The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-12 00:00:00

spiracy, it only escaped doing so by reason Of some legal tech-
nicalites,:the existence of which he regretted.
Lord STANLEY was very much inclined to agree with
the Right Hon. Baronet's ( Sir R. Peel's) view of the case,
that the evidence should be heard before the House acted
upon it. At the same time he would observe that he should
have opposed the Honourable Member for Derbyshire's motion
if he had not modified it, by striking out the criminative
words which originally appeared in it. With respect to the
case of Grantham, to which the Right Hon. Baronet had
referred, the circumstances of that case were he believed as
follows :—The Committee simply reported that warrants had
been issued for the appearance of certain parties, three in num-
ber, but that although all due diligence had been used by the
officers intrusted with these warrants, they bad not been served.
Upon this report the House proceeded to an inquiry whether
the officers of the House had really used all proper diligence
in the execution of their duties, and after hearing evidence
at the bar in reference to this point, which was thereby satis-
factorily established to be the fact, the House proceeded to de-
clare its opinion that the parties against whom the warrants
had been issued had absconded in order to avoid the Speaker's
warrants, and thereupon issued other warrants to bring them
before the bar of the House. These being the facts of the
case cited by the Right Hon. Baronet, he thought there was a
very broad basis of distinction between it and the one now
under their consideration.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL wagvery glad to findthat
the opinion he had last night thrown out, as to the culpability
of the parties in the present case, was supported by the gene-
ral voice of the House, and by the high authority of the Noble
Lord, their late Speaker. With regard to the fact of the par-
ties' guilt, he considered, charged as they were by the Com-
mittee's report, that, relatively speaking, they stood in the same
position as parties against whom a Grand Jury had returned a
true bill of indictment to the Court; and who, upon that in-
dictment, were taken into custody. In the same way, in the
present case, he thought the House would be fully justified in
taking the parties accused into custody, to answer the charges
which had been preferred against them.
Mr. JERVIS said he had been requested by an Hon. and
Learned Gentleman, whose name was prominently mixed up
in the present affair, he meant the late Hon. and Learned
Member for the borough of Ipswieh (Mr. Kelly,) to state to
the House that all which that Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had said and declared before the Committee he had done as
an advocate only, and not as one in any way concerned or
interested in the result.—( Oh, oh I)
Mr. P. STEWART felt bound to add his testimony to the '
fact that Mr. Kelly, when opening the proceedings, declared to
the Committee that whatever he said would be in his capacity
of Counsel, as a lawyer in the case, and not as one having
any personal interest in it.
The motion, as amended was then agreed to.
Mr. GI SB ORNE then said that with respect to the ease
of breach of privilege against the Magistrates, he hardly knew
in what form that should be brought on. Perhaps some
Member of the Committee, or some other Hon. Member,
when they had heard the evidence, and the proper opportunity
arrived, would suggest the proper course to be adopted.
An HON. MEMBER was authorized, on the part of the two
Magistrates in question, to declare that they were perfectly
ready to meet any sort of inquiry or decision which the
House might think proper to come to on the subject of the
charge against them.
Another HON. MEMBER was understood to inquire what
proceedings the solicitors implicated in this transaction were
liable to ?
Mr. P. STEWART replied (as we understood) that the
only course he was aware of was a very painful one, namely to
strike the names of the parties in question off the rolls.
Mr. SC ARLE TT was proceeding to address the House,
but was called to order, there being no question before it.
Mr. S. CRAWFORD postponed his motion for a Bill to
alter the Act of 3 and 4 William IV., relating to Grand
Juries in Ireland.