The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-30 00:00:00

Tlit SUN, LONDON, TUESDAY, JUNE 30, 1835.

do it under most disadvantageous circumstances, he should post-
pone it till the 11th August. If the House was then sitting,
ha should certainly bring it forward. The Hon. Member also
postponed his motion with respect to the admission of Dis-
senters to the Universities till Tuesday the 4th of August.

they,-having full faith in his Majesty's Government, acquiesced
most cordially in that arrangement.
Mr. BAINES rose amidit loud cries of " Order, order."
Lord J. RUSSELL moved that the Hou!e resolve itself
into a Committee of Supply.
CATHOLIC OATH.
__

Sir R. INGLIS requested permission of the House to bring
under their notice a question which was before them last
Monday. They might remember that the discussion on
the Catholic oath had then been postponed till the next day. He
was present on the Tuesday, and he had not heard the ques-
tion put on that petition. He wished now to bring it under
the consideration of the House, because he was anxious
to stand right with respect to an attack that had
been made on himself. He wished it to be most dis-
tinctly understood that whatever personalities were indulged
in towards him, he would not be shaken from the path his duty
pointed out. He begged it to be understood he was no party to
the premature closing of the debate, and that it would not be
thought that he had shrunk from any attack either direct or
implied, or that he would ever be kept from stating his
opinions boldly and firmly, however be might be assailed with
personalities, come from what quarter they would.
Mr. O'CONNELL had confined himself to the charge
made against himself.
Sir R. INGLIS indulged in no personalities.
Mr. O'CONNELL—No personalities ! The charge
made against me was perjury.—(Loud and long-con-
tinued cheering.) What right had a person making
such a charge to complain of personalities ? He would
not again reply to any such charge. He would not again
condescend to state his opinion of the oath ; but when-
ever such a charge was brought forward, he would tell
the person making it—as he could not revile in such
hard language—he would tell him he was guilty of wilful
lying.—( Oh ! oh I Cheers, and cry of Chair.) Did the gentle-
men who exclaimed so think that the charge of perjury ought to
be met in any other way—(Cheers)—would they not meet such
a charge in the same way ? Would they condescend to bandy
words with the Honourable Member who could lower himself
to make such a charge? Feeling that no man in that House
was less liable to be guilty of that crime, he would not again
condescend to answer it.

Sir R. INGLIS.—The Hon. and Learned Member has
made a direct charge against me. I call upon you, Sir, (to the
Speaker) therefore, to protect the Members of this House.
—(Loud derisive cheers.) He did not understand that cheer,
and dared any Hon. Member who had done so to rise up and
own it.

Mr. O'CONNELL and Mr. RETIIVEN both rose and said, " I
did."—( Loud laughter. )
Sir R. INGLIS—The Hon. Gentleman has not even taken
a Parliamentary course, and put the case hypothetically. I
call upon you, Sir, therefore, to protect the liberties of this
House.

