The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-16 00:00:00

TAXES ON KNOWLEDGE.

The HONOURABLZ MEMBER then presented a petition
from the Mechanics' Institution of Greenock—from the
operative stone-masons of Greenock—the operative blacksmiths
and others, praying for the repeal of the taxes on news-
papers. They stated, that the law would not be so
often transgressed, but for the ignorance in which the
people were kept. They further stated, that they, in
their humble station, were willing to be taxed to the same
extent in any other way, so that these taxes were repealed.—
( Cheers.) Also, one from the same parties, in favour of the
Bill introduced by tho Honourable Member for Sheffield,
for the building of halls for public instruction in the
various towns of the kingdom—(hear) ; and one from the
Unitarians of Greenock, against any grant of money
for the further endowment of churches in Scotland ;
These petitioners stated three very singular facts. They
said Greenock was divided into five parishes, and yet there
was but one parish school in the whole town—( Hear, hear)—
that the minister of one of the parishes only was paid
by endowment, the others being paid from other funds, and
that that clergyman of the largest endowment of any in Scot-
land, having in fact as much as would decently endow three
churches.

TITHES (IRELAND.)
Sir R. BATE SON presented a petition from the Lord-
Lieutenant, and a large body of the landed proprietors of the
county of Londonderry, on the subject of tithes. He regret-
ted that he could not see on the opposite benches any Member
of his Majesty's Government connected with Ireland; he wouldbe
satisfied if he could only see the Hon. and Learned Member
for Dublin, who he believed was one of the most influential of
the Irish Ministers.—(Hear, and a laugh.) He saw only
some of the the followers of the Hon. and Learned Member—

Mr. O'DWYER rose to order. He complained of the
word " followers" being applied to Members of that House.
The SPEAKER made a few observations, which were
quite inaudible.
Sir R. BATE SON did not think the word so very objec-
tionable. He had heard the word " tail " mentioned in that
House with impunity, over and over again. And he (Sir R.
Bateson) had selected the most harmless word he could use,
without meaning any personal offence. But, as it appeared to
offend the sensitive feelings of the Hon. Member for Drogheda,
he should not use it again. He had given notice of this peti-
tion, and regretted that none of his Majesty's Ministers were
present. The petitioners stated, that after the Tithe Bill of
1832, they had entered into a compact with their tenants to
pay the tithes for them, some of the landlords had not done
so, and as it was understood that the balance of the million
fund would be applied to the payment of arrears, which would
be nothing less than a bounty in agitation, it was hoped that
if any portion of the arrears of tithes for 1834 were paid,
those who had secured the quiet and tranquillity would have
the benefit of it. The petitioners prayed that in any Bill
which might be introduced on the subject of tithes, their case
would be taken into consideration, and even-handed justice be
thus dispensed to all classes of his Majesty's subjects. Many
of these petitioners had paid the tithes of the year 1834, and
they were deserving of the consideration of the Legislature.
Mr. O'DWYER did not see any thing in the• petition to
render it necessary for the Hon. Member to use such abusive
language as he had thought proper to indulge in. He had
never heard such language in that House. He was one of the
Members of that House who supported the Honourable and
Learned Member for Dublin. He would say that he
did so as strongly, as zealously, and as independently
as any other Honourable Member in that House. The
Hon. Member bad stated that the Government was under

the tutelage of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin.
The policy of this statement was apparent; it was intended
to deter the Government from doing justice, or from introduc-
ing any measure in which the Learned Member for Dublin
should concur. All that he (Mr. O'Connell) and those who
acted with him required was, that justice should be done to
their country, and he trusted that the present Govern-
ment had virtue sufficient to resist those insinuations
whist' were intended to mislead and deceive them.
Sir R. B ATE SON explained. He had not intended any
offence. He considered that it was rather complimentary to
the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin to possess such
talent and ability as to enable him to sway the Government.
Such a statement had been frequently made, and why such
sensitive delicacy should now be felt he could not understand.
Lord MORPETH regretted that the Hon. Bart. did not
inform him that he intended to bring forward this petition, or
otherwise he should have felt it his duty to attend—at the
same time he would only then state that he would take an
opportunity of bringing forward the Irish Tithe Bill, to refer
to the matter of this petition.
Mr. SHAW did not think that his Hon. Friend, Sir R.
Bateson, deserved the censure of the Hon. and Learned
Member for Drogheda.—( Hear.) With respect to what had
fallen from that Honourable and Learned Member, viz.,
that they who called themselves the friends of the Church
were the means of throwing out a Bill which would
have done justice to the Clergy of Ireland—( Hear, hear)
the real fact was, that they had supported the Bill
brought forward by the then Honourable Secretary for Ire-
land (Lord Hafherton); but when that Bill was changed—
when it was totally altered (he would not say why, or under
whose influence), they had felt it their duty to oppose it.
Lord MORPETH, in answer to a question from the Hon.
and Learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Shaw),
said he would bring forward his motion respecting Irish
Tithes on the 26th of June ; any further information respect-
ing it he could not give.—(Loud cheers from the Ministerial
side of the House.)
Mr. SHEIL was willing to make allowance for the
Honourable Baronet, but there were others for whom
the same plea did not exist, and for whom, therefore,
the same allowance could not be made. He (Mr. Shell)
believed that the expressions used by the Honourable
Baronet were not intended in the slightest degree to give
offence to any Honourable Member of that House—it was
merely a specimen of the high power of sarcasm for which
the Hon. Bart. was celebrated.—( Great laughter.)
IPSWICH ELECTION.

