The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-23 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

ROME CIRCUIT.—CHELSFORD, TUESDAY.
The Commission of Assize was opened here yesterday, and
the Learned Judges, Sir JAMES ALLAN PARK and Mr. Justice
LITTLEDALE, presided in their respective Courts this morning,
the former presiding in the Crown, Court and the latter on the
Civil side. The business here is not so heavy as it usually is.
The names of thirty-three prisoners are down in the calendar
for trial. Amongst the offences is one case of arson, one of
murder, two of rape, and several cases of burglary. Ten
causes are entered in the cause list.

CROWN COURT.
William Patient, aged twenty-two, labourer, was indicted
for breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Samuel
Tuttleby, at Great Easton, and stealing two sovereigns, his
property, and four sovereigns, and Gs. 6d., the property of
John Tuttleby.

The Jury returned a verdict of Guilty, and the Learned
Judge sentenced him to be imprisoned for 18 months, and kept
to hard labour.
Robert Rance, alias James Starling, aged twenty-seven,
labourer, was indicted for a rape upon Sarah Everett, a
widow, at Stock, on the 13th of April last. The prosecutrix
could not positively identify the prisoner, and the Jury there-
fore acquitted him.
William Taylor, aged thirty-nine, was also acquitted of an
assault with intent, &c., on Martha Sampson.

NORTHERN CIRCUIT :-.—Your, TUESDAY.
George Lee, John Smith, and John Pepper, were charged
with robbing a man of the name of John Norford of a silver
watch, one sovereign, and some copper, on the night of the
27th of June.

The Jury found the prisoners Guilty.
His Lonosun' should recommend his Majesty to spare
their lives, but it would only be on condition of their being
sent out of the country.
Titus Baher was Ofarged with firing 41 loaded pistol at a
man of the name of John Bennet, with intent to do him
some grievous bodily harm.
The Jury found the prisoner Guilty of shooting with intent
to do some bodily harm.
The Learned JUDOS sentenced him to be transported for life.

TIIACKREY V. BINNS.
This was an action for an assault of a very singular nature.
The plaintiff, Miss Francis Thackroy, is an unmarried Lady,
living at Harrogate, somewhat advanced in years, and dis-
tinguished as being, not a blue stocking, but a Blue. The
defendant, Mr. Binns, is the keeper of a respectable lodging_
house in the same place, and a decided Yellow. On the 12th
May, the most exciting period of the late contested election
for the West Riding, those two partisans met next the wells
at Lower Harrogate, when the defendant commenced hostili-
ties by caging out " Yellow." The Lady instantly rejoined,
" I am Blue to the heart ;" on which the defendant placed
his hand on the lower part of her dress, and made use of ex-
pressions too indelicate for publication.
The Jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 40s.

PRICE 7D.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

ROUSE OF LORDS, JuLr 22.
The VICE CHANCELLOR took his •at on the Woolsack at
five

Lord it AVE N S WORT presented a petition from York-
shire, against the Corporation Reform Bill.
A Message from the Commons brought up several private
Bills.

Lord DUNCANNON laid upon the table the protest of
Mr. Hogg, one of the Corporation Commissioners, against the
Report of the Commissioners.

Lord SEG RAVE presented a petition from the Freemen
of Gloucester, against the disfranchisement clause in the Cor-
poration Bill.

Several petitions against the Corporati.m Reform Bill were
presented.

MERCHANT SEAMEN'S BILL •
The House went into Committee on the Mere'ant Seamen's
Bill.—The Report was ordered to be received to-morrow.
Several private Bills were reported.
Earl SELKIRK then presented several petitions in sup-
port of the Church of Scotland,
The House then adjourned at twenty minutes to six o'clock.

