The Sun.
London, England, 1856-07-25 00:00:00

11111. k SUN. LONDON, riturlAv EVENING i JULY t 1856

ing of the grm anmuractured by the above company, and
what was proposed to be done with the gun ?
Mr. PEEL said that the experiments were not yet
complete.

FRANCE AND SPAIN.
Mr. MURP.OUCia askel whether the Government
was pre pared to adopt any, and what, means, for the
prevent:on of the armed, interference of France in the
internal affairs of Spain ?
Viscount PALMEIISION—I apprehend that there
is nothing at present in regard to the affairs of Spain
that could in any way lead to any interference on the
part of the French Emperor in those affairs. With re-
gard to the general question, I may state that the Em-
peror of the French is a man of great justice, and will,
no doubt, feel in any case that any foreign interference
in the affairs of the Spanish nation would be unjust.
He is also a man of great sagacity ; and the lessons of
the past show that those of Franco who have been led
to interference iu the affairs of Spain have always,

sooner or later, found that their interference was more
or less destrucr.,ive to themselves. (Hear, hear.) There
can be no rea-on for apprehending that, any intention
exists on the part of the French Government to inter-
fere in the affairs of Spain. (Bear, hear.)
RONIAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS, &c., IN INDIA.

Mr. GROGAN asked whether any minute had been
made by the Governor-General of India recognising de-
legates from the see of Rome, under the style and title of
vicars apostolic, as the official channels of communica-
tion with the Government in matters connected with the
Roman Catholic Church, and admitting the propriety of
addressing the aforesaid vicars apostolic in official Com-
inuuic4tous according to the ecclesiastical rank arid
position bestowed upon them by the Pope ; whether the
Roman Catiolic Bishops at each seat of government were
to be allowed a certain salary to enable them to send re-
turns, and to correspond with the Government; whether
a Roman Catholic priest, with a fixed salary. was to be '
allowed at every station where there might be British-born
Roman Catholics, although there be no European regi-
ment a•ationed there; whether the Roman Catholic
priests were to be allowed to receive medical attendance
and medicines gratuitously in certain cases; whether grants
were to be given in aid of building Roman Catholic
chapels, and whether, although the Government orphan-
ages were open to Roman Catholic children as • to all
others, a sum equal to the cost of maintaining each child
was to be paid to Roman Catholic orphanages into which
_ _

such child should be received ?
Mr. V. SMITH said the hon. gentleman seemed to
havettaken his facts from applications made to the Go-
vernor-General rather than from any instructions issued
by him. There had been no such minute as he referred
to. Instructions had been sent out that there should be
no alteration in the status of Roman Catholic bishops
from that established by previous orders. Those previ-
ous orders had always been that they should be entitled to
rank or consideration cn account of the position they
held in the itoman Cathode Church. The Roman Ca-
tholic bishops had for a long time had a pecuniary al-
lowance fir s ?aiding returns of their co -r Aigion.st4 ; this
allowance was male to one bishop in each presidency.
Priests were enereioyed at those stations, where there
were British born Catholic subjects, whether in the
civil or the military service. They had been allowed
as a portion of their remun,!ration medical atteadance
on account of the difficulty of obtaining it. He was not
aware of any grants that were to be given in aid of
building Roman Catholic chapels, or that sums were
paid to Roman Catholic orphanages, equal to the cost
of maintaining each child ; but instructions had been
sent out that every attention should be paid to the treat-
ment of Roman Catholic cLildren in these parts.
In answer to a further question from Mr. GROGAN,
Mr. V. SMITH said that with regard to the manner
of addressing vicars-apostolic, he could not answer more
iitisfactorily than that they were entitled to no consi-
deration, on account of their rank or position in the
Roman Ca' holic Church.
CAVALRY REGIMENTS, 1;3.
Colonel HERBERT asked whether the Government
had decided to reduce the present establishment of ca-
valry regiments ; and whether they intended to supply
the military forces at the Cape of Good Hope with an
equip vent of mule litters for the conveyance of sick and
wounded.
Mr. PEEL save some answer, which was inaudible
in the gallery.
THE MISSION TO BELGIUM.

