The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-04 00:00:00

TILE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, JUNE 4, 1835.

disclaim any desire to throw unworthy accusations upon the
Clergy of the Establishment.---( Hear. )
Sir J. Y. BULLER vindicated the character of the Rev.
Gentleman, whom he knew to be a man not likely to adopt
harsh measures, while, on the contrary, Mr. Harris had acted
in the most vexatious manner; for he sent for the tithe
collector to take one cabbage on one day, and then for an-
other cabbage on another day, putting the cabbage he had se-
lected at the upper end of the field to make the collector walk
over it, and then threatened him with an action for trespass.
He thought this kind of conduct justified the Rev. Gentleman
in making an example of this man, for the sake of his own
peace.—( Hear.)
Mr. BARNARD was willing to make every allowance for
a Clergyman under such circumstances, but he could never
pass over any vexatious proceedings.
Mr. PATTEN, in answer to the observations of the Hon.
Member ( Mr. Crompton) said that the defendant had boasted that
he did not care about the expense, as he knew he could put the
clergyman to a great deal of expense before he could establish
his rights. That gentleman was not a person likely to adopt a
vexatious course, nor did he believe the great majority of his
parishioners would give him the least trouble ; but Mr. Harris,
from motives he could not tell, had on all occasions stirred
up an ill feeling towards that Rev. Gentleman. The decision
might be given to-morrow but for Mr. Harris, who was the
only obstacle, and had been so for four years.—(Hear.)
Mr. E. BULLER bore testimony to the general kind, and
amiable character of the Rev. Gentleman.
Mr. CROMPTON made a few observations in reply, and
the petition was then laid on the table.
CASE OF MR. CHILDS.

Mr. WIL S ONpresented a petition from about 200 Dissenters
of Watchdale, in Suffolk, praying the House to take into consi-
tion the case of Mr. Childs of Bungay. As the subject had
been so lately discussed, he would not renew the discussion ;
he must, however, say, that he could not approve of the con-
duct of Mr. Childs in refusing this rate, and whilst there was
a constitutional mode of obtaining redress of grievances, it
was better to obey the laws as they existed, than to express
dissatisfaction by a passive resistance to them. The present
case, however, was one of great hardship, and therefore jus-
tified the prayer of the petitioners to the House, to take it into
consideration. The petitioners also prayed for the speedy
extinction of Church Rates, a prayer in which he could not
concur.—Petition laid on the table.
VICTUALLERS' LICENCES.
Several petitions were presented by Mr. TANCRED,
from the licensed victuallers of Banbury and other places,
praying for a reduction of the duty on licences.
TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE.
Mr. PHILIP HOWARD presented a petition from the
letter-press printers of Carlisle, against the taxes on know
ledge.

amenable for it. Before Heaven he (Mr. C.) swore
that the only words he used to the Honourable Member
( Mr. Hume) were—" hold your tongue." This he was
able to prove by some of his Hon. Friends whom he did
not see then in their places. If that were the case, he thought
the House would agree with him that the Hon. Member (Mr.
Hume) was the first aggressor.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Charlton) admitted that he wrote the note in question.
But as that was a private dispute, carried on without the
walls of the House, he did not know what was the motion
before it. That was the first time he had ever taken such a
step, but he would rather lose his right hand, than retract
one word of what the note contained.
Mr. ROEBUCK and Mr. RICHARDS here rose. The cries for
the former were very general, and he proceeded to say that he
appeared there in the character of a witness—the parties
were naturally influenced by their excited feelings—he was
cool; he would speak as a witness, and he trusted the House
would give him credit for being an impartial one. He would
speak with all the solemnity of the Hon. Member who had just
sat down. He would, though it was not so, speak as if he were on
his oath, and before God. The Hon. Gentleman then with
great solemnity repeated the transaction as it occurred, which
did not, even in a syllable, differ from Mr. Hume's account of it.
Mr. ROCHE said he could so far corroborate the last
Speaker as to say, that last night, in giving him an account
of the matter, he mentioned the word " impertinent."—( Hear. )
Mr. RICHARDS' impression of what had passed was
somewhat different from that of the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Bath. The Hon. Member then stated the conversa-
tion as he heard it, which was exactly the same as that stated
by Mr. Roebuck, except, in the opinion of Mr Richards, Mr.
Hume was the first who used the words " impertinent fellow."