110 USE OF COMMONS, JULY 22.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at five minutes to four o'clock.
Captain GORDON presented a petition from Aberdeen in
favour of the Bill now before the House for the Registration
of Sasines. Also petitions from other places in Scotland, the
purport of whit•h the Hon. Member did not state.
UNIVERSITY OF LONDON.
Mr. TOOKE gave notice that on Thursday week he should
call the attention of the House to the Address voted to his
Majesty on the 28th March last, relative to the granting of a
Charter to the University of London, and his Majesty's an-
swer thereto.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH..
Sir ANDREW AGNEW presented about a dozen Peti-
tions from Sussex, Derby, and various parts of the country,
praying for some legislative enactment for the better Observ-
ance of the Sabbath. The Hon. Baronet gave notice that
early next Session he should again have great satisfaction in
moving for leave to bring in a Bill for the better Observa:ce
of the Lord's Day, and for the protection of all classc:,, of his
Majesty's subjects in the observance of their relig ;"...fitis duties
Mr. POTTER begged to observe that rnl„.,- ° f these I,,ti-
.
e
tions had very few signatures, and it %v evident they did not
speak the sense of the parishes fr:,in which they professed to
come.
Sir A. AGNEW
ha'4.-neen assured by the respectable gen-
tlemen by whom tb.:,l-
had been forwarded to him for presenta-
tint), that the" were sinned by all classes—high and low.
Mr. POTTER—Then the parishes must contain a very
limited population.
COURT OF ADMIRALTY, (IRELAND.)
Mr. EMNIERSON TENNANT had a most important
petition to present from the Chamber of Commerce of Bel-
, fast, relative to the improper detention of a Danish vessel, and
complaining of the proceedings of the Court of Admiralty in
Ireland. A similar petition had been presented a short time
since by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin.
The Hon. Member entered into the details of the case, which
were the same as detailed by Mr. O'Connell on the former oc-
casion. The vessel having got upon the shore, a per-
son forced himself on board, in order, as he said, to
render assistance—the only thing he did was to cut the
hawser, which did more damage than had been done before.
For his services, he claimed salvage to the amount of 1401.
That demand was resisted, and the ship was dotained
for upwards of a month, at an expense of 151. per day,
when the Court of Admiralty decided that the party
claiming had right to no more than was paid into Court.
That was an infamous proceeding, considering the circum-
stances the vessel was driven in, and if no other per Son early
in the next Session took up the matter for the amendment of
the proceedings in the Court of Admiralty in Ireland, he
would bring in a Bill upon the subject.
Mr. CAWFORD and Mr. RUTHVEN supported the
prayer of the petition, and trusted the Hon. Member would
persist in his intention.
ECCLESIASTICAL COURTS' BILL.
Mr. VERNON presented a petition from the Proctors of
the Ecclesiastical Court of York, complaining of the Attorney-
General's Ecclesiastical Courts' Bill. He had the honour of
being a Judge of that Court—(Hear)—and he could assure
the House it was no sinecure, and whatever he felt to be his
incapacity for the situation, such was not the feeling of the
county of York and the northern counties, all of which would
violently oppose the Bill.

_
TITHES.
Mr. DOBBIN presented a petition from John Huson,
Esq., a most respectable gentleman, resident in the county of
Durham, complaining of the very unjust charge of tithe made
upon his lands. The land was abbey-land, and had not been
subjected to tithes for one hundred years ; but, under the late
compulsory Tithe Act, the Commissioners set it down at the
rate of 701., reducing the value of the land full 1,0001. The
Hon. Member also presented a petition to the same effect, from
some other landholders in the county of Durham.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD bore testimony to the re-
spectability of the petitioners, and supported their prayer.
ACCOUNTANT'S OFFICE.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, moved for certain Re-
turns connected with this office, which were ordered, and im-
mediately afterwards were brought up and laid on the table.
Sir R. INGLIS presented two petitions against the con-
templated Irish Church Bill.