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said he had seen a statement of
the airl of WestmorelaLd being sent on a mission to Bel-
gium, to congratulate the King of the Belgian?, he sup-
posed. He wished to ask at whose expense that mission
had been undertaken ?
Lard PALMERSTON—I am afraid my hon. friend
will have to contribute his share to it. (Laughter.)
MR. JAMES SADLEIR.

On the motion for proceeding to the orders of the day,
Mr. ROEBUCK rose and said—l believe, according
to the ruses of this house, that I have precedence in the
motion I am about to make for the expulsion of a member
of this house. lam about to ask the house to exercise a
power inherent in the house, of the greatest possible im-
portance both to its honour and to its efficiency and power
in the country. I am not going to ask the house to exer-
cise this power on any light ground, or upon an occasion
on which any one might turn round upon me and say
that I am about to establish` a precedent which is dan-
gerous to this house. lam about to ask it to pass judg-
ment, not by way of punishment to the member whom I
suppose to be guilty, but to free itself from the com-
panionship of a man who has disgraced himself in the
eyes of his country. Ido not ask the house upon this oc-
casion to consider itself a court of judicature, for that it
cannot be. It cannot administer au oath ; and all I ask
of it is to satisfy its own conscience that what I say is
correct. And if they will take the statement as statements
of a member of this house are always taken, as conclusive
as to the facts of which he is himself cognisant, I think
upon this occasion I shall ask them successfully to accede
to the motion with which I shall conclude. The motion
I have to make is—
" That Mr. James Sadleir, the member for Tipperary,
he expelled this house."
The grounds on which I make this motion are as follows :
I do not say that the member for Tipperary is guilty of
the charges brought against him. With that I have
nothing to do. But all I have to say is, that charges
have been brought against bins derogatory to his honour,
destructive of his power and capacity as a member of
this house, sucu as, if fixed upon him, and not rebutted
by him, are a disgrace to this house so long as he remains
a member thereof. I say these charges have been brought
against him ; into their truth I will not inquire. But
what I do charge him with is that he, knowing that
these charges were brought againSt him, fled from jus-
tice, evaded the accusation, and did not attempt the
defence. The charge then that I make is, not that he
is guilty of the crime, but that having fled from it, he
has confessed himself guilty ; and.all that I have to make
out to this house is that he has fled from the accusation,
and when I make out that the accusation is made and
that he has fits', I lay sufficient ground for tins house to
expel him. The first part of the accusation is that he has
been charged with crime. I hold in my handsome papers
which have just been laid on the table ot this house. The
first is a bill of indictment found at the Clontnel assizes
by the grand jury of that county, or rather a certified
abstract of the bill of indictment; and it says that "upon
search made amongst the records of the county, we find
that at a general assize and gaol delivery held in Me-
mel in and for the South Riding of the county Tipperary,
on the 13th day of July, in the 20th year of her Ma•
jesty's reign, a true bill of indictment has been found
against James Sadleir, charging, in the first count"—
and so it goes en with eight counts, charging him with
fraud. That is upon the 13th of July. Upon the 19th,
of June the Master of the Rolls in Ireland, in delivering,
a judgment, used these words—"lt is now necessary to
