not as the town councillors.
Colonel SIBTHORP hoped that ample opportunity would
be given for the discussion of this measure, and that if it did

not meet in that House the opposition it deserved, he trusted
that it would be met with elsewhere.
Bill, leave Aftereae was
an observation from Mr. POTTER in support of the
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the Order of the
Day for the House proceeding in Committee with the remain-
ing clauses of the Bill for the registration of Births, Deaths,
and Marriages.
Mr. YOUNG stated that it had been understood on the
previous adjournment of this Bill, that it would not be entered
into after 10 o'clock. It was now half-past 11.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL did not press the point.
The further consideration of the Bill in committee was then
adjourned till Friday.
On the motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the
Bankrupts' Fund Bill was read a third time.
The Cinque Ports Bill was then passed through committee,
and was reported to the House.
On the motion of Mr. BROTHERTON, the House ad-
journed at Twelve o'Clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS, JUNE 7.
The LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the Woolsack
shortly before Five o'Clock.
ROYAL ASSENT.
The Royal Assent was given by Commission to the Conso-
lidated Fund Bill--West India Judicature Bill—Slavery Abo-
lition (Jamaica) Bill—Seamen's Fund ( Shetland) Bill—Uni-
versal Life Assurance Society Bill—Birmingham Coal Com-
pany Bill—lmperial Continental Gas Association Bill—Brand-
ling Railway Bill—Dukinfield Water Bill—Teignniouth Im-
provement and Water Bill—Carlisle Docks Bill—Dundee
Harbour Bill—Grampound Road Bill—Mackenzie's Estate
Bill—Gartside's Estate Bill—South Petherton (Somerset)
Inclosure Bill—Claremont's Naturalization Bill.
The Commissioners were the Lord CHANCELLOR, the Earl
Of SHAFTESBURY, and Lord DUNCANNON.
MESSAGE FROM THE COMMONS.
Mr. OSWALD and other Members of the House of Com-
mons, brought up the Lanark Gas, and several other private
Bills.
Mr. Campbell, from the East India House, brought up
return of the compensations given to the discharged officers a.
ot
the Company.
Messengers from the Commons brought up the Ulster
Canal Bill, which was laid on the table.
The Marquis of D 0 WNS HIRE presented a petition from
a place in the north of Ireland, approving of the firm, 10Yal'
and constitutional course pursued by their Lordships with
respect to the Irish Municipal Corporations Bill, and praying
their Lordships to abide by the amendments made by them.
The Earl of BURLINGTON presented a petition in
favour of the North Midland Railway Bill.
The London and Cambridge Railway Bill was read a seeolla
time on the motion of Earl SHAFTESBURY.
The Nene Outfall Bill was also read a second time.
The other Bills on the table were advanced a stage.
Petitions for the better observance of the ,Sabbath, were pre-
sented by Lord WHARNCLIFF.
A message from the Commons asked that Earl Radnor and
other Lords have leave to give evidence before the Agricultu-
ral Committee.
Lord LYNDHURST had a petition to present from a R°.*
man Catholic Clergyman named Dr. Mulholland, who for man);
years held a living in the county of Louth, where he had gained
the esteem of all parties. He had the misfortune to obtain
the hate of the priest of a neighbouring parish, who wellt
about scandalizing and calumniating the petitioner. 'e
complained to the Titular Archbishop of the Diocese, Dr'
Kelly, who ordered his Vicar-General to inquire into it.
He did so, and was of opinion that there was no foundation
for the calumnies; and ordering the person making them to
make a public apology. That was refused, and the petitioner
had no other course to take than to bring his action. 11;
did so in the Common Pleas, in Ireland, and obtainea
a verdict from a jury of his countrymen ; he was satisfied, and
thought the matter should end there. In a very short time,
however, he was removed from his living without ell
reason being assigned, by the authority of the titular Arch-
bishop or Primate. He would take the liberty of adverting to
the evidence given by a very eminent man. Dr. WHale9
before a Committee of the Houses, wherein it was stated that
it was no breach of the rules of the Church of Rome J.°r
one ecclesiastic to bring a civil action against a brother
ecclesiastic ; that was stated by more than one of the_A
dignitaries of the Catholic church. The petitioner applied
in vain to his superiors here, and eventually he appealed to
the congregation for the propagation of the Faith in
Rome, who, after hearing the case, ordered that he should
be reinstated.—( Hear, hear, hear.) In the meantime Dr. Kelly died, and Dr. Croly was elevated to his place, wh°
on being applied to, said the petitioner should be reinstated;
but a few days after he said so he had altered his mind'
His love and veneration for 'Dr. Kelly
was so great,
that he could not reinstate him, though he could no
find any stain on the petitioner's character ; on the other hal,'"
he knew him to be a pious, zealous, good man. He signed ast,
exeat to that effect, which he ( Lord Lyndhurst) held in his bane-
He applied again to Rome, and he was referred to Dr. Murray'the titular Archbishop of Dublin ; he asked the petitioner to
accept of a curacy for the sake of the peace of the Church;
once he agreed to do so if Dr. Croly would give him one wbic.
