The Sun.
London, England, 1833-07-16 00:00:00

//-)6,2
cd9,3
/4.

rrrZgft?6!
se t''

an' (10. i h ha 111 the appear-
nee o. ritg-seft- . t'• wt=nices of the head of
he police.—(Hear, I' a..) The publication set forth
as we understood the:ll,o. Gentleman to say) the evidence
hat had been given before the Committee appointed to

- -
:ve,tigate into the facts contained in the petition presentee
'y him (Mr. C.) from persons belonging to the Union of
Valrvorth and Camberwell. It appeared also that the

,Secretary of State had been most improperly furnished with
copy of the proceedings without his (Mr. C.'s) consent, and
before the House had been furnished with it. The spy Popay
:,ad been permitted to take extracts of the evidence given
,gainst him, and lie had published them in the nee s
papers, aspersing the character of the witnesses. Having
put the House in possession of these facts, he would say
more, but leave the House to deal with it as it should

chink proper.
Lord ALTHORP slid this was the first time he had
heard a word about it. _

Mr. CORBETT said that it appeared in a paper
called tho Police Gazette. It was published in Surrey,
;miler the auspices of the police ; and the police rnigistratt s
were desired each of them to t ibe a copy of it, which they
had at a penny less than it was sold for to other persons.

There was no stamp on the paper; and upon an intima-
tion to that effect having been laid before the magistrates,
they refused to take cognizance of it, siying it was the

. _
province of the Stamp•office to take cognizance of it, or
that they could not do so without an intimation from the

Stamp-dace.
Mr. KENNEDY, as a Member of the Committee, said
the Hon. Member for Oldham had stated matters of a

complete opposite character to the real facts.—(Hear, and
a laugh.) He had stated that a copy of the evidence had
been furnished to the Secretary of State before a copy ha I
been supplied to the Committee themselves. It was true
that a copy was furnished to the Secretary of State,
but the Committee had also a copy each succeed-

ing day. It was also insinuated that because a
copy was furnished to the Secretary of State, extracts were
furnished to Popay ; but the [lon Member should re-
collect that the Committee had given permission for Popay
to see the whole of the evidence, and, therefore, he bed an

opportunity of taking extracts if he pleased. In.leed it
was indispensable thz.t Popay should have a copy of the
evidence as his character was attacked.—(Hear, hear.)

But as to any Member of the Government giving him p,
r-
mission to publish paragraphs in the newspaper alluded to,
he di,,believed it. No person connected with the Govern-
ment had anything to do with that publication.
Mr. TENNYSON said it was a little remarkable that
the Secretary of State should wish for a copy of the evi-

(fence when the conduct of the Government was not i

pogned. When it appeared that that was the case, it
was perfectly natural that the Hon. Member for Oldham
should assume, upon his seeing the paragraph in the
newspapers that Popay, who was charged and proved t.)
be a spy, and had access to the evidence, should have
published it.
Mr. O'CONNELL said it was highly improper that
should be published that the witnesses against Popay
were persons of bad character.
Lord ALTHORP said he wished it to he understood
that he thought it improper to allow the police to hay,
anything to do with the paper; indeed, be did not think
the police had anything to do with it more than himself
or the Hon. Member for Oldham had.
Mr. KENNEDY said it was permitted to Popay to
have a copy of the evider.ce, if it were necessary to ena`de
him to defend himself.

Mr. COBBETT said he had been always pr,s-nt in
the Commi!tee when five Members were there, and
therefore he knew what passed in the Committee better
than the Hon. Member who preceded him. Pop), wag
to have the evidence read to him next Wednesday, iind !hen