Ito to the succeeding stage of this transaction, and which
I believe is unparalleled in the annals of fraud." So that
he was quite aware, so early as the 19th of June, that he
was cearged with fraud. On last Friday I, in thiS house,
gave notice that I should make a motion calling on the
hon. member—l ought not to call him the hon. member
—the member for Tipperary ; I gave notice that I
would make a motion on Monday last that the member
for Tipperary should attend in his place on this day, in
order that he might appear in this house when I made a
motion for the expulsion of that member. So that he
had notice, first by a judgment delivered by the Master
of the Rolls as far back as the 19th of June, that he waa
charged with fraud. On the 18:1i July an indictment is
' found against him by the grand jury of Cloninel. Some
time beture that warrants were issued by the Govern-
ent for his apprehension ; and we have sent down from
this. house a messenger who has gone to Publin and to
Tipperary in order to find him. Us is not there. We
have b 'en unable to find him. Therefore I conclude that
he has fl 'd from justice ; and having fled fr )m justice,
with that ::barge over his head, I:ay that he is unworthy
to sit as a ulember ot this house. It may be said that
am about to make a dangerous precedent in this case, A
dangerous precedent ! It may be sairs. to me—" Suppose
that you had gone to America, and that some member
had got up in his place and said, I shall, on Thursday
seat. make a InUti,),ll that Mr. Roebuck do appear in his
piaci., when I shall make a mention for his expulsion from
the h -e," I answer that argument in this way. If
there had oeen a charge made against me by the Master
of the. Rolle --If there had bean an indictment found
asseinet ins—if there had been a warrant issued against
moe—it the beano had sent its messenger to find me, and
I wa., not in my pace— if I di I not a Tear personally—
what objection could there be to such a motion as this ?
But it may be said, " Why hasten this ? Where is the
danger it 'se wait till next sesaien ?' Wait till next ses-
sion ! Have we not waited long enough already ? It is
its if a man should he down by a dead bedy, and at-
tempt try repose himself in the noisomeness thereof. I
B,v that this house, allowing a member who is thus
et, 'voted to abscond irom justice, and allowing hint the
imam: to '?a Ineinher of this house, does itself dishonour;
and,
.in t, *der to avoid that dishonour, I would cut off this
peeesa3 noomber. It is not :is if, by the expulsion of this'
inem eel., we o:endered him incapable of being re-elected.
The nee of ;elm Wilkes has established that ae ex-
pulsion from this' house does not 'render a Mail incapable
of being re-electeCt•
Tip-
perary toque crow gnu',wised to night, he On go de wn, if he pleases, into
Supposing his expulsion to be
propose himself It r Ts-election.
But will he do so ? I aiapeal to this house--I appeal to
every gentleman here, if 1i.0% is not sure in his heart that
the man has evaded justice, and that we are now about
to do justice upon him, and jt,
polling him ? Ido nut fear this precedent. It may be
m
There is Done ; but by
proposition I do not require a
, said that there is no conviction.
slice to ourselves, by ex.
;that tats fleeing from justice is of its: if sufficient for this
house to istosiy its conscience that the man is guilty.
Nobody pretended to say that he would not have a fair
trr:al. The that lie is guilty, and has
refore I sayconviction. I say
con-
fessed himself guilty by his flight.will now cite a
few precedents for the proceeding I propose. The
11 first gase_is: one which took place- in 1752, in the
. reign of George 11. A person named Geiirge. Robin-
Own having been charged in Parliament with fraudu-