The SPEAKER called upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to
bring the persons in his custody to the bar of the House.
Sir G. CLERK presented petitions from John Pilgrim,
Arthur Bott Cooke, and Robert Merchant Clamp, three of the
parties in custody, admitting the truth of the charge against
them, expressing their regret, and pleading ignorance of being
guilty, or of having any intention to commit any breach of the
privileges of the House.
An HON. MEMBER bore testimony to the respectability of
Mr. Clamp, one of the petitioners.
Mr. Sergeant JACK SON presented a petition from Peter
Frederick O'Malley, Esq., in which he stated that he
had no connection with the Ipswich election, until three or
four days before the Committee was appointed, when he was
requested to act as Counsel. He had had only one inter-
view with Pilgrim, who informed him that he came from
Uxbridge, to consult him upon some business,-(Hear)—
and that the conversation which passed between them had
reference only to a matter between himself and his
employer, and that he did not either directly or in-
directly, advise this man to abscond, nor had he
any idea of being a party to any breach of privilege.
The petitioner further stated that he was in a very delicate
state of health, being unable to practice at the bar, except at
long intervals, and upon these grounds he threw himself upon
the clemency of the House.
On a petition being presented by an HON. MEMBER from
Joseph Sparrow, solicitor,
Mr. GISBORNE objected to these petitions being read
at length. The House could not act upon them until they
were printed, as Hon. Members had neither heard the obser-
vations of those Honourable Members by whom they were
presented, nor had they heard the petitions when read,
by the Clerk.—( Cries of " Hear," and a laugh.) It was only
taking up the time of the House to read any more of these pe-
titions, as he was sure none of the Hon. Members below him
had heard one word of the petitions.
Mr. C. W. YNN would have agreed in the observation
of the Honourable Member, if those individuals had not
been in custody, and that their presentation was to be
followed by a motion either for their remaining in custody
or for their-being discharged.—( Hear, hear.) But the House
was sitting there in a judicial capacity, and as they were to
determine the guilt or innocence of those in custody, it
would not be correct to decide that these petitions should
not be heard. If the Hon. Member had not heard the
petitions, it was a good reason why they should be read again.
He thought that the strictest order-and silence should be en-
forced while the petitions were reading.
After some time had elapsed, during which there were loud
cries of " Bar," for the purpose of compelling the knot of
Members there assembled to take their seats, the petition of
Joseph Sparrow, solicitor of Ipswich, was read at length by
the Clerk.

Another petition from John B. Dasent was then presented,
which concluded by praying the House " to relieve him from
his present most unpleasant position."—( Laughter.)
Mr. R. CAMPBELL said that he had received a letter
from the petitioner, stating that he had used terms that might
tend to implicate other parties, namely, that he had acted
under the guidance of Mr. Kelly.—( Hear.) Such, he
stated was not the fact, and he ( Mr. C.) was bound to believe
his assertion. He thought that the petitioner had acted in a
strictly honourable and chivalrous manner, although, peahaps,
with imprudence. The petitioner was now to be brought before
the House, not for any bribery that he had committed
but for absenting himself from the Speaker's warrant ;
he had now, however, come forward, and having done
so he (Mr. C.) thought that the petitioner was entitled
to more lenient treatment than any of the other persons who
had been summoned to appear at the bar of that House. He
trusted, therefore, the House would summon him to the bar,
and, as he had already been incarcerated, would reprimand and
discharge him.
Sir H. LI ARDING E wished to know from the Hon.
Member who had just sat down, whether it did not appear
in evidence before the Committee, that the petitioner declared
that Mr. Kelly had no knowledge of any bribery.
Mr. CAMPBELL said that the petitioner did state that
although he had been found guilty of bribery, it was without
the knowledge of Mr. Kelly.
Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition from Mr.
John Clipperton, sulicitur, declaring that he bad acted en-
tirely through an error in judgment, and not from any dis-
respect towards the Hon. House.
Mr. GISBORNE said, as the seven individuals whom the