Mr. O'CONNELL—And I call upon you, Sir, to protect
Members of this Ilouse from a charge of perjury.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose, amidst loud cries of" Chair,
chair." After what had been said, he could not object to
hear the Chair, but he must object to Hon. Members using
such language.
The SPEAKER—This is a very unfortunate discussion to
have arisen. The words used by the-Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber were—" I state in answer that what has been said is false."
That appeared to him (the Speaker) too strong an expression,
even as it had been put, hypothetically. The use of such lan-
guage appeared to him very inconvenient and very undesirable,
in that House. It was by no means consistent with that free-
dom of debate which that House claimed, and which never
could be secure unless conducted withtemper and forbearance.
Mr. I3AINES was about to observe that he en-
tirely concurred in the ♦iew taken by the Honourable
Member for Boston as to what the wishes of the Dis-
senters were. He believed that they wished their claims
to stand over until the measure of Municipal Reform
had been disposed of, they being convinced that it would pro-
mote the redress of the grievances they complained of. The
Civil Registration Bill of the Noble Lord (Russell) would,
he (Mr. Baines) thought, meet the views of the Dissenters,
and be perfectly satisfactory to them.
IPSWICH ELECTION.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL, before moving the Order of the
day, begged to know from the Hon. and Learned Member
who had given notice of a motion on the subject, what was the
course intended to be pursued with respect to the persons con.
fined in Newgate, for a breach of the privileges of that House?
Mr. Serjeant JACKSON said he had a petition to present
from Mr. F. O'Malley, complaining of ill health, which had
for some time prevented his attending to his professional
duties, and which had increased very much since his confine-
ment. The Hon. and Learned Member proceeded to read
the petition at length, in which the petitioner expressed his
readiness to be examined at the bar of the House ; that he had
had nothing to do with the election, and was only profes-
sionally engaged in defending the return of the late Mem-
bers, and finally prayed to be called to the Bar, and
discharged.--( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Serjeant Jackson)
believed he was a very young man, who had offended more
through ignorance than anything else, and he was of a highly
respectable family in the sister country.
Mr. D. BROWNE supported the prayer of the petition,
and bore testimony to the respectability of the petitioner,
whose family resided in the county which he had the honour'
to represent. He thought, after having been fifteen days in.
prison, the petitioner had sufficiently expiated his offence.
Sir R. PEEL asked the Attorney-General if it was a tech-
nically legal offence cognizable in Courts of Law ?
Mr. RIGBY WA SON said the petitioner had not ex-
pressed his readiness to be examined at the Bar of that
Hooka.—[Mr. Sergeant Jackson—He has.].:-.That had not
been stated in the other petitions presented to the House.
He considered Mr. O'Malley infinitely more guilty than any
other of the individuals that had been taken into custody, with
the exception of Mr. Pilgrim. He considered the petition of
Mr. O'Malley a great aggravation of the charge, as the House
would find, on referring to the evidence, that Mr.
O'Malley repeatedly called upon Pilgrim, with a view
to induce him net to come forward before the Commit-
tee. He said in this petition, that he was ignorant
that he was committing a breach of the privileges of that
House, now the evidence showed th‘t Mr. O'Malley was per-
fectly cognisant of the crime he was committing. He hoped,
therefore, that the House would not consent to the motion.

Mr. BAR LO W HOY said that the Hon. Gentleman who
had just sat down could scarcely be considered as a party en-
tirely uninterested in the question before the House. The most
guilty man had been already allowed to escape, although
guilty in the first place of absconding, and secondly of bribery
and corruption. He had been advised to abscond by Mr. Jay,
who had never been brought before the Committee at all.
Dr. LUSHINGTON thought that the Hon. Member who
last addressed the House had shown himself to be entirely un-
acquainted with the circumstances of the case. How was it
that Mr. Jay could have been proceeded against by the Com-
mittee for any share which he had had in the matter? Pd-
grim had gone to Mr. Jay as to his professional adviser,
and it was .the duty of Mr. Jay, in that capacity, to pro-
tect his interests in the best manner possible. Mr. O'Mal-
ley hatt,aeted very differently; he had not, as some parties
had, committed the offence of absconding before the petition
was presented; but he had committed this grave offence, that
after the petition had been presented, when he had been for
some time acting as counsel for the sitting Members, and had
become acquainted with all the details of the case, he did, in
violation of all professional duty, cause persons to absent
themselves with the view of depriving the Committee of their
testimony, and thus defeating the ends of justice. A greater
infringement of the privileges of the House, and a more auda-
cious attempt to defeat the purposes of justice, never had been
perpetrated. Moreover, when that gentleman came before the
Committee how did he act? Did he proffer a full revelation
of all that he knew? On the contrary, whenever there had
been a question put to him, the answering which might have
operated injuriously to the interest of the party whose cause be
had espoused, he at once had protected himself by his privileges
as a counsel.