was promised, but again he altered his mind and refuse'
Such was the nature of the treatment to which the petitione,
had been subjected, after he had successfully appealed to
Jury of his countrymen, and had obtained a verdict against 19'
calumniator.—( Hear, hear.) Bch'', stripped of his living be'
cause, it was alleged, he had brought an action, and had aP-,:
= •• stothe legal tribunals _of. h,les.camtry, he now submi“el
is case to their Lordships. He (Lord Lyndhurst) begged-
to call their Lordships' attention to a clause of the enactment
which had passed a few years ago, because it showed how little
the boon to the Roman Catholics had been regarded--(
hear.) By the 24th clause of that statute, it was enacted
" that no person should assume the name of Archbishop %
Bishop of a province, or Dean;" so that, in point of fact, by'
the law of the land, no such persons as those who had acted
in the manner described by the petitioner were recognised;
This was a provision'which was now in force, and which hat'
been enacted at the period when the measure in favour of the
Roman Catholics passed. Now the document to which ha
had referred bore the signature of Dr. Croly, as Archbishl
of the province of Armagh. The Noble and Learned hips
concluded with remarking that he was certain their Lordsv're-i.,
would feel the hardship of the situation in which the petiti7,
was placed—( Hear, hear)—and as it was respectfully via e,3
he had presented it.
petition
The Noble and Learned Lord then moved that the pe-1
do lie upon the table.
Lord HOLLAND had never known a more extraordiesri
case in his experience of that House than the one brought :2;
fore it by the Noble and Learned Lord who had just -4
down. He was greatly 'astonished that that Noble arld.,
Learned Lord above all others should call upon their Lere,
ships to entertain a subject so entirely alien to their provin'bie
and so completely foreign to their jurisdiction. The N
and Learned Lord had told the House a longstory—be,( T°
Holland) should not call it a cock and bull story. He al
told the House a long story, but what conclusion did it .le-of
to? The petitioner experienced aggression 'on the
levr part d
an individual originally, and he had applied to the 4d
his country for redress. The Noble and Learned Lord but
informed the House that he got a verdict from a jury ;
ho had not stated what the exact nature of that ver"
was—however, whatever it might have been, the pelect
had obtained all the redress which the laws afforded
because a Church not established by the laws, not reselg
nised by the State, not paid by the country, chooses to di ai
of
him from one of its employments, to deprive him of vollrefere
its livings, he comes before the House and asks it to int
for him. Did the House confer these livings on the rg oto., o
and
Can it, therefore, take them from them ? The Noblealien
Learned Lord had described the Catholics of Ireland ashere-
in feeling, in heart, and religion to that House • could it,
fore, interfere in their spiritual concerns ? he which(Lore
land) was rightly informed, the petition was one of those t,,t„
could not be received consistently with the usages of
e;
House ; but, even if it could, the House could not vent 1)4
act upon it. After all that was said on the subject, Ouseitw
the complaint of one man against another ; and the be G
should recollect that it had no original jurisdiction, n eve eli
tb
tweet' Protestant and Protestant, still less between !Ales
and Catholic. He (Lord Holland) always felt grieveds;jeei
any person came to Parliament to complain on an, eel
not within the cognisance of the laws, and he wasl bt that
reasonable case willing to afford redress. But he thong
these
before the House received such a petition as that before,_,„ wis-
it should pause. If it entertained the question as to r're;i't oc-
diction of the Church of Rome involved in it on the '
P.retain
casion it would establish a precedent, and should enter
_f
others of a similar nature, so that it would let in a flood v
terference, and he saw no prospect of an end to it. -atoll,
The Earl of WICKLOW said that if the Noble., 'evetoed
had been surprised at the conduct of his Noble and D
cklovi
Friend who presented the petition he (the Earl of had
was not less surprised at that of the Noble Baron. „ f.ured,
been requested to support the petition by the individual V been
and he did so most willingly. He felt the petitioner_ti
most unjustly treated, and that he was the victim of boa
nical power unknown to the Constitution, all becaus:
Brisk
exercised his right—the undoubted birth-right Of
redress forf
subject—by appealing to the laws of his country
for
titution
injury done him. Was it in the law or the Cons,
_ced frool
the British empire that an individual should be repe laws of
affluence to beggary, because be had applied to tn
his country for protection? When the petitioner waited
etiti°l3'
to
tether ills°
h(tehewaEsafirrlsotfaslVeidekblyowhLtowhsoylichiet hdiisdsaueptpoarptofyo.r thehopse who
professed themselves the champions of his religion r.n
another
to one who was adverse to it—why he did not applY %its, frl
estitnte
tphlaecesamtoe theoesueetproywearafulhismpaecalkferswbaned
hgelrdeatthpernactsrdei
Ives_ 00?
as the stay of the oppressed and the refuge of the
well
h ClergY
Onter-
meddling with the concerns of their masters—t
washioebbytiohueys.
wToahledseexipnodaiveidtuhaeleas
akelnveewa
btyo
thheedaannsgwerertow
f Wicklow)
represent u;
his hand a letter from an individual who not onlye,e
aendtotwhnemonthethree.ir hHeead(sthteheE:rr t)reance oef thohseelawhi:
bringing
a thep
mtter,
yriesthood, but assumed to represent thewla F
heave submitted t?
thisiltrecloanntda,inteodthaenpeintidtirnearntonreftubsealsitibojeientteorffei:
stating also that the petitioner should rather .
hould thinic
his superiors s
any ecclesiastical censure which
r rather to trust. his
it unnatural, therefore, for the petitione
le than to the feeling!
case to the honour of the British peel)be was oppressed ;115
of justice which actuated those by born
wted? The House, es the
proper to inflict on him than make the matter public. Iv. .5_
those by whom they were supporh
that of giving the sub.) c
petitioner redress, but at least it japethtietion,
bad
that the
Viscount MELBOURNE said
relief
on
the
ould afford no
been observed, might not havehtade power
r Cler'
admitted that the House c ROMAn Catholic
°Nfo r:
ionrdg
se'en-tt
petition. It was an appeal fr°„ln....a(