. - -
House ordered to be taken into consideration on Friday last
had been apprehended by the Sergeant-at-Arms, it became
his duty to proceed to call on the House to dispose of their
cases. He had stated that the House could asstxme but
one course—it must therefore either act upon the report
of the Committee, and consider the parties to be guilty, of they
must be called to the Bar of the House, and a regular trial ,'rust
be gone through, to establish their guilt. From the ”ar
1796 to the present time, only two cases occurred in which
the parties were brought to the bar for the purposes of an
enquiry ; but in all the other cases the reports of the respec-
tive Committees were acted upon. He mulct briefly state to
the House the precedents on both sides of the question.
Those in support of his opinion, namely, that the ps.rties in the
present case should be considered in the light of guilt; parties,
and as such punished by the House without further trial, were
the cases of Tregony (in 1813), Penzance, Grantham, Pen-
ryn, Great Grimsby, St. Ives, Sudbury, Maidstone, Middlesex,
'Wooten Bassett, and Weymouth. In all the cases the com-
mittee having reported that certain parties had, either bjv ab-
sconding from servance of the Speaker's warrant or by pre va-
r;cation, been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House,
they were ordered to be taken into custody of the Sergeant-at-
Arms ; and, upon the House being informed that such order
had been executed, at once, even without being brought to the
bar, committed to Newgate. The only cases in exception to
this course were those of Southwark, in 1796, and Dunferm-
line, in 1802. In these cases the parties were brought to the
bar on beink taken into custody, and then sent to New gate.
Such being the nature of the precedents, the Hon. Member
proceeded to say it was his intention, in accordance with that
course which the majority favoured, to tuove that all the par-
ties now in custody be forthwith committed to Newgate.•—
( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member concluded by moving,
" That John Bond, having absconded to avoid being served
with the Speaker's warrant, be sent to Newgate."
The SPEAKER intimated that it would be necessary
first to declare the party guilty of a breach of privilk`ge, and
suggested to the Hon. Member to alter his motion accord-
ingly.
Mr. GI SB ORNE complied with the suggestion, and 20'
cordingly moved, " That John Bond, having absconded to
avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant, be deemet.‘
guilty of breach of privilege."

The question having been put.
Mr. C W. WYNN thought there could not be a dissen-
tient voice in the House as to the fact that a high contempt of
its authority, and one which it could not pardon, had been
committed by the parties in custody. The question, however,
in the present instance, was, in what way ought the House to
be satisfied that a contempt of its authority bad been com-
mitted ? In his opinion the report of the Select Committee
was not the evidence on which the House in such a case could
act, inasmuch as it did not put the House in possession of the
precise amount of guilt incurred by the party. In a case of pre-
varication it was obvious the House could not act upon the
mere report of the Committee ; and, in his opinion, it was
equally precluded from doing so in a case of absconding.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) The object of the present motion, it
should be recollected, was not to bring a recusant party
before a Committee—it was to punish him for not attend-
ing upon the occasion of a trial, not pending, but de-
termined. This he thought a material difference ; so
much so, is fact, that it induced him to desire to have the evi-
dence before him, as well in aggravation as in extenuation,
before he was called upon for a decision. As far as the pre-
liminary resolution—namely, that which designated the parties
as guilty of a high breach of the privileges of the House—
eas concerned, he was quite ready to concur in it ; but before
the amount of punishment was decided upon, he thought it
absolutely incumbent upon the House to know the degree of
guilt attaching to each of the parties. In the Weymouth
cases on the Committee's reporting, the evidence was referred
back to them, with a view to their selecting those portions of
it which bore on the proceedings their report recommended.
He was sorry this precedent was not adopted in the present
case, as it would have materially assisted their proceedings.
With regard to those who were declared by the report as
guilty of aiding and abetting, it was still more essentially ne-
cessary that the evidence respecting them should be before the
House before their cases were dealt with. The terms " aiding
and abetting" were new in the history of the House's privi-
leges, and he confessed he was quite at a loss to know within
what limits they extended. Under all these circumstances he
thought it would be far better that the House was in possession
of the evidence before it proceeded; and, for his part, he saw
not the least inconvenience in the delay which for that pur-
pose would be requisite. The Hon. Gentleman concluded by
requesting some Member of the Committee would state to
the House, as nearly as his memory served, what were the cir-
cumstances, either of extenuation or aggravation, in each case,
which the House, in meting out the degree of punishment,
would be bound to take into their consideration.