Mr. 'kat, UMPTRE had no wish to extenuate the offence
which Mr. O'Malley had committed, for he thought it one of a
very grave character. But considering the circle in which
this gentleman had been accustomed to move, and bearing in
mind that he had been visited with a very severe punishment
in being confined for some time within the walls of Ncwgate,
he would put it to the House whether they would by further
extending the term of his confinement cut him off entirely from
that course of life in which he had been trained up, and in
which he was desirous of continuing to more?
Mr. P. M. STEWART was anxious that some course
should be adopted by which the time of the House might not
be consumed in these proceedings. His Hon. and Learned
Friend (Dr. Lushington) had stated most accurately the pe-
culiar situation in which Mr. O'Malley stood. That individual
had acted for a month or six weeks as counsel for the sitting
Members—ho knew how the Committee bad been baffled in
their endeavours to procure evidence of importance—and yet
when they had reached, as it were, within arm's length of a
material witness, Mr. Pilgrim, who had then returned from
Calais, they found that Mr. O'Malley had taken him from nut
of their grasp—that, leaving the bar of the Committee, lie had
gone to meet Pilgrim in the suburbs of London, and had then
persuaded that person again to absent himself.
Mr. C. WYNN agreed fully that Mr. O'Malley bad been
guilty of an offence of a very aggravated nature, but thought
that some points had been urged too strongly against him.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did feel that the case was one of
the most important ever before the House, and not one merely
of personal interest to certain individuals. He agreed in the
opinion formerly expressed, that those parties who were guilty
of aiding and abetting others to abscond were far more culpa-
ble than those who had been guilty of absconding themselves.
(Hear.) He could not, indeed, conceive a more serious of-
fence against the privileges of Parliament than such a proceed-
ing. It was a grave offence to procure the election of any
Member of Parliament by means of bribery ; it was also a con-
siderable offence to abscond in order to avoid giving evidence
upon the subject of that bribery ; but it was an offence of a still
graver kind that persons should enter into a conspiracy and
league together for the purpose of keeping out of the way
those witnesses from whom the truth alone could be obtained
as to the practise of that corruption. If, in any one instance
the House allowed such a conspiracy to be successful, they
would debar themselves from all means of acquiring evidence
upon all similar cases ; they would make election corn-
mittees a mere nullity, and cause bribery to be more sue-
cessful than ever it had been : therefore it was that he
considered the present to be a case of more than ordinary
importance, and one in which it. behoved the House to
make a distinction between the treatment which they should
award to the parties implicated in it, and that which ought to
be awarded to those concerned in a case of a less momentous
kind. With respect to O'Malley, Sparrow, and Clipperton,
he thought that there was no just reason at present for open-
ing the gates of Newgate to them. On the contrary, if they
declared a temporary imprisonment. to be a sufficient punish-
ment for the offences which these individuals had committed,
( he knew not bow they could call upon the Courts of justice to

inflict a severe punishment upon labouring men, who were
earning ten or twelve shillings a week for the support of their
families, because they bad accepted a bribe of 201. or 301. in
order to increase their means of affording that support. If the
House ought to punish any parties at all, he believed that those
individuals were the persons upon whom the infliction ought to
fall. He agreed that. the cases of Bond and Cooke were
somewhat, though not materially, different from those of Pil-
grim and Dasent, which bad been decided the other night. It
was desirable to make a distinction between those parties who
had come forward to give evidence, and those who had ab-
sconded and not at any time given any. If the cases of these
individuals were to be brought forward some day this week,
and a motion made for their liberation, he did not think that it
would be necessary any further to detain them. With re-
ference to the charge of bribery, he hoped that his Honourable
Friend the Member for Derbyshire would soon introduce his
motion for an instruction to the Attorney-General to prose-
cute all parties who, in this case, had been implicated in it—
( Hear, hear.) The sooner such cases were got rid of by the
House, and sent into the Courts of law, the better ; bribery
was a legal offence, and could riot be better disposed of than
in being sent before the legal tribunals of the country. As to
cases such as that now before them, the House alone could
judge of them, and inflict punishment upon those who had
obstructed its justice. In conclusion, the Noble Lord said
that he could not concur in the motion before the House.
Mr. G ISBORNE said that it certainly was his intention
to persevere in his promised motion, and he believed that it
would be sufficient for him, instead of framing it to meet in-
dividual instances, to move that the Attorney-General should
be instructed to prosecute all parties who appeared to have
been guilty of bribery according to the Report of the Com-
mittee. He, therefore, should give notice of a motion to that
effect for to-morrow. As to the matter at present under con-
sideration, he would only state that his opinion completely ac-
corded with the view of the case taken by the Noble Lord.