lent pace in the management of a society for the !
rell.f of the ioduArious poor, and having decliued to
Wend tho service of the houFe, though required to do
5..), he wal decared guilty of cootempt of the hon-se,.l
and aas cxpuled, That ca:zo ian on Mt fiur.3 with this
rase of Ja,nes SAAleir. IL IA charpi with ;

he is I equired to attend the house, and he does nat ap•
peer. Oa the 20th of June the Muter of the Rolls gave
hint to ntsderAtand what was hanging over his head ; the
grand jury of Tipperary found a true bill against him ;
the Government issued a warrant for his apprehension;

he could not be found ; and what is the inevitable con-
sequence? Why, that he fled the country to evade jus-
tice. The only other case which I will cite, though
there are many of them, is that of Mr. Be.njamin Walsh,
who was tried and convicted of fraud in 1812 ; and in

that case, although the conviction had been quashed on
technical grouuds, Mr. Walsh was expelled the house.
Sir F. Burdett, who at that time was at the head of the
liberal party, voted for the expulsion. Mr. Wynne, a high
authority on such subject , said the house " ought to take
an important trust out of the hands of a person who was
unworthy to hold it." Mr. Perceval took the same view.
So that in this case, after an acquittal had taken place,
the member was expelled because the house was
convinced that, though he was not legally, he was mo-
rally guilty of the fraud. We are not here as a court of
justice, but we are hound to protect the dignity and
honour of the house. These bting my opinions, and feel-
ing that the honour and dignity of the house are compro-
mised as long as James Sadleir remains a member of it,
I beg leave to move that ho be expelled.
Mr. NAPIER seconded the motion, and said that the
qu sstion involving important considerations, the house
ought to see its way clearly before they came to any
decision. Tuts was a case in which the honour and
dignity of the house and the rights of the constituency
of Tipporary were concerned. A notion prevailed
that the house had no materials, technically speaking, to
act upon. But it was confounding the jurisdiction of
a court of law with the jurisdiction of the House of
Commons to suppose that the same kind of evidence
was required in both. The House of Commons could
not examine ,upon oath, they did not require the
technicalities which were indispensable in a court of
law ; it was enough for the House of Commons to
have before it what would satisfy its conscience, especially
with regard to mattersaffectiog the members of the house.
It was enough for the house to know that it had facts
before it on which it could fairly and reasonably act.
The case was one in which they must be guided by pre-
cedent. In 1807 a committee of the House of Commons
bad examined all the precedents of expulsion, they col-
lected all the cases and arranged them in chronological
order. Some of these cases established the fact that it
was enough for the house to be convinced of the moral
turpitude of the offender, even though he had not been
legally convicted of crime; and there were one or two re-
markable cases where the house expelled an unworthy
member. and afterwards addressed the Crown that the
parties might be prosecuted by the Attorney-General. The
first case of expulsion referred to by the committee oc-
curred in 1558, and there were other cases in 1320 and
1710. In the case of Atkinson, who had been indicted for
perjury, the Attorney-General moved that he be expel-
led the house after he absconded from justice. Sir S.
Romilly said he would vote fur the expulsion of Lord
Cochrane on the facts of the case, although he believed
he had been improperly convicted. In the case of Walsh,
the house expelled that person after he had been con-
victed of felony, though the judges subsequently decided
that it was not a felony of which he had been found
guilty. He admitted that the minority against the expul-
sion in that case, though only 18 in number, was respect-
able authority, including, as it did, the names of Sir E.
Romilly, Lord Brougham, and the father of the present
Speaker. He admitted they ought not, on the grounds
of mere suspicion, to be carried away and vote the ex-
pulsion of a member. But this was a peculiar and special
case. The facts were notorious. The Master of the
Rolls declared that a gigantic fraud had been cOmnmitted ;
the Attorney-General was of opinion that the party
was guilty of conspiracy ; he einbeched that opinion
in au indictment ; the grand jury found a true bill ;
a warrant had been issued for the apprehension
of the party ; he had not answered the summons
of the house ; the constituency of Tipperary were
eubstantially without a member ; and, if, under these
circumstances, they shrunk from the duty imposed on
them, they would be holding out a miserable example of
their own timidity, and avowing that a man might be
charged with a crime of the greatest turpitude, might fly
from justice, and not respond to the order of the house,
and yet be entitled to be called the " honourable" mem-
ber tor Tipperary.
The SPEAKER asked whether the hon. and learned
member for Sheffield wished to have the documents read
by the clerk at the table ?
Mr. ROEBUCK said he dil not think it would be
necessary.
Mr. WORTLEY appealed to the house whether it
would not be better in a case of so much importance,
whether it would not be the wiser course, to take more
time for the consideration of these documents and the
precedents which had been referred to ? (Hear, hear.)
He believed he was correct in saying that none of the
precedents quoted were identical with the present
case. (Hear, hear.) Here was the case of a member
charged, no doubt, with the greatest possible fraud—
fraud for which there was no mitigation or excuse. That
charge of fraud now resolved itself into one of conspiracy,
and a prosecution was hanging over the head of the
party on that charge. It appeared that he left the coun-
try before the warrant was out against him, and for
aught they could tell he might yet appear. He knew
cases where persons had kept out of the way that they
might not spend three or four months in prison before