Mr. P. M. STEWA RT, in reply to the call of the Right
Hon. Gentleman, observed it ought to be considered that
four of the seven persons accused had, in petitions, pleaded
guilty to the charges brought against them. With regard to
the circumstances connected with each particular case, it was
unnecessary for him to detain the House at any length by
their detail. As far as Sparrow was concerned, he was not to
be regarded as a mere partisan of the late Members. He was
their avowed and acknowledged agent, and repeatedly
throughout the trial it was admitted that whatever was alleged
concerning him was alleged as agent for the parties. As to
Clipperton, he was the acknowledged solicitor of the late
Members, and at his house were all the fugitives from Ipswich
concealed, repeated consultations held, false names to suit the
initials on the linen and clothes of the absconding parties de-
vised, and from his house did the parties go abroad, and from
his house were the letters furnishing them with money when
abroad, dated.—( Hear, hear.) The evidence as regarded
O'Malley was certainly limited to the case of Pilgrim, but that
limitation did not, he was sorry to say, weaken its character,
as far as the authority of the House was concerned. In all
the cases it was in his power to state circumstances of aggra-
vation, but in none, he much regretted, could circumstances
in extenuation be offered. In Clipperton's case alone could
any extenuating claim be offered, and the extent of that claim
must be confined to the circumstance that he was throughout in
his professional capacity, and ought not to have been left ex-
posed in the manner he had been to the heavy and serious
consequences likely to result from his conduct in pursuance to
the directions of his client.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. C. W. WYNN wished to know if there were any
circumstances connected with the cases of the other four par-
ties requiring explanation or comment ?
Mr. P. M. STE WART replied that there were none.
Three of them the Committee had not seen at all. Dasent,
the other party, it should be stated, did come before the Com-
mittee, and gave all the evidence in his power ; and it was
moreover to be observed that the Committee had no evidence
of money having been remitted to him by Clipperton when
abroad. Cook, Clamp, and Pilgrim had money sent to them,
under their assumed names of Cartwright, Clamber, and Pal-
mer, but there was no evidence that Dasent received any.
Mr. C. BERKELEY thought it was evident that bribery
and corruption of the grossest and most barefaced character
had been committed, and expressed his readiness to join in
any steps calculated to punish the parties implicated._
( Cheers. )
Mr. BL ACK BURNE thought there was a great distinc-
tion to be drawn between the guilt of the several parties—
Clipperton and Sparrow, more particularly were far less eli-
minated by the evidence than the others now in custody.
Mr. STEWART stated that every word he had previously
stated on the subject was taken from the evidence of his own
notes. Mr. Kelly had repeatedly, during the proceedings,
asserted that whatever blame attached to Mr. Sparrow ought
by right to fall upon the sitting Members, atid it was proved
that the question of absenteeism had actually bees debated in
Mr. Sparrow's house.
Oh the question being put from the Chair,
Mr. GI SB ORNE moved, as we understood, that the name
of John Bond be added.

Sir G. CLERK having presented a petition in favour of
this individual, was desirous of knowing from the Hon. Mem-
ber for Derbyshire (Mr. Gisborne) whether the circumstances
attending the case did not call for a different degree of punish-
ment.

Mr. G I SBO RNE was sure from what had transpired there
could be no Gentleman in the House who would think of mak-
ing an exception in favour of an individual, much less of dis-
charging him. After the issuing of the Speaker's warrant he
presumed all the delinquents would be removed from the cus-
tody of the Sergeant-at- Arms and conveyed to Newgate,
where they would be accommodated with lodgings moro con-
venient and infinitely less expensive.—( A laugh.)
Sir R. PEEL soid—l do not rise, Sir, to offer any opposi-
tion to the motion of the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Mem-
ber for Derbyshire, but I cannot agree in the propriety of
adjudicating on these cases without having heard any portion
of the evidence on which this House is called upon to adjudi-
cate, and committing parties to prison without having given
them an opportunity of advancing anything in justification of
their alleged offences.—( Hear, hear.) First, it would be pro-
per to hear the evidence upon which the charge brought was
founded, and, secondly, to permit those parties to have an
opportunity of saying something in their defence. I am not,
Sir, satisfied, nor do I think the House ought to be satisfied,
to form its judgment on the opinion of any individual Member.
But, at the same time, I will say, supposing always that the
evidence given before the Committee is substantiated, that
these persons in keeping out of the way were guilty of a great
offence. In what condition am I placed in attempting to
judge upon this subject? Print the petition and proceedings
and then judge; but how in the present state of the matter
am Ito know that these parties are guilty? Am Ito receive
it on the ipse dixit of any lion. Member, that these parties are
guilty ? How am I to know what would be a proper degree of
punishment with which to visit these misdemeanors, if I alp
not made first acquainted with the exact nature of the charge
against the different parties ? These seven persons are all in-
volved in one common offence of absconding, except those who
are charged with aiding and abetting the absconding, and I
know that absconding, and aiding and abetting it, are decidedly
breaches of the privileges of this House. But how, unless evi-
dence is submitted whereupon the House may adjudicate, will
it be able to apportion the punishment due to the different de-
grees of culpability ? Submit this evidence, and we may adju-
dicate with impartiality, but without it we cannot.—(Hear.)
I do not see how the Hon. Member for Derbyshire will be
able to make his motion to-morrow, unless he is able to pro-
duce evidence in support of it. As regards Wagon, I cannot
agree with the strong opinion expressed by the Hon. Member
for Argyleshire. I cannot put the construction on his con-
duct that he did, but when the evidence is delivered, I shall
be a better judge. But without that production of evidence, I
cannot hear with any feeling of satisfaction a proposition for
committing one of the King's subjects to Newgate.—( Cheers.)
Mr. CAMPBELL said that the opinion of the Select Com-
mittee was the opinion of those independent Gentlemen of that
House who had given their judgment upon their oaths. He
protested against the doctrine laid down by the Right Hon. Ba-
ronet opposite, of their incompetence to judge. With regard