Mr. PLUMPTRE was immediately behind the Member
for Ludlow, and heard what passed, and his impression was
the same as that of Mr. Richards. The Member for Ludlow
did not make use of the term " impertinent fellow," but he
said to the Hon. Member for Middlesex, in a sharp and rather
overbearing tone, " Hold your tongue, Sir."
Lord STORMONT also heard what passed, and believed
that the Hon. Member for Middlesex was the first to use the
offensive term of " impudent " or " impertinent fellow."
Mr. HUME explained that he wrote a letter last night to
the Hon. Member, telling him he should bring the matter
before the House.
Mr. R. TREVOR did not hear the Hon. Member for
Ludlow make use of the words " impudent fellow" to the Hon.
Member for Middlesex.
Lord MAHON corroborated the statement of the last
speaker.
Mr. STRUTT heard the Hon. Member for Bath give the
same account of the affair last night, as he had now given.
Mr. WAKL EY, without making any remark upon the
character or tendency of the conversation, thought himself
bound, in justice to all parties, to state that when the
Hon. Member for Ludlow said, "If you will not hold
your tongue, I will make you," the Hon. Member for Middle-
sex replied, " You are either .an impudent or an impertinent
fellow."—( Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
Mr. MILES thought he had heard the word " impertinent"
bandied between both the Hon. Members.—( Laughter. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no question before the House it was called on to discuss.
As long as he had been in the House, the mere reading of evidence
from one side of the House and the other, on words spoken dur-
ing the period of noise and excitement, and of considerable irri-
tation between the two parties, however it might rest between
them, was not a question the House had to deal with. If there
was a question raised as to a breach of privilege, that was a
question they would take into consideration; but in the case be-
fore it, he was at a loss to know what good purpose could be an-
swered by a desultory discussion. He would not state a word
upon the conversation of last night further than this, that whilst
he must deplore that a conversation bad occurred be-
tween any Members, that affected the feelings of other
parties, it was not in respect of conversations occurring
in this House, that it became the duty of the House to inter-
fere, so long as the conversation was private. With respect
to any act done that interferes with the freedom of debate
or the privileges of the House, let that question be brought
forward and the House would entertain it. With the best
feelings to all parties, he could not but say, no person could
doubt that misconception had arisen. It was, however,
a satisfaction to observe that Hon. Members who concurred
and differed in politics had come forward to state, without
reference to politics, what they believed the facts to be.
—( Hear.) But all the Hon. Members who had spoken ap-
peared to have a great difference of recollection as to the
words which were actually spoken ; and it appeared also that
the Hon. Member for Middlesex and the Hon. Member for
Ludlow had a very different impression on their minds as to
what had occurred. Under these circumstances there could
be no doubt that language had passed between those Hon.
Members which was to be regretted ; but he doubted whether
the House could interfere in any vague recollections of what
had passed. If, indeed, there had been any appearance of an
intention of either of the parties to proceed to a breach of the
law or of the peace, then, indeed, the House might be called
upon to interpose its authority. But as there did not appear
to be the slightest apprehension of such an occurrence, he could
only regret that the House had been put, unnecessarily, to the
trouble of listening to the matter as far as it had gone.
Mr. O'BRIEN differed from the view taken by the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer. He thought that if an Hon. Member
said to another in the House " Hold your tongue," the House
had a right to interfere, and express its opinion on the subject.
Mr. O'C 0 NNE LL said the House had heard a variety of
conflicting statements, all exhibiting more or less discrepancy
of detail. In his opinion, however, the man who distinctly
said that he heard such and such words used, was a much
more competent witness upon the subject than those who
merely said that they did not hear them, and, moreover, that
they did not hear very distinctly what had been said on either
side. It was quite clear that under such circumstances as
these, a man could not be very certain as to the words alleged
not to have been said.—( Hear, hear.) Now the Hon. Mem-
ber for Bath had positively declared that he had heard dis-
tinctly the obnoxious words, " You are an impertinent fellow,"
used by the Hon. Member for Ludlow. The Hon. Member
for Finsbury heard the expression " We want no Republi-
cans" from the same Hon. Member. The Hon. Member
for Somerset said that he thought he recollected hearing the
words " Impertinent fellow " bandying about between the
Hon. Members for Middlesex and Ludlow. But let it be
recollected that the Hon. Member for Bath was nearer the
Hon. Member for Middlesex than the Hon. Member for
Somerset was. What was of most importance, however, was
that the Hon. Member for Ludlow had denied having used
the term " impertinent fellow," to the Hon. Member for Mid-
dlesex. Now this he (Mr. O'Connell) believed, according to
the strict code of honour, to amount to the strongest retracts-
tion of offensive words which it was possible to make. As
such it was the utmost apology which a gentleman and a man
•f honour had a right to expect. When a man denied having
used words (which, however, he might recollect to have used,
though at a time when he was not master of himself), those
words, according to his (Mr. O'Connell's) knowledge of the
rulos of honour in such cases, were bound to stand for nothing,
as if absolutely they had not been used at all. After this re-
tractation on the part of the Hen. Member for Ludlow, there-
fore, of the offensive words, " You are an impertinent fellow,"
he thought the Hon. Member for Middlesex was bound to
accept it as a sufficient apology, and in consideration of it,
to withdraw for his own part the obnoxious words which he
had applied to the Hon. Member for Ludlow. .He thought
the words " Hold your tongue" might very well be passed over.