trial, and who; surrendered on the day of trial. The
house would be put in a curious and painful position if,
after a resolution of expulsion, the party came back for
trial, and substantiated his innocence. He therefore
thought the present proceeding was premature, and, at
all events, that a decision would be premature, unless
they had the documents before them. He therefore
begged leave to move that the documents referring to
the case be printed, and that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. J. D. FITZGERALD wished, before proceeding
further with the debate, to show the house the exact
evidence which they had before them. He protested
against the principle that the house should act on state-
ments merely because they were said to be notorious.
They had evidence of the fact that on the 4th of the pre-
sent month of July, informations had been sworn against
James Sadleir, not on a charge of felony, but on a charge
of misdemeanour, which charged him with conspiring
with.his brother, John Sadleir, to cheat the publio by a
false representation as to the state of the Tipperary Bank,
and representing that it was solvent in order t 3 induce
others to become shareholders. They had also this evi-
dence, that on the same 4th of July a warrant had been
issued for the apprehension of Jas. Sadleir—that on the
18th of July, being the first day of the assizes, the grand
jury found a true bill of indictment, and that upon that
bill being found by the grand jury, a bench warrant was
issued for his apprehension on Saturday last. That was
all they had before them in the shape of evidence. There
had been many charges and accusations which might or
might not be true ; but of evidence there was nothing be-
yond what he had stated. He would next point out the
course which the legal proceeding.; would take. Mr. Jas.
Sadleir not being amenable to justice, not lasing arrested
under the warrant, and not having appeared to answer
the charge against him in the ordinary course of things,
proceedings of outlawry would be taken. The law did
not consider even a judgment of outlawry tantamount to
an edraission of crime; but if that step was arrived at
the house would have something on which it might, act,
and if it thought fit expel Mr. Sadleir. He would note
allude to another matter :--On Monday last the house
made an order that James Salleir should attend in his
place on that day. They had not yet before there what
took place in pursuance of that order ; but he (Nit.. Fitz
gerald) had seen the messenger of the house, who in-
formed him that he proceeded to Ireland with all expedi-
tion, and on Tuesday served the orders!: Sadleir's residence
in the countyof Tipperary, andthen nextserved it in Dub-
lin at a house where he was stated to have resided, and on
the solicitors who hail acted for him in the pr .ceelings
connected wi-h the Tipperary Bank. He (Mr. Fitzge-
rald) made this preliminary statement to enable the
house to form its judgment. He was not about to say
that it was his intention to resist the motion, -nor that
such was the intention of the Government. Let them
see if the motion would ho justified by the precedents
which had been cited. -The first of these precedents was
that established by Robinson's case. Now, in that case
there had been a select committee to inquire into the
charge, end the member bad been expelled, net for
fraud, but for contempt of the house in not having obeyed
an crder that he should attend in his place. Then theme
was the case of Walsh in the year ISt'. It appeared that
Walsh had been foui,d guilty of fraud by a jury, al.
thouge the judges afterwards decided that the fraud was
i:ot a fel my. Toe house had however resolved that Walsh
should be expelled on the ground that he had been
guilty of the fraud, arid that was undoubtedly a very
proper decision, for it was the duty of the house not to
allow any man to continue a member who had
been convicted of a fraueulemit transaction. In the
case of Mr. Hunt a commission yeas appointed, who
ri a to a repor, in which he wee charged with having mid-
aopropriated 83,0001. Ho had absented biensed as in the
present ea 0., and on the 4.13 of April a member of the
house brought the subject forward ; but on representa-
tion from the Speaker taat the notice had been too short
he .withdrew the motion, and it canoe again before the
house on the 231 May, 1810. By that time Mr. Hunt
bad fled, notwithetanding that the order of the house to
appear bad been served up n him. In his reply he ad-
mitted the charges to a certain extent, but denied
that the offence was so great as alleged. The question
hams fort-tally before the house on that occasion, and
Vie mernb-r was expelled. That was the only precedent
he could find, on which, without any inquiry, either
in the house or in a court of law,
.a resolution to expel
a member had been passed, and then it must be re-
c .11ected that it was upon hi; own admission of guilt.
There were mealy other cases, but he would not take
up the time of the house by referring to them. Be
ha -1 gone through the recants in the Irish Parlia-
ment fer the la•t century, and in no case hail he foiled
that the members charged with iniic .n Ilia had been ex-
pelled without previous inquiry: He hoped, theiefere,
that the advice given by Mr. Grenville in Willees's ease
wild be followed. 'roe conduct of. Mr. James Sadleir
was not impugned before the 4th of July. At all events,
that was the earliest period with respect to which the
house could take cognisance of his conduct ; and if it
were advisable to institute any inquiry, in his opinion it
would bo better to postpone it until after he had teen
c Lilts I upon to appear to answer a criminal charge—' hen,
if he did not appear, he would he outlawed. In conclu-
sion, the right hon. and learned gentleman hoped that no
;attempt would be made to give a political turn to the
case, observing that his only object was to advance the
purity and dignity of that house, which could not be
seeored unless it had a duo regard to. justice. •
:Mr. S. FITZGERALD agreed that this was a matter
with which the house could not act with too much caution