to:Vasor we understood the Hon. Gentleman to say that his
case Waii one more deserving of leniency than that ofthe others.
The 0' pinion given by the Committee was entitled to the re-
spect of the House.
.9,tr R. PEEL said the lion. Gentlemanlhas altogether
lw.staken my meaning. So much deference do I pay to the
opinion of the Committee, that I am ready to vote that these
!proceedings are a breach of privilege. But the report, includ-
mg the evidence concerning the conduct of seven individuals,
should be subp:atted, that the House may judge of the extent
of criminality, and discriminate between the offenders. As it
is, each member of the Committee may take a different view
of the criminality.
Lord Ji OHN RUSSELL said that it was competent only
in the ',douse to commit to Newgate when the fact of the
breach of privilege was established, and afterwards to take
into consideration any circumstances which might be urged in
extenuation. That, however, was not the question at present
before the House. The question was, whether they would
**Ake the report of their own Committee, or whether they would
Irst see the evidence before they came to a decision. Pre-
oedents most decidedly ran in favour of the former course, but
he would not go on the mere ground of precedent. The fact
was, that this Committee had come to a determination after a
most laborious investigation. It was a Committee appointed
by that House, and upon oath sworn to judge impartially, and
the only sort of tribunal by which the right of Members to
seats in that House could be investigated. Now, a Com-
mittee, so appointed, had, upon oath, reported, not by speeches
of its individual members, but by an unanimous decision, that
c.ertain persons had absconded, and certain other persons had
sided and abetted them in absconding, and he thought the
'House was bound to take the Committee's part. He was
quite sure that no man was ready to say that the majority of
the Members of that House, with all their various avocations,
were sr, well able to judge and discriminate as a Committee
set ariart for the purpose of deliberation. After the committal
of t:tie parties,_ he should be quite willing to listen to any cir-
cronstances that could be urged in mitigation of punishment.
-Ile thought extending lenity to the guilty was not so great a
fault as making a wrong judgment.
Sir W. FOLLETT understood the Noble Lord to say that
the House were not now called upon to make a distinction
between the offenders. Now be thought the fair and proper
course for the House to pursue was at once to make the dis-
tinction. There could be no fear of those individuals in the
meantime again absconding.—( Cries of " Oh, oh.") Why,
there could be no fear of this. They would not banish them-
selves for ever, which they would do, as they would be at all
times afterwards liable to be summoned on the Speaker's
waY.Tant.

Mr. C. FE RGUSSON said that there was never such
a precedent established in any Court as that, after contempt,
the parties should be allowed to be discharged out of custody,
without even tho security of bail.
Mr. O'CONNE/ILL considered the case was perfectly plain
as to the point of law, and that the House was entirely right
in exercising its entire jurisdiction. It was the only compe-
tent tribunal. It was a Court that had first to decide inci-
dentally and then collaterally. The inquiry had been made
as to the incident, and it was found that the parties had been
guilty of contempt. Then, collaterally, came the degree of
punishment. His legal education told him that this, like
every other contempt of Court, must be first met by imprison-
ment.—( Hear.) Then came the consideration of quantity.
It was proposed that Bond should be brought to the bar of
that House, reprimanded, and discharged. Discharged !
Was that to be one of the privileges of criminality ?—( Cheers
from the Ministerial benches.) It had come to his knowledge
through the newspapers that a meeting had beea held at Ips-
wich to celebrate this indecent conduct of the late sitting
Members. Yes, to celebrate it. This meeting was attended
by the Town Clerk, the only legal officer of the borough.
One of the speakers at this meeting, after lamenting the defeat
of the glorious cause, declared that he would give their oppo.
rents a grand charge, as the Duke of Wellington had charged
his enemies at Waterloo. The same speaker declared they
would adopt the same honourable measures they had done
before to secure the return of Tory candidates. The same
honourable measures, the same judicious measures !—(Loud
cheers.) " Why, Sir," continued the Hon. and Learned
Member, " they dare us—the bribers dare us."—( Cheers. )
Do they suppose they will find any backers here ?—( Cheers.)
We will teach them—we will teach them differently.—
( Loud cheers.) No, Sir, the men of Ipswich are mistaken,
they will find no backers in the English House of Commons.
The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then alluded to the con-
duct of Mr. Dasent, who, lie said, out of affection for the
master he once served became a wretched briber, and begged
votes for the love of Heaven and in the name of charity.
Such conduct, he considered, was a disgrace to the high and
honourable profession to which he (Mr. O'Connell) belonged;
and what might be looked upon as a mere fault in another man
was in him a crime. He was sorry to see, too, that there were
English Members who, instead of rising with the blush of
shame upon their countenance to deprecate such conduct,
came forward to defend it. Mr. Dasent was a member of the
English bar. What would the Benchers of Lincoln's Inn
say to such conduct ? Would they inquire into that ?—( Loud
cheers.) Would the base calumniators who wrote in the
Legal Review inquire into it ? He had never heard of such
unblushing bribery in the most rampant days of ancient To-
ryism. " We know" (said the Hon. and Learned Gentle-
man) " how money has been sent, aye, and military too.—
( Hear.) And if the matter is sifted to the bottom, the Eng-
lish public wilt have practices disclosed such as cannot be too
soon brought to light." He was glad at the manner in which
the inquiry had proceeded, and that Bond and each of the party
would be sent to Newgate.
Colonel PE RCE VAL admired the spirited statement of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, and approved and con-
curred with him in his indignation against the agents and pay-
masters of bribery. He rose. however, to bring to the recol-
lection of the Hon. and Learned Member and to the attention
of that House the fact that an individual filling the situation of
the highest trust, a learned individual advanced by the present
Government, did pay with his own hands, in y the City of
Dublin, money to voters to influence their votes. This indi-
vidual was Counsellor Hudson, who, in August 1831—he re-
membered it well, for it was the first year he had the honour
of a seat in that House—was guilty of this conduct. He
called it to the recollection of the Hon. and Learned Member,
as it was in accordar.ce with his views that such a person
sh.aild be hunted from civilised society.—( Loud and continued
elwering.) According to the statement of the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman opposite, that individual was convicted of
a ciime which should have for ever driven him from the Bar,
and even from society ; and yet the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman threw the shield of his protection over him. The
Hon. and Learned Gentleman should not, under these circum
stances, be one of those who came forward to pronounce judo
ment on a young man, a pupil to a Barrister, and not ye
called to the Bar.
Several voices,