—(Oh, oh.) Now, if upon this suggestion, the Hon. Mem-
ber for Middlesex would withdraw the words he had used,
then, he thought, the Hon. Member for Ludlow should recal
his letter, and so the affair would terminate amicably. He
really thought the House, after the discussion had proceeded
so far, could not allow the matter to rest in its present un-
settled state ; and if the parties could not be brought to ter-
minate their differences in some amicable manner, he (Mr.
O'Connell) should feel called upon to move that both the
Hon. Gentlemen should be taken into custody by the Sergeant
at Arms.—( Hear.)
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that he had been requested by
the Hon. Member for Middlesex to attend this evening to
state what he recollected hearing of this conversation which
took place iu his ( Sir R. Peel's) neixhbourhood in the House
last night. He recollected perfectly that the Hon. Member
for Middlesex rose for the purpose apparently of making some
explanation ; and he ( Sir Robert Peel) saw very plainly that
the Hon. Member rose labouring under feelings of great irri-
tation. Seeing this, he ( Sir R. Peel) interfered, and said to
both parties, " Don't go on, don't go on." He said this not
for the purpose of preventing explanation between the parties,
but because he apprehended that under the circumstances the
explanation which might take place would not be of a very
satisfactory kind. He was apprehensive, he confessed, that
some word or expression might escape from either of the Hon.
Members which in their cooler moments they might regret, and
therefore it was that he was anxious to prevent their carrying
the conversation further. With regard to what had ac-
tually passed, as far as he (Sir R. Peel) had heard it, he cer-
tainly did not hear the word " Republican" applied to the
Hon. Member for Middlesex by the Hon. Member for Ludlow.
—(Hear.) As to the words " Impertinent fellow," he did
hear them used by the Hon. Member for Middlesex, but not,
as he believed, addressed to the Hon. Member for Ludlow,
rather in speaking of him ; that is, the Hon. Member for
forb
hear.)
Middlesex,This offensive remark es-
Nulitddlesex said to the Hon. Member for Bath, " He's an im-
pertinentcaped the Hon.under the
impression that something still more exciting had been said to
Memberea r
ttributed to the Hon. Member for Ludlow ; but as
himself by the Hon. Member for Ludlow. The same expres-
sion was a
that Hon. Member had to all intents and purposes denied
fellow.''—(
having used it, it was as if it had never been uttered. Under
the circumstances, he really thought that in order to obliterate
all unpleasant feelings on the subject remaining on the minds
of the parties, the course proposed by the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin was a reasonable and just one.—( Hear.)
He could not conceive that any good could result from adopting
anyCo other course.—( Hear.)
lonel E V AN S said that he quite concurred in the recom-
mendation of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and
of the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. He
certainly could not concur, however, in the opinion expressed
by the Right Hon. Gentleman (the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer), that on mere technical grounds the House should get
rid of the discussion of such a question.--( Hear.) As the
case stood the disavowal on the part on the Hon. Member for
Ludlow of the words " You are an impertinent fellow," had
certainly done away with all offence that could possibly arise
out of them. But there were the words previously used by
the Hon. Member for Ludlow, of " Hold your tongue," with
respect to which he felt sure that, if the Hon. Member for
Ludlow would declare that he meant nothing offensive by
them, the Hon. Member for Middlesex would be prepared, in
return, to offer every satisfactory explanation of his part in the
'conversation.
Mr. CHARLTON said that he concurred in what had