to have a lawyer, and to be permitted to cross-examine the
witnesses if he pleased. So that he had never yet had a copy
of the evidence, but had told the Committee that he had seen
a copy at the Secretary of State's Office, and h d been
allowed to real it, to examine it, and to take extracts
from it, in order to frame questions to cross•examine
upon. He (Mr. Cobbett) did not complain of his being
allowed to obtain extracts, but of his disparaging the
character of the witnesses, who from their demeanour and
conduct bore the very best characters.
Mr. WYNN could not see any reason why there should
be any copy for the Secretary of State ; it was contrary to
all rule and precedent.
Mr. ESTCOURT—Popay had been allowed to have
access to the evidence, for the special purpose of mahline;
his counsel to cross•examine the witnesses.
tl:e matter before the House, the lion. Member f r
ham had designated the man Popay as a spy, and that t e
had published foe extracts of the evidence. Now he
thought it was too much to fix so odious an appellation
upon the man before he was convicted of being so, er
to set him down as the publisher of the evidence before
there was any proof to that effect.—(Hear, hear.) If
through the inquiry it was shown that Popay &served
such a designation, he would be the first to say, let tie
consequences of his conduct be attached to him ; but, in
common justice, Hon. Members should abstain until the
the whole truth was known.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. COBBETT rose to explain, amid loud cries of
" Spoke." He did not mean to ascribe the publiestion
to Popay, but to the publisher ; whilst be left lion.
Members to determine from whom the publisher could
have obtained it.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HAWES—The Hon. Member for Oldham had
imputed to the Committee, that some of its deliberations
had been carried on when there were but a few Members pre-
sent. He (Mr. Hawes) begged to say that no question of
the slightest importance had been determined unless there
were five Members present.—(Hear, hear, hear.) Tl.
Honourable Member did not act fairly in anticipating the
result of the inquiry.—(Hear.) The Committee had not
yet heard Popay's defence.—(Hear.) And it was rather
hard in the middle of a judicial inquiry—and that by one
of the judges—(Hear, hear)—that the defendant should
be stigmatised by such an appellation.—(Hear, hear.)
They were bound to maintain impartiality.—(Cheers.)
Col. EVANS said that the observation of the Hite.
Member was very just ; but, on the same principle, Popay
should have abstained from attacking the conduct of the
witnesses against him. ar, hear.) He thought it
would be satisfactory to the House and the public, if the
Noble Lord would declare that, should such conduct he
repeated, serious notice would he taken of it.—(Hear.)
Lord EBRINGTON said, if the matter compl tined of
was a breach of privilege, the lion. Member could bring
it before the House substantially, when other Hon. Mem-
bers of the Committee would be able to give their opinion
on the matter.
Mr. FINN thought the House would not deal fairly in
passing such implied censure on the Hon. Member for
Oldham for the epithet he had used ; for it should be re-
membered that the publication of which he complained
used terms equally strong respecting the witnesses it had
alluded to.—(Hear.)
CALL OF THE HOUSE.

Sir J. WROTTESLEY rose, pursuant to notice, to
move that the House be called over on Thursday next He
should have conceived that his taking that course on
Thursday next would have been almost a matter of course ;
but since the Right Honourable Gentleman oppo-
site seemed to think, on Friday, that some-reasons ought to
be given for doing so, he would proceed to state those upon
which he acted. At the commencement of the session, his
Majesty had told them, in his most gracious Speech, that
matters of great interest and importance would require
their attention. No one could deny that this session
had been occupied by matters of very great importance.
They still had before them the East India Charter, the
Slavery question, and the Bank Charter question. This
alone, perhaps, might not be considered as a justi-
fication for his making a motion, which would n.eall all
those to London who were now absent from its But there
was, besides, another measure which had passel this
House which be looked upon with greater interest than any
he had moved. He used not say that he meant the Bill for
changing the Temporalities of the Irish Church, and it was
upon that he should found his motion to-night. If it were the
practice of the House to take no further notice of Bills which
bad once passed its messengers' hands, the case would be dif-
ferent ; but the fact was, that such was not the practice of the
House. The House of Commons had an undoubted right
to watch over the conduct of the other House of Parlia-
ment, and to be guided in its proceedings by the votes in
that other House upon Bills which it had passed ; in the
same manner as they had a right, if the Bill was passed
by the Lords with amendments, to adopt or reject those
I amendments, upon the message being brought from the
House of Lords desiring their cmacurrence. It was im-
possible to conceal the fact, that a Bill, which had passed
the House of Commons by a large m ijority, had been
termed by persons elsewhere a measure of spoliation.--
(Hear, hear.) It was also well known, that individuals
of great influence in the country bad declare! they were
not only dissatisfied with the details of the measure, bet
had decided objections to its principle. If this measureie
alone were concerned—however great and impio,:tartwaost.ita
considered it to be, and believing, as he did, t‘i it would
tend
ned toit saencdu rteo theren
dcehru
tcdangers which
which threat-
Wu r.
I)) could rn
t but
it was originally intended—
be
(Sirßill, An
look with anxiety to the fate of the that
•of • w But if that were all, lie would, pr.rhaps,
point vie • his gpinion
chat, if that Bill were rejected, it would he the
.4 the great principle of reform, by which the
.1 the present House of Commous Lad fat!) tit their
;..ive less uneasiness upon the subject. It was
ehffiliCoiemnttflo'er t!
Jw.