" He is."

Colonel PE RC E VAL said that it did not materially alter
the case he meant to put whether Mr. Dasent had or had not
been called to the bar. The case he meant to put was whe-
ther it was consistent with justice for the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin to screen Counseller Hudson, at present
the legal adviser c f the Government in Dublin, the Attorney-
General's devil, as he was called—(Laughter)—while he
urged harsh proceedings against a young man for an offence
exactly similar to that of which the former had been adjudged
guilty by the House ? The Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin called down all the rigour of the House on Mr. Da-
sent, while the Attorney-General of Ireland, Mr. Serjeant
Perrin, rewarded Mr. Hudson with place and profit.—( Hear. )
He (Colonel Perceval) would state a few facts concerning that
Gentleman. On the 31st of August, 1831, the Right Hon.
Member for Cricklade, Mr. Robert Gordon, on the question
of the Dublin election, rose to address the House in support
of the report of the Committee. The speech he (Colonel P.)
should quote from the Mirror of Parliament, which he saw
occasionally adduced as authority in that House.—[The Hon.
and Gallant Member then proceeded to read extracts from the
speech, as given in the above-named work, which were to the
effect " that Counsellor Hudson appeared to be the principal
giver, and that he was assisted by an attorney named Aitch-
cock." The extracts then went on to describe the case as one
of the most gross bribery and corruption, and stated that the
people of England would laugh at the House if an end were
not put to a system of bribery, which they concluded by de-
nouncing as twice cursed—cursing him who gave and him who
took.' These extracts he (Colonel Perceval) quoted because
he wished to show the House that the Hon. and Learned
Member could act in one way to oppose a political opponent,
and another to screen a political friend.
Mr. O'CONNELL.—No, no.

Colonel PERCEVAL repeated it. The position of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin in respect to the Irish
Government gave him the power to do as he pleased ; but
sometime or other, perhaps, the cat would be let out of the
bag.—( Laughter.) The Hon. and Gallant Member then
went on to read extracts from the speeches of Dr. Lusbington,
and Lords Althorp and J. Russell, to show that the perjury
and bribery:at the Dublin election were most disgraceful, and
that the individuals bribing were much more guilty than the
wretched beings whom they had bribed. With all this he
(Colonel Perceval) fully agreed ; but he thought any rule
which applied to the case of punishment should begeneral and
not partial.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that a more unfair and unjust at-
tack had never been made by any Hon. Gentleman in that
House, or one which had fewer particles of common honesty
in its composition.
Colonel PERCEVAL—Does the Hon, and Learned Gen-
tleman mean to say that I made any dishonest or dishonourable
charges against the individual in question ?
Mr. O'CONNELL.—No, no. But Ido mean to say that
the charges I complain of have been made unjustly and un-
fairly. The Hon. Gentleman made a charge against the At-
torney-General of Ireland.
Colonel PERCEVAL.—No.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped that he would be distinctly un-
derstood. He wished to know of the Honourable and Gal-
lant Member whether the Committee in the case of the
Dublin Election, alluded to by him, had made a special report
to the House ?

Colonel PERCE VAL replied in the affirmative.
Mr. O'CONNELL desired to be informed whether the
name of Mr. Hudson was mentioned in it?
Colonel PERCEVAL was not heard to reply.

