The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-26 00:00:00

IPSWICH ELECTION.

Mr. H AWE S presented a petition from John Pilgrim
one of the parties in custody under the Speaker's warrant
for a breach of the privileges of the House of Commons.
The Hon. Member felt it his duty to lay certain facts stated
in the petition before the House. The petitioner had been 30
years preceding this affair a confidential clerk to the firm
of Sewell, Blake, and Sewell, solicitors of Norwich, and he
stated that he had been entirely under their control ; also,
that when he left England to go to Canada, in order to evade
the execution of the Speaker's notice, that he was asked
by the House of Sewell to give a note, which he did,
for the purpose of giving a colour to his absence ; and that
he received the sum of twenty pounds to pay his expenses.
When absent, however, he became naturally anxious to get
home and see his family. On returning to Norwich he was
arrested on a criminal charge, and he now states that what-
ever imputations might be cast upon his character, he was
willing to be brought to the bar of the House, and reveal
every thing he knew of this transaction. This was cer-
tainly a fact in his favour, for none of the other petitioners
had gone so far. He was willing to be examined, and to com-
municate all he knew respecting the affair. But there was
another strong reason why the petitioner's request should be
granted—he was to take his trial on this criminal charge on
the first day of August next, and therefore he prayed
for the clemency of the House to be extended towards
him, that he might be discharged, and have sufficient time and
opportunity to prepare for his defence, and a more just or rea-
sonable request could scarcely be made. He (Mr. Hawes)
should now bring up the petition, hoping that the last request
would at least be granted, and, as a matter of form, he gave
notice that he should to-morrow move that Pilgrim should be
discharged.
Mr. GROTE rose to support the petition.
Mr. HUME suggested to the Hon. Member for the City
of London that the petition should be first read. He said so,
because from what had taken place since the commence-
ment of this business, it appeared that men of respectable charac-
ter had been concerned to defeat the purposes of public justice.
The question then would arise, whether a Special Committee
should not be appointed to ascertain the truth of those facts.
—( Hear, hear.) Not only did these individuals appear to
be implicated, but men holding the rank of magistrates in the
county of Norfolk had become involved very much in this mat-
ter, and a thorough investigation was therefore necessary.
He hoped that the petition would be allowed to be read now,
in order that to-morrow the question might be brought fully
before the House.

Mr. WARBURTON thought with the Hon. Member for
Middlesex, that the appointment of a Committee would be
by far the most convenient course. If these prisoners
were brought to the bar of that House to be examined,
he would suggest that the House should meet at twelve
o'clock to examine them, in order that they might not inter-
fere with the important public business then before them.
Mr. GISBORNE—If the House examined those prisoners
at the bar, they would adopt a course that had never been
adopted before. In every case they were heard by petition and
not by a viva voce examination, and that they should be brought
to the bar simply to be reprimanded and discharged. He
agreed with the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that a committee
ought to be appointed to investigate the circumstances of the
case, and he thought that this would be a much superior course
to examining the parties at the bar of the House, even if there
was a precedent for that purpose.—( Hear, hear.) He would
not throw any impediments in the way of this motion_
indeed, he would be very sorry if the motion were not
adopted, as otherwise to-morrow being Friday Mr. Pilgrim
would necessarily be detained till Monday ; and under the cir-
cumstances of there being an action pending against him, he
would be glad when the petition was read if the petitioner
were discharged.
Mr. W A SON concurred in the prayer of the petition,
under the circumstances stated by the Hon. Member for Lam-
beth.

The question, that the petition be printed with the Votes,
was then agreed to.
On the question being put, that Mr. Pilgrim be brought to
the bar of the House to-morrow,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was u,,derstood to object to the
petitioner being*brought up to-morrow, as there so•much pub-
lic business.

Mr. HAWES thought that if the Noble Lord had been in
the House, and had heard the circumstance of there being an
action against the petitioner, he would not object to the motion.
Mr. WILK S reminded the House that even supposing Mr.
Pilgrim was detained till Monday, he would still have five
weeks to prepare his defence against this action.
Mr. AGLIONBY—When other persons were in prison,
they were not usually let out so easily. The simple ground
stated
_by the Hon. Member did not, in his opinion, weigh
much.