but aid net think that the learned Attorney-General had

stated to the house what the real facts of the cAse were.
I\-ir. James Sadieir's connection with the Tipperary
Joint-Stock Bluk had .b--m the subject of inquiry in
the highest court in Ireland, and the judge of that court
that a letter had been ,Aritten by the late I.lr.

Svnetr to ins brother,' pointipg out by what means one
of the most unparalleled frauds could be carried out.
They had it before thorn that that letter had boon found
iu the possession of Mr. James Saileir, and also that the
directions contained in the letter bad been fully carried

out by him.
Too ATTORNEY-GENERAL for IRELAND--

011, not
Mr. S. FITZGr'ERALD—At all events they bad the
fact that, in obedience to the directions contained in
that letter, Mr. James Sa'lleir put his name to a fraudu-
lent statement in respect to the position of the bank,
and also that a fraud of so gigantic a nature had been
perpetratkal that the whole of the English shareholders,
who in consequence of that fraudulent statement had
invested money in the bank, were released from their
liabilities. Those were the facts which had been laid on

the table of the house in the documents which were pro-
duced ; and he must say he was strongly of opinion that
they ought to take some steps to secure the honour and
reputation of the house. It must be recollected that it
would be impossible that any trial could take place be•
fore the Lent assizes, and therefore until the mouth of

March next Mr. James Sadleir would occupy the honour-
able position of a member of Parliament. He wished to
know ,%hether any proceedings of outlawry could be
t liken before that time ? Although it was very true that
until a trial and conviction had taken place the house
could not be put into formal possession of the facts of
this else, yet he thought that no reasonable man could
doubt—after what had been stated by a most upright
judge, who had fully investigated the facts of the case—
that a great fraud had been committed by Mr. Sadleir.
Lits hon. friend opposite (Mr. Wortley) had moved as
an amendment to the motion made by the hon. and
learned gentleman the member for Sheffield that the
papers should be printed. The effect of that would be
to get rid of the motion altogether. The papers were
very short, and hon. members had been placed in full
possession of the facts of the case, therefore he thought
there was no excuse for not coming to a decision upon