Mr. BROCKLE HURST presented a petition from the
Licensed Victuallers of Macclesfield, complaining of the pre-
sent rate of duty upon licenses. -
Col. JONES presented a petition against the claims of Ba-
ron de Bode, from a place the name of which we did not hear.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition from 1,163
inhabitants of a parish in Mayo, in favour of the contemplated
Bill for the regulation of the Irish Established Church, and
praying for the total abolition of tithes.
IPSWICH ELECTION.
Mr. WYNN brought up the Report of the Ipswich Election
Committee, which was as follows:

" 1. That it appears to the Committee that Thomas Moore Keith
aided' and abetted the procuring and continuit, the absence of
John Pilgrim, to prevent his giving evidence on the petition against
the Ipswich election, and that lie used the charge of embezzlement
as a means of inducing Pilgrim to remain in concealment for the
same purpose.
" 2. That on Pilgrim's return to Norwich, an information was
laid against him for embezzlement, which had the effect of delaying
obedience to the Chairman's summons, and his attendance before
the Committee on the Ipswich election.
"3. That it does not appear to the Committee, from the evidence
before them, that there is any proof that these prosecutions were
taken for the purpose of procuring such delay.
" 4. That it does not appear to the Committee, from the evi-
dence before them, that any charge is proved against Joseph Sewell,
John Blake, or John Joseph Blake."
Mr. HUME believed the invariable rule to be that when-
ever a party was reported against in this manner he should be
ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. WYNN thought the rule was not quite so clear as the
Hon. Member thought. In the case of the Magistrates who
were reported against by the former Committee, they were not
ordered into custody. The House would not take that course
before reading over the evidence, and judging for themselves.
Mr. WA SON.—The Right Hon. Baronet had made a
mistake in the allusion to the former case. All the parties
reported against specifically, were instantly ordered into cus-
tody. The case of the Magistrates was different, as they were
only reported to have been guilty of a breach of the privileges
of the House, without its being stated what the breach was.
Mr. HUME considered that the Committee had been ap-
pointed in order to save the time of the House. He thought
the duty of the House was clear, and he would move that
Mr. Keith, the gentleman reported against, be taken into
custody by the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Sir IL INGLIS asked whether the Hon. Gentleman had
given notice of this motion.

Mr. HUME did not think that any notice was necessary in
a motion of this nature.

Mr. SINCLAIR thought that the time of the House ought
not to be occupied in examining witnesses. He thought that
the matter had been referred to a Committee for that purpose.
Mr. WILKS—The Committee had gone beyond that. It
was not a mere reference to examine witnesses—the Com-
mittec were empowered to form an opinion, and it was
necessary that that opinion, under such circumstances,
should appear, for it was to no purpose that the Committee
should simply come to a decision unless, after distinctly giving
their opinion, that House was to act upon it.
Sir J. WROTTE SLE Y suggested, that as many mem.
hers had entered the House since. the Report had been read,
it should be read again.
The Report having been read accordingly,
Mr. WYNN said, when the proposal for the appointment
of the Committee was made, there was a considerable differ-
ence of opinion in that house upon it, and he appre-
hended that when the Committee was appointed, the
great object was to save the time of the House, and to
save them from the inconvenience of examining witnesses
at the bar of the House. While some Members were
coming,_ and others had only heard one part, and others allotber
part, the same questions were put over and uer again, an-'
it was the least conducive to iwtitto of any moil-
ceedincr. If Ow mero opinion of a re•-• of pro
- -
..
Plo W... jority of a -Com-
itt aS to be conclusive,
them to report the n was the use of directing
uence to th at Houe ?—Hear, ear.) Why lay the Minutes of Evidence before the (Hose, h
if the
House was bOtllld to submit entirely to the discretion of the
C°111:ii;ttoo a Tho question was, whether a witness had
Prgvarleated or absconded, and he wished before they came to
a decision, the evidence taken before the Committee should
be laid before the House, and then they would be able to judge
what was the real meaning of the words " aiding or abetting."
These words admitted of very different constructions, and it
was only fitting that the House should know the case before
they fixed the punishment. He only wished that the House
should have an opportunity of reading the evidence before
they determined upon it.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Whatever
might be the decision of that House—whether it would
be different from that come to by the Committee or lot,