Mr. HUME recommended the Hon. Member to postpone
his motion till Tuesday.
Mr. STUART presented a similar petition from Mr.
Decent professing his readiness to appear at the Bar of
the House to answer any questions, and praying for
his discharge. The Hon. Member thought the best course to
adopt would be that which w:,,s taken in the Camelford
case in 1819, in which a chemist, who had beers
summoned to attend' the bar of the House, had

absconded. In that case, upon the parties giving
taking to appear when called on to be examined, the House
discharged him.
Sir GEORGE CLERK was inclined to concur in the

course proposed by the Honourable Member for Lan-
caster.--( Hear, hear.) The question was, whether these
parties had not already suffered sufficient imprisonment
for the offence of which they had been guilty. Generally in these
sort of cases the course had been that the person offending
i'muld be called to the bar next day, reprimanded and cis barged
Mr. K EARSLEY then moved as an amendment, that all
the persons now confined in Newgate, in consequence of the
Report of the Ipswich Committee, should be brought to-mor-
row to the bar of the House, reprimanded, and discharged.
The SPEAKER put the question, when—
An Hon. MEMBER gave notice that to-morrow he should
present a petition from Messrs. Sewell and Blake, denying all
the statements that had been made with respect to them.
Mr. WYNNE suggested that the motion and amendment
should be withdrawn, in order to afford an opportunity of pre-
senting any other petitions on the subject.
Mr. STEWART thought that the petitioners had already
suffered sufficient imprisonment to assert the dignity of the
House. He should therefore make the same motion on behalf

of Mr. Dacent as the Hon. Member for Lambeth had dom.,

ith respect to Pilgrim.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY thought that the House ought to

take 24 hours to consider of the subject, and to examine the

petitions when printed.
Mr. GROTE thought that the discharge of these parties
ought to be preceded by the appointment of a select Committee
to inquire into the mystery which still e iisted.
Lord J. RUSSELL was of opinion it would be better to
postpone the consideration of the matter till the whole of the
petitions of the parties were before the House.
Mr. WYNN suggested, that the House should make a
simple order, for the attendance of the parties to-morrow, in
the custody of the Keeper of Newgate—and the House could
afterwards resolve, as to the course to be taken respecting

them.—( Hear.)
After a few words from Mr. WILKs, Sir R. PEEL, and Mr.
HAWES—

The motion was withdrawn.
BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.
Mr. GOULBURN brought up a Report from theDrogheda
Election Committee, which stated that Catherine Adams,

John Doyle, and Thomas Ferran, having been duly summoned
to attend before the Committee and give evidence, had neg-
lected to appear. The Report having been ordered to lie on
the table, the Right Honourable Gentleman then moved that

the said individuals be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at..
Arms.—Agreed to.
Lord HENNIKER then presented a petition from John
Eddowes Sparrow, expressing contrition for his offence, and
praying for his discharge from Newgate.
Sir B. VERE presented similar petitions from John Botn
and Arthur Bott Cooke.

Mr. RUSHBROOKE presented a similar petition from
Robert Beauchamp Clamp.
Mr. JACKSON presented a similar petition from Frede-

rick 0' Alallcy..

Mr. O'DWYER, referring to the Report of the Drogheda
Committee, hoped the Housn would allow him to express his
full concurrence with the proceedings adopted.

THE DORCHESTER LABOURERS.
Lord J. RUSSELL asked the Hon. Member for Finsbury
whether be would have the goodness to postpone his motion,
which stood first on the paper, for an address to his Majesty to
grant the pardon and order the recall of the Dorchester la-

bourers. The reason he addressed this request to-the Hon.
Gentleman was, that the House might go at once into Com-
mittee on the Municipal Corporation Bill. He would avail
himself of this opportunity to afford the Hon. Gentleman some
explanation in connection with this subject. The case of the
Dorchester labourers was one to which he had given a great
deal of attention, and after a careful consideration of all the

circumstances, he thought it his duty to recommend to the
Crown a remission of the punishment of those persons to a
certain extent. The extent to which he had recommended a

remission was this—that pardon be granted to the whole of
them, there being six, on the condition that they remained in.
the colonies—such being the form in which pardons were often
granted—and with respect to four of them, he recommended
that at the end of two years from the time of their arrival in

the colony, provided the Governor approved their conduct
during that period, and no offence was attributed to them, they
should receive a full pardon, which would enable them to re—
turn to this country. But two of those persons named Love-.
lace, whom he considered the most culpable, and who in fact
had incited the others to the commission of thel offence, would

not be allowed to return to England. Having given this ex-
planation, he would ask the Hon. Gentleman whether he would

Press his motion now; and he could not help hoping that the
lion. Member would not consider it necessary to do so at any
future time, inasmuch as the motion was one of an unusual

nature, and involved an interference with a prerogative of the
Crown, viz., the exercise of mercy.—(Hear.)
Mr. WA KLE Y presented several petitions, very numem
ouslv signed, in behalf of the Dorchester labourers.

Similar petitions were presented by Mr. Grote, Mr. Roe-
buck, Dr. Lushington, and Mr. Brotherton, who presented
one from Manchester and Salford, signed by 20,918 persons.
Mr. HARVEY presented a petition from an Attorney at
Dorchester, who stated that he was so affected by the arbitrary
and severe course pursued by the judge on the occasion of the
trial of these men, that he could not remain in the Court to
witness the remainder of the proceedings.
Mr. PONSONBY was one of the Grand Jury who found
the Bill, and there was no difference of opinion amongst
them.