the main question.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was most anxious to
echo the advice given by his right hon. and learned
friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, that they ought
to proceed with the utmost deliberation in this case. He
believed that his hon. and learned friend the member for
Sheffield was animated with no other desire than to up-
hold the dignity and the honour of that house. But it
must be remembered that they were now exercising a
judicial function; they must take care, therefore, that
they did not act with precipitancy. The house must
thoroughly understand that if they adopte I the motion
of his learned friend they would establish a prece-
dent ; for there certainly had never yet been a case in
which the house had expelled an individual member,
since law and justice had prevailed, except upon previous
conviction or inquiry, where the accused had an oppor-
tunity of vindicating himself. As far as he (the Attor-
ney General) understood, Mr. Sadleir was not a party
to the proceedings before the Master of the Rolls, neither
had he had any opportunity of explaining or refuting
the charges which had been brought against him. He
(the Attorney General) did not pretend to assert that a
conviction was necessary to justify a proceeding of this
nature ; but, in his opinion, there ought to be some pre-
liminary inquiry by the house into the facts of the case.
It must be remembered that the judgment of the Master
of the Rolls had been appealed from, and even if it had
not, that judgment was not formally before the house.
He could not understand why it was necessary that they
should act hastily in this matter. It was quite clear that
within a few days Parliament would be prorogued.
The house therefore could not be offended by the pre-
sence of Mr. Sadleir, neither could his constituents re-
ceive any injury, because in the interval between the
prorogation and the meeting of Parliament they would
have no need of his services. In the meantime Mr.
Sadleir would be required to surrender and take his
trial. Upon that trial he would be either convicted or
acquitted. If he did not surrender the proceeding
of outlawry would take place, and it had been laid down
by the highest Parliamentary authorities that outlawry
upon a criminal proceeding would be sufficient to dis-
qualify any man from sitting in Parliament. By a post-
p mement, therefore, they would avoid the charge of pre-
cipitancy, and they would avoid creating a precedent
which might hereafter be converted into a political in-
strument. Taking all the circumstances, therefore, of the
case into consideration, he thought that the better course
of proceeding would be to postpone this motion until the
commencement of the next session.
Lord PALMERSTON thought that the circum-
stancee of the present case bad been so fully discussed
that the motion for printing the papers was unnecessary,
there being nothing in them of which the house had not
full cognisance already, and if carried the motion would
only involve further discussion. They were called upon
to protect the honour, purity, and dignity of the House
of Commons. No doubt, that was one of their most im-
portant duties ; but it must not be forgotten that one of
the greatest elements ofpurity was a strict adherence to
the principles of justice ; and, above all things, that they
should avoid greeting a precedent which might hereafter
operate injuriously. However clear in the opinion of
members the guilt of Mr. Sadleir might be, they ought
not to proceed to expel him until either a conviction had
taken place or an examination, through a committee or
otherwise, bad been made. (Hear.)
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY considered that the notice
which had been given of the present motion was too
short. On that single ground, therefore, he hoped the hon.
and learned gentleman would not press his motion.
Mr. HENLEY agreed with the noble lord opposite
that justice should be their first consideration, and even
supposing the case of Mr. Sadleir to be worse than they
imagined it, yet considering that the notice of this mo-
tion was given on Monday, it would not be fair play to
proceei upon Thine day to expel a member who might
reasonably be supposed to be absent from other amuses.
He was not the man to condemn a person unheard.
Mr. WORTLEY said he bad no objection to with-
draw his amendment if the hon. and learned gentleman
below hint would withdraw his motion. (After apause.)
Tres hon. and learned member for Sheffield makes no
sign. (Wl laugh.) Under those circumstances be could
only withdraw his amendment on the understanding that
the noble lord would move the previous question.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Sir, I suppose there will be no fur-
ther discussion on this matter. It strikes me from the
statement of the right hon. and learned gentleman tbo
Attorcey-Generel for Ireland that some political consi-
derations are mixed up with this question. (Cries of No,
no.) I understood him so, and I think it a most unhappy
thing that we cannot touch anything in regard to Ireland
unless political feelings are imported into the discussion.
I have done the best I could to support the honour and
dignity of the house, and if I find the majority against
me, of course I cannot help it. You talk about the dan-
ger of precedent. No man has pointed out what that
danger is. What is this case? A man commits a crime
dishonourable in itself. He is found by the Master of the
It ills guilty of a fraud of the most atrocious description,
and I ask, therefore, if such a man ought not to be ex-
pelled from the House of Commons I Tu talk about dan-
ger, and to affect a squeamishness of this sort, appears to
me to be most inconsistent with the maintenance of the
honour and dignity of the house. Sir, we stand dis-
honoured by the association with a pecc tnt member. I
have done what I could to free you from that associa-
tion, and the blame must therefore rest with those who
have prevente4 me.
Lord PALMERSTON said that he was actuated en•
tirely by the cansidera:ion of what was due to the hon.
our and dignity of the house, which at all events ought
to be influenced by the principles of justice.
Mr. MALINS said that under all the circumstances
of the case he should support the amendment, but only
upon the distinct understanding that the motion would
be brought forward at the earliest possible period next
session.