Mr. O'CONNELL continued—lt was insinuated that he
had protected Mr. Hudson. What was the fact? He had
voted for his prosecution. He (Mr. O'Connell) put it to the
House, whether it was not too bad that an able and talented
young Gentleman, who was rising fast in his profession, and
winning the affection and esteem of all who came into con-
tact with him, should be thus aspiersed by the Min. and Gal-
lant Officer, in a place and under circumstances which ren-
dered him powerless to defend himself, even if he were not
in another country? He (Mr. O'Connell) was a gratuitous
defender of that Gentleman. He did not know him sufficiently
well to enter on it as he might do ; and, indeed, he had not

behaved well to him (Mr. O'Connell), as he had refused to
to be one of his counsel in the last Dublin election. But
how were the facts of the case ? Bills were preferred against
every one concerned iu the bribery alluded to by the Hon.
and Gallant Member, under the direction of the House, at
the instance of the King's Attorney-General for Ireland. They
were sent before the Grand Jury of the City of Dublin—a
body of gentlemen known by every one to be opposed, as a
majority, to the -party which Mr. Hudson was accused by him
of acting with; and yet that Grand Jury ignored the bills.--
(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) appealed to any man of
feeling in the House, whose feelings were not blunted by
party, whether it was fair or just to tell one part of such a
story—and such a part, and not to tell the other ?—( Hear,
hear.) The Grand Jury of Dublin, a body of gentlemen on
the Hon. and Gallant Member's side of politics, ignored the
bills ; and Mr. Hudson's character stood as unimpeached in
the presence of the country, as that of any Hon. Member in
that House. He (Mr. O'Connell) would say, let Mr. Dasent
stand that test—let a Grand Jury ignore a bill or bills against
lum—and if they did so, he (Mr. O'Connell) would consent
to be looked upon as a base calumniator—( Cheers)—he would
I be content to have the stigma follow him out of the House—
(Renewed cheering)—and rest upon him for ever.
Colonel PERCEVAL had never heard of the prosecution,
and never knew that any bills against Mr. Hudson, or those
implicated with him in the same charge, had been sent before
a Grand Jury. He appealed to his Hon. and Learned
friend the Member for Bandon Bridge, and his other Hon. and
Learned friends about him, to bear him out in the state-
ment, and inform the House whether even they, practising as
they did at the Irish Bar, were cognizant of it either?
An emphatic exclamation from the Treasury Beaches
called up,
Sir H. HARD INGE, who considered the course of inter-
rupting Hon. Members perfectly ungentlemanly.
Colonel PERCEVAL, in continuation, should not solemnly
in the presence of the House, call God Almighty to Witness
the truth of his denial; but he would as a Gentleman, assure
them, on his honour, that he had never heard, until the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had stated it, that Mr. Hudson had
been before a Grand Jury for the offence with which he was
charged. Under these circumstances he felt that though an
injustice might have been committed by him, as it was done
inadvertently and without intention, if done at all, he could not
be fairly accused of it, and he felt that he did not deserve it.
Sir J. WROTTE SLEY was unaware who the Hon. and
Gallant General on the opposite side of the House had applied
the epithet " ungentlemanly" to. He ( Sir J. Wrottesley) had
only expressed his surprise at the statement of the Hon. and
Gallant Member for Sligo, and, perhaps, acting under the in-
fluence of his feeling at seeing all the prospects in life of an
individual on the point of being ruined without any legal or
other inquiry, expressed them strongly. But he would put it
to the House and to the Hon. and Gallant Officer, whether
anything said under these circumstances justified the applica-
tion of such a term?
Mr. HARDY would beg to remind the House that the
question before them was not one of bribery, but of breach of
privilege, and he would beg to remind them that they di-
gressed very materially from it.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON, as he had been appealed to by
his Hon. and Gallant Friend the Member for Sligo, felt it a
point of honour to state to the House, with respect to what
had fallen from the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin,
that, though practising at the bar in Dublin, he had never
heard of the fact of bills being preferred against Mr. Hudson,
and ignored by the City of Dublin Grand Jury.—( Cheers.)
But he took it for granted, notwithstanding, as the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had stated it to be within his own know-
ledge. Of course if it were not a fact, it would not be so
stated by him. With respect to the question before the House,
he ( Mr. Sergeant Jackson) thought that the Hon. and Learned
Member for Dublin had made as unfair and as ungenerous a
speech in aggravation of punishment, to influence the feelings
of the House against individuals, and especially against a mem-
ber of his own honourable and learned profession, as had ever
been made within its walls.—( Hear.) Mr. O'Malley, then in
custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, was a member of the same
profession as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman himself, at the
English bar, and a native of the same country as he was. He
(Mr. Sergeant Jackson) did hot know Mr. O'Malley himself,
but lie knew his family to be highly respectable. That gen-
tleman had petitioned the House, stating in his petition that
he had not been engaged in the case until two days previous
to its trial, and that he had had only one interview with Pil-
grim. All this he offered to prove, and prayed to be allowed
to put in bail for that purpose. He further stated that he had