Mr. T. ATTWOOD hoped the Crown would carry its
clemency a little further, and place the whole of these unfor-
tunate men on an equal footing.—( Hear, hear, hear.)
Mr. C. PELHAM said the motion of the Hon. Member
for Finsbury could hardly be considered an interference with
the King's prerogative of mercy, any more than it was an in-
terference of that description to petition the Crown for mercy,
which was often done with success.

Mr. O'CONNELL presented a petition from Finsbury,
praying a free pardon to the Dorchester Labourers.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that after a great
deal of deliberation on the case, it appeared to be the opinion
of all persons that these unfortunate men had violated the law.
Mr. O'CONNELL had given the case much consideration,
and the opinion he entertained was, that the conviction was not
sustainable.

After a few words from Mr. ROEBUCK,
Mr. WARD said when it was seen bow much difference of
opinion existed as to this case, he thought a very strong claim.
was made on behalf of these men for mercy.—( Cheers.)
Mr. HUME wished to press on the Noble Lord's conside-
ration that what appeared to be the general wish was, that
all six of the men should be placed on the footing of the
four. The Noble Lord could scarcely be aware of the anxiety
which existed amongst all classes of the community on this
subject, but it was partiCularly strong in that class with which
he was most anxious that the Government should stand well.
The prevailing feeling was, that the punishment of these men
was a personal injustice. Though his Hon. Friend had given
a pledge to bring the question forward, he was inclined to
ask his Hon. Friend to postpone his motion for fourteen days,
to give time to the Government to take the case again into
consideration.—( Hear, hear.) There were the names of half
a million of petitioners upon the table of the House, and three
times as many more would have been sent, if sufficient time
had been given.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL had considered most deeply the
case of the Dorchester labourers, and it did appear to him, on
looking into what had been the conduct of two of the parties,
he meant the two Lovelaces, that in the extension of mercy
towards them they ought to be distinguished from the others.
His opinion was, that the four had been the dupes of the two he
had named. With respect to these two, then, his conviction
at the moment he was speaking was, that if he recommended,
either on his own authority or in consequence of any pro-
ceeding in this House, the Crown to extend further mercy to
them, he should be lending himself to weaken the authority
of the law, and to impair the influence which that great in-
stitution—trial by judge and jury, ought to have in this
country.—( Cheering.)
Mr. WAKLE Y said, that if the two men had been treated
in the same manner as the other four, he should have been
more disposed to be content. If the Noble Lord would con-
sent to re-consider the question, he would defer his motion •
till some day next week, otherwise he should feel obliged to
bring it forward.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it seemed to him, that after-
what he had said, it would be better for the Hon. Member
to bring forward the motion at once.
Mr. WAKLE Y then proceeded to lay his case before the.
House, detailing'all the facts which have already been broug:ot
under the public notice, and contending that the prosecution
was illegal, the trial partial, and the conviction consequently
wrong. He spoke of the excellent character and t'ne praise-
worthy attainments of the unfortunate labourers, and read.
extracts from the letters of one of them, showing the nature
of his mind and the delicacy of his feelings. The Hon. Mem-
ber concluded by moving an address to his Majesty for a re-
mission of the sentence of transportation.
Mr. HUME seconded the motion.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL was not then about to dispute•
that the two Lovelaces did not conscientiously intend to en.
danger the interests of society, by engaging in these unions
and advising others to take oaths and enrol themselves as
members of them. But what he did insist on was, that it
was not less the duty of the jury who in this case administered
the law, or the Government by whom it was counte-
nanced, to watch over and preserve the community from
the contamination of that moral guilt which these per-
sons had unquestionably incurred. It would -be recol-
lected that in the course of 1833, there was a great
many Unions established throughout the country, for the pur-
pose of adjusting bargains between the possessors of capital
and those whom they employed, by.a forced and compulsory
system, and by an unjust combination to direct the terms on
which labourers and artisans should receive employment; and
he•thought it was a fortunate event—an event for which Lord
Grey was at the time well entitled to take credit, that all the
dangers which such a state of things threatened to inflict on
society, were overcome without the necessity of resorting to
ccercive measures, and the suppression of which was left to '
the mere ordinary operation of the laws, without any strong •
interposition on the part of Government, or the adoption o
any new system of legislation.—(Cheers.) It was not, hr,
contended, any exception to the forbearance which was tb.eu
observed by the Government, that the Dorchester lab/Avers
had been declared guilty of a violation of the law. He Was
satisfied that the Hon. Member who brought forward the ques. ,
tion in so calm and judicious a manner, did not suppose that '
these men were guilty of any intentional breach of the laws; .
but he was sorry that he or the Hon. Member for Middlesex
should have declared, and the latter expressly pronounced hits
his opinion, that these men were guilty of no offence whatever
—that they had met for legal purposes, and that no t mixed.