Sir R. PE E L was understood to observe, that the Hon.
Gentleman had no necessity of giving notice, but might bring
on his motion instanter.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON begged to read the following
certificate on the subject of Mr. O'Malley's present state of
health :

" Newgate, June 29,1835.
" Mr. Bransby Cooper hereby certifies that Mr. P. F. O'Malley.
is not in a state of health to bear further confinement, without con-
siderable danger of permanent injury to his constitution.
" To the Honourable the House of Commons."

He (Mr. S. Jackson) would, therefore, submit to the House
that enough had been done to vindicate their authority, and
that they might properly accede to motion made.
The Gallery was then cleared for a division, but on its being
re-opened after a short time, we found that the motion had
been agreed to without a division.
The Sergeant-at-Arms was then ordered to bring in P.
O'Malley to the bar, but on its being ascertained that he was
not in attendance,

Lord J. RUSSELL moved that be be ordered to appear at
ac bar to-morrow.

The motion was agreed to.
Lord J. RUSSELL observed that, with respect to those
individuals mentioned in the Report, it was his wish that one
course should be adopted as regarded those who were said to
be implicated in practices of bribery, and another in the else
of 'Messrs. O'Malley, Clipperton, and Sparrow. He was
anxious to say a few words as to the mode of conducting the
public business on that night. He should move that the House
resolve itself into a Committee of Supply for the purpose of
giving the Hon. Member for Yarmouth an opportunity of
bringing forward his motion with respect to Lord Heytesbury.
If the debate on the question which he had agreed that the
Hon. Member for Yarmouth should introduce to the notice of
the House before it went into Committee on the Municipal
Corporation Bill, were over at n sufficiently early hour, he
should move that the consideration of the latter measure be
entered on. He was in hopes that he should be able to move
to-morrow, that the measure of Corporation Reform should
be the first question proceeded with. The Noble Lord con-
cluded by moving that the House resolve itself into a Com-
mittee of Supply.
Lord STORMONT put a question to Lord John Russell
which could not be heard.
Mr. R. WA SON rose amidst considerable noise and con-
fusion, to bring forward the motion of which he had given
notice relative to the magistrates of Norwich, Messrs. Bignold
and Booth, for a breach of the privileges of the House. He
should commence by calling their attention to the Report of
the Committee upon the conduct of those gentlemen. It was
in these terms—" That the conduct of the magistrates, Samuel
Bignold and E. T. Booth, Esqrs., before whom the said John
Pilgrim was charged, appears to this Committee to be abreach
of the privileges of this House."—( Hear.) The Hon. Member
read long extracts from the evidence given before the Com-
mittee, arid referred Particularly to pages 506, 507, and 508,
in order to prove that the Chairman's warrant, issued for
the purpose of bringing up Mr. Pilgrim to attend the Com-
mittee of the House had not been attended to in the manner
which its importance called for. Mr. Bignold was then ex-
amined before the Committee on this point : " We understand
you and Mr. Booth were the two Magistrates before whom a
charge against Mr. Pilgrim was brought last week?—We
were. How long did that charge continue ; did it go on from
day to day until last Sunday ?—lt did. Did you hear in the
course of it of a Speaker's warrant, or a Chairman's warrant ?
—I did. Had you at any time during it a rule nisi served
against you?--I had. For a habeas corpus from the King's
Bench ?—Yes. To bring him up as a witness ?—I had.
When was he first brought before you ?—On the 2Sth of May.
When was he last before you?-0n the 31st of May. What,
then, was the termination of the proceedings, so far as you
know or were concerned?—lt was communicated to Pilgrim
that the Magistrates considered, so far as they had to do with
him, the case was sufficiently proved to put him en his trial,
but we were unable to determine on his application for bail, in
consequence of being served with the rule from the Court of
King's Bench, which we should put in a return to on the fol-
lowing Wednesday, the 3d June, and whereon we presumed
the habeas would issue to take him to London. There had
been an application to admit him to bail then, and you said you
could not agree to that application in consequence of having
received this rule from the Court of King's Bench, to which
you should put in a return to show cause on the following
Wednesday ?—Yes. You first heard of the Chairman's
warrant at five o'clock on the Thursday evening ?—I did. Arc
you a professional man ?—I am not. Is Mr. Booth?
He is not. Who is the adviser of the Magistrates ? Mr.
Day, the sword-bearer ;he acts as justice's clerk. Is he a
professional man ? He is an attorney. Did you not inquire
of Mr. Day what ought to be done on a Chairman's warrant
coming ?—I had not heard of the Chairman's warrant. You
heard of it at five o'clock on Thursday evening ?—Allow me
to give an answer ; on the Thursday morning I met Mr. Keith
at the sword-bearer's office, and he made his deposition. I
am not asking about that ; I am asking about your having
heard at five o'clock that there was a Chairman's warrant out ;
what did you de in that extraordinary state, of affairs : what
advice did you take ?—I took no advice. NO advice at all ?
No. Was Mr. Day present ?—I sent for him. Did you find
him ?—Yes. Although you found him you did not take any
advice on what was to be done ?—No ; I acted on my own
discretion as to what I thought was the proper course." The
Honourable Member went on to prove, from various parts of
the evidence, that the delay which took place in the disposal
of the charge of felony which was preferred against Mr. Pil-
grim, prevented his appearing before the Committee at a pro-
per time in obedience to the summons of the Chairman. He
should next advert to the change in the custody of Pilgrim
which had taken place under the authority of the magistrates.
The evidence on this ground of complaint against the magis-
trates was as follows:

" Have the kindness to inform me in whose custody Pilgrim
was when he was first taken up ?—He was taken up by two
officers of the name of Kemp, and brought to my house.
" Was he not in custody of a man of the name of Barnes?
—He was, at the particular request of Isis solicitor, transfer-
red on the first evening from the custody of the two Kemps
to Barnes.

" How long did he remain in Barnes's custody ?—On Thurs-
day -night, throughout Friday, and until about between three
and four o'clock on the Saturday. Then there was a change
in his custody.

" Why was the change of custody ?—I am very happy to
be able to answer that inquiry. Barnes came to me in the
justice's room, and produced to me a document which had
been just placed in his bands, he said, by a stranger; on pe-
rusing it, I found it to bear the signature of the Hon. Chair-
man, and I said I would speak to him about it very shortly.
What o'clock ?—About four o'clock on Saturday. I sent
for the town-clerk, and requested him to advise us on the serving
of a document on the chief constable, the import of which we
wished him to consider. The chief constable was requested
to show it to him, and he said, Oh, sir, the gentleman (I
know not who it is) who placed it in my hands, has withdrawn
it :' I thought it rather singular, and he said, I believe I
am not to be served again.' I said, Can you look around;
is he in the room ?' He found him out, and brought him to
me. I said, I wish you would show the town-clerk the
paper you have served on the constable, and have withdrawn.'
He did show it him and myself, and Mr. Booth considered the
circumstances very remarkable ; and on going to dinner at five
?'clock, we determined to re-place the prisoner for that hour
in the custody of the two officers who had first apprehended
him—the two Kemps.
" You withdrew him from the custody of Barnes because
the Chairman's warrant ' had been served on him ?—The
circumstance of the Chairman's warrant being served and
withdrawn, there appeared some mystery.
" From the circumstance of the Chairman's warrant being
served on Barnes, which would naturally enough have in-
duced Barnes to bring Pilgrim up here, why should you
transfer him ; was it to prevent his being brought up here ?
The circumstance of its being withdrawn created a mystery
on the subject ; we considered ourselves responsible for the
custody of the prisoner.
" Did that mystery make it necessary you should change
the custody of the prisoner ?—The room was full of auditors,
and we felt it necessary to take every care that the prisoner
should not be taken away.
" Then you and the other magistrate took Pilgrim from the
custody of Barnes to prevent his coming here ?—I do not say
that.

" I understood you to say, correct me if I am wrong, that
the Chairman's warrant being served on Barnes, you not
knowing any thing about it, conceiving yourself answerable
for the roan, and to prevent Barnes putting that warrant into
execution, you transferred him to the custody of the two
Kemps ?—ln order, certainly, to consider the subject, we
placed him in custody of the two Kemps, that the prisoner
might not be—
" Might not be brought up here by Barnes ?—Might not be
brought away from us.
" Did you conceive the Chairman's warrant was worth
► nothing at all ?---T had censiderahl,. doubt whether the Chair-