acted solely under the direction of Messrs. Sewell and Blake,
his employers.
Mr. O'CONNELL (amidst cries of" Question,") said that
the Noble Lord, the Secretary for Ireland in 1831, was then
in his place, and he could probably inform them whether the
Crown Lawyer had prosecuted Mr. Hudson according to the
desire Of the House, or whether the Government had directed
the prosecution ?
Sir E. KNATCIIBULL was understood to inquire of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin on what authority lie
grcunded his statement of the fact of the bills against Mr.
Hudson being ignored by the Grand Jury of the city of
Dublin.
Mr. O'CONNELL was in the Hall of the Four Courts
when a Gentleman came to Mr. Hudson, in his presence, and
congratulated him on the bills against him being ignored by
the Grand Jury.
Mr. SHAW wns not aware of any Bill having ever been
preferred against Mr. Hudson.
Mr. O'CONNELL wished to know whether any Bill had
been preferred against any of those included in the same
charge ?
Mr. SHAW had had a conversation with his Hon. and
Learned Friend the Attorney-General for Ireland, and their
belief agreed, that there were no bills of indictment sent up to
the Grand Jury against Mr. Hudson at the time.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that Mr. Hudson was of the party,
and whether bills were sent up against him or not was a
matter of no consequence, as far as regarded the charge. He
was involved under the same accusation as the other parties to
it, and if the bills against them were ignored he was entitled
by every principle of law and justice to the benefit of the
acquittal.
Mr. Sergeant JACKS ON (amidst cries of " Spoke") said
that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated the bills
had been before the Grand Jury, and had been ignored by them.
Sir F. POLLOCK entirely agreed with all that had been
said on the subject of bribery ; but he did not think that it was
in time or place on the present occasion. Giving the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin the full benefit of the fact
which he first alleged in respect of the Geatleman,who%e name
he ( Sir F. Pollock) should not repeat, it would be found by
the House, on due consideration, that what appeared true be-
fore a Committee was ignored before a Jury.—( Hear.) Un-
der these circumstances he repeated that the House ought to
be extremely cautious how they proceeded in a case like the
one before them, even though they had an admission of guilt
by the parties.
An HON. MEMBER complained of the attack made by the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin on a gentleman con-
nected with the Bar, and belonging to a learned profession.
The SPEAKER then put the question. It was carried
affirmatively.
Mr. GISBORNE then moved a similar resolution in the
case of A. B. Cooke.
Mr. G. F. YOUNG (amidst cries of " Question,"
" Spoke," and " Oh") begged to suggest that it would be
much the better course to refer the case back to the Commit-
tee, that they might select such portions of the evidence as
they deemed necessary to establish the several degrees of
guilt attachable to the respective parties, and report thereon
to the House.
Mr. STEWART should soon satisfy the House that the
observations of his Hon. Friend were unnecessary. The re-
turn to the warrant against A. B. Cooke was Nil., and that to
the warrant against Bond was the same. Both had pleaded
guilty ; as well as the other who was sent to Newgate.
The question was put and carried.
Mr. GISBORNE then moved a similar resolution in the
case of Richard Burchell Clack.
The motion was agreed to.
Mr. GISBORNE then moved that J. Dasent and J. Spar-
row be committed.
After a few words from Mr. C. W. WYNN,
The question was put from the Chair, and the parties com-
mitted.
Mr. GISBORNE then moved, " That F. O'Malley be
committed for aiding and abetting the evasion of the authority
of that House."
After a few words from Mr. Sergeant Jackson, Mr. P.
Stewart, Mr. C. W. W. Wynn, and Mr. Wilke,
The SPEAKER put the question, that Frederick O'Mal-
ley be committed, and which was carried without a division.
Mr. GISBORNE then moved that John Pilgrim be brought
to the bar of that House.
The SPEAKER then put the question to the Sergeant at
Arms, whether the offender was in custody ?
The Sergeant would go and ascertain the fact. Having
returned and answered in the affirmative, introducing Mr.
Giffard, one of the Messengers of the House,
The SPEAKER asked Mr. Giffard whether he had taken
the offender, John Pilgrim, into custody
Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, I have.
The SPEAKER—Where did you take him?
Mr. Giffard—Sir, at Norwich.
The SPEAKER-Where is he now?
Mr. Giffard—Here, Sir.
The SPEAKER—Did the gaolor of Norwich give him into
your custody.
Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir.
The SPEAKER—On any conditions?
Mr. Gifford—Yes, Sir, I had to sign a bond.
By an Hon. MEMBER—Does the messenger know on
what charge John Pilgrim was in custody in the gaol of
Norwich ?
Mr. Giffard—l did hear of a suit.
By the same Hon. MEMBER—A criminal charge?
Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir.
By the same Hon. MEMBER—Was it on a charge of
felony ?
Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, it was, or at least I apprehend it
was.

Mr. HUME suggested to the Chair that the witness should
be asked whether he had a copy of the committal?
The SPEAKER—Have you brought with you the copy of
any warrant under which the prisoner had been committed to
Norwich gaol ?
Mr. Giffard—No Sir, I have not.
Mr. HUME—Did the witness serve the warrant of the
House upon the prisoner in the gaol ?
Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, I did.
Mr. HUME—Did the witness understand when he served
the warrant that the party was under a charge of felony in that
• gaol ?
Mr. Giffard—Yes, Sir, I did. He was in gaol under a