Mr. NE WDEGATE said he had not the slightest doubt
in his own mind of the moral turpitude of Mr. Sailleir,
aud, therefore, if the que.tion went to a division he
should vote with the hon. and learned member for Shef-
field; but he recommende 1 him not to divide the house,
because if he were in a minority it was quite clear that
the member for Tipperary would escape alt igether.
The amendment was then withdrawn, and the previous
question having been put, was carried without a division.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Sir, may Ibe allowed t tok whe-
ther, it in the interval of time between now and the next
session of Parliament Mr. Sadleir applies for the Chiltern
Hundreds the application would be refused ?
L ird PAL NIERS fON —Most undoubtedly.
msaors OF • LONDON AND DURIIANI RE-
TIREMENT BILL.

The house then went into committee upon this bill.
On clause 3, which provided that the sum of 4,5001.
a-year be granted to the Bishop of Durham during the
term of his natural life,
Mr. ROEBUCK moved that the sum be reduced to
3,0001., observing that by law the income of that right
rev, prelate was 8,000/. a-year, but that an arrangement
had been made by which he paid a certain SUM of money
to another person to perform theduties of the office, which
considerably reduced his income. He therefore thought
that one third of his income was a reasonable pension.
The (14ferelice in the income of a bishop living in the
country and in town diff;red, because it was supposed
the latter had more duty to perform. That might be a
reasonable proposition applied to an acting bishop, but
c nil(' have no reference at all to a retirlog bishop.
Bishops belonged to a class who professed to consider
poverty a virtue. He considere I that 3,0001. a-year was
a sufficient income for this etic.cessor of the apostles, and
entertaining that opinion lie sheuld certainly divide the
committee upon the question.
Lord PALMERSTON said the bishops had received
mote than 8,0001. a year. The bill wentupon the principle
of a retiring allowance proportioned to the amount of the
inc roe of the bishops and the sum, to be surrendered
to the common fund. Giving the successor the 8,0001.,
and the retiring allowance of 4.500/.7 to the present
bisliop, there would be a gain to the common fund.
Lord R. CECIL said it seemed to be implied that if
the bishop did not get 4,500/., be would retain the
whole 16,0001. But he hoped the bishop had not so
elephantine a hide--(hear, hear)--and would not stick
so closely to the revenue of his bishopric wiaile unable t
perforn. its duties. (Hear, hear.) The fact was, that
8,00(11. a-year was the sum fixed by law, and the ilishop
hF“; nt naged by an ingenious contrivance to g( t 16,0001,
and now claimed a retiring allowance on that basis.
(llear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY defended the bishop, and declared that
it was not by any "ingenious contrivance," but by a
legal arrangement, which he (Sir G. Grey) admitted to
j have been a bad one. (Hear, hear.).Being.theto in lawful
possession of the larger income ho was entitled to re-
tinn g allowance proportionate to it. Living in, his din.