The Sun.
London, England, 1832-05-31 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

• Mr. STANLEY moved that the Dublin Evenini,
Post be read, in which the report of the Irish Committer
appeared.
The Clerk hiving read the report, Mr. Sheehan was
called to the bar. In answer to the SPEAKER, he ralid he
was proprietor of the Dublin Evening Mail. He sent
the report complained of to Dublin in his own name. Ile
would not state from what source he got the copy.
In answer to Mr. O'CONNELL be declined to answi•t
whether the usual caution was on the back of the paper
or not, or whether the paper was printed or in manu-
script. He was then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. STANLEY then said, that he was obliged te.
move that Mr. Sheehan be either committed to Newgate
or into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. He felt
bound to state that he saw from another number of
the Evening Marl that the proprietors were determined
to set the House and Cotmnilee at defiance. The Hon.
Gent!amen then read the passage he complained of.
On the motion that Sheehan be committedd to the
custody of the Sergeant at Arms.
Mr. HUNT said he could not see how the House could
punish the present defendant for a breach of privilege,
when they allowed Peers to break some of their most
important ones at every election.

Culonel PECENAL and Mr. A. LErttoY, opposed the
motion. They thought that the Right Hon. Secretary
ought not to have acted so harshly and unjuslifirhly to a
Paper, because it was opposen to the Governmeet in
politics.
Mr. STANLEY hoped to be allowed to explain. Be
had not, and he hoped the House would believe that he
was actuated by no political motives.—(Hear, hear.) He
had only done his duty—a duty imposed upon him by
the unanimous vote of the Committee with only one
exception, and that vote was of a gentleman of quite op-
posite politics to that of the Paper whose conduct was
under due distussion.

Mr. GOULBOURN said this was a most important
question. The person who gave such information must
have been guilty of a gross breach of trust, for only a cer-
tain number of copies were printed, and so careful! were
those distributed, that every one was enclosed in a wrap
per, and sealed, so that the person must have brokeen the
seal of a letter addressed to an individual Member. He
thought that it was absolutely necessary that the House
should puasue the enquiry farther, in order to find out
who had so broken the confidence reposed in them.
Mr. LITTLETON entirely agreed with the Hon.
Member. He was sorry that Mr. Sheehan would not
answer the questions from the House; he must not onl)
receive a heavy sentence, but be punished till he revealed
from what source he got his information. He was one of
the Members of the Committee, but owing to circum-
stances bad only attended once or twice, but he had re
ceived all the papers connected with the proceedings of
the Committee except the draft in question, that he had
not received.

Captain GORDON said it was customary with the
Press—in fact, they made it a point of honour never to
give up the names of any one who gave them informa-
tion, therefore, Mr. Sheehan had only done that which
any one else would have done in the slime circumstances.

Mr. PORTMAN was of opinion that the better cours,
would be to commit the gentleman to the custody of the
Sergeant•at-Arms, because that course would give him an

might have some communications to make to the House.
After a few words from Mr. SHAW, the question we'
put and agreed to, that Mr. Sheehan bad been guilty of
gross breach of privilege.
Mr. SEALEY then said that under the circumstances
he could not do less than move that Mr. Sbeeehan he
committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. If
that gentleman persisted in Rot giving satisfaction to the
House, which he hoped he would not do, he (Mr. S.) would
feel it his duty to call upon the House to have the officer,
in attendance to-morrow, whose duty it was to circulate
the Papers to the Committee.
The further consideration of the case was then post-
poned till to-morrow.
(LEFT SITTING.)

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, MA r 30.

Mr. B. CARTER presented a petition from Bristol,
relative to the Bristol Compensation Bill, which was re-
ferred to the Committee on the Bill.

On the motion of Mr. SCHONSWAR, the Bill for tegu-
fating the Rates of Pilotage in the Humber was read a
third time.

On the motion of Mr. BULLER, the Exeter Railway
13i11 was read a third time.

Mr. E. JOHNSTONE presented a petition from the
Presbytery of Haddington, arainst the proposed system oi
education in Ireland.
Lord W. LENNOX presented a petition from King'.
Lynn, in Norfolk, in favour of the plan of Irish Education.
The Noble Lord, in supporting the prayer of the
petition, said he trusted that the proposed measure
would be attended with great benefit to the country.
Mr. WEYLAND had a petition of a direct contrary
nature from the same place.
Lord W. LENNOX then presented a petition from
the county of Flint, in favour of Parliamentary Reform
Also a petition from Ilolywell against the Registration Act.
Mr. DIXON presented a petition from the Corporation
of Haminermen of Glasgow, in favour of Reform. Also,
a petition from Dumbarton, praying the House to stoi
the supplies till the Reform Bill become law. The Hon.
Member also presented petitions from Reading and Bever-
ley, praying for an amelioration of the Criminal Code.
O'CONNOR DON presented a petition in favour of
the new system of Irish education, and one from Ros-
crea, against capital punishment for minor offences.
Mr. WEYLAND presented a petition from certain
members of the Established Church in Ireland against the
Pluralities Bill. The petitioners complained that by the
Bill the Archbishop of Canterbury had power to dispense
with every clause it contained.