The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-15 00:00:00

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'DW YER.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 tt!at House. The
Hon. Member had: 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 ininuations
which were intended to mislead and deceive them.
Sir R. BATE 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 Hatherton); 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. S HEIL 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. Sheil)
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.)
Sir R. BATE SON presented another petition, -very nu-
merously signed, from Ballymena, in Antrim, to the same effect.
The HON. BARONET also presented a petition from Castle-
bar in favour of the repeal of the Act for the Better Regulation
of the Linen Manufactures of Ireland.
Mr. O'CONNELL supported the petition.
CORPORATION REFORM.

Mr. E WART presented a petition from Liverpool in favour
of Corporation Reform.
Mr. ROBINSON presented a similar petition from Wor-
cester, numerously signed. The petitioners expressed their
hearty concurrence in the measure ; and the Hon. Member
said he should give it all his support.—( Hear.)
IPSWICH ELECTION.

The SPEAKER called upon the Sergeant-at-Arms to
bring the persons in his cbstody 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 Howe.
An HON. MEMBER bore testimony to the respectability of
Mr. Clamp, one of the petitioners.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON 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. WYNN would have agreed in the observatiqn
of the Honourable Member, if those individuals had not
been in custody, and that heir 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.
Ile 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 scats, 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 lie (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 lie had already been incarcerated, would reprimand and
discharge him.
Sir H. HARDINGE wished to know from tke Hon.
Umber 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, solicitor, declaring that he had 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,
bad been apprehended by the Sergeant-at-Arms, it became
hi's duty to proceed, to call on the House to dispose of their
cases. He had stated that the House could assume but
one course—it must therefore either act upon the report
of the Committee, and consider the parties to be guilty, or they
must be called to the Bar of the House, and a regular trial must
be gone through, to establish their gulit. From the year
1791; 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.
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

HOUSE OF LORDS.

Lord DEN MAY took his seat on the Woolsack at five o'clock

SPAIN.

The Duke of WELLINGTON withdrew the motion o'
which he had given notice, for a copy of the Proclamation re•
lative to British soldiers enlisting in the Spanish army.

HIGHWAY BILL.

The Duke of SUTHERLAND, in the absence of the
Duke of Richmond, postponed the motion for the second read-
ing of this Bill, which stood for this evening.
UNIVERSITY OATH ABOLITION BILL.
At the request of the Duke of WELLINGTON, the
Earl of Radnor postponed his motion fur the second reading
of this Bill till Wednesday the 24th.
NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT.
The Earl of ROSSLYN laid on the table the Report of
the Committee relative to the building of the new House of
Lords.
The Earl of MALMESBURY wished to make a few ob-
servations on the resolutions come to by the Committee.
According to those resolutions the House was to be capable of
holding 300 Peers on the floor, allowing two feet to each Peer.
He was glad that it was not intended to have any galleries,
but he thought, especially in weather like the present, in a
full House. so small a space as was allotted to each Peer
would be found yery inconvenient. He thought, therefore,
some little additional space should be given, It was true
that 'seldom, if ever, so large a number of Peers were present,
but Noble Lords must remember that at the Reform Bill,
perhaps the greatest division that ever took place, no less
than 278 Peers were present, and considering the addition
that had been made to the Peerage it might be rationally
expected that upon some important occasion 300 Peers
might be present. He should, therefore, move as an
amendment, that to feet three inches might be 'al-
lowed for every Peer. Another point was, with respect
to the space below the Bar and the Throne. It would he