The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-23 00:00:00

1-((
he though.t a W ••e more satisfactory after the evidence
shculd have been printed. He believed that one day, would be
sufficient to put Members in possession of the evidence; and
if upon this delay they could have the evidence, their decision
would give infinitely more satisfaction.
Mr. P. M. STEWART felt bound to differ from that
which had been stated by the great authority which bad just sat
down. In the former instance, the House did not wait for the
printing of the evidence, but committed the parties on the re.
port of Committee. He thought that the same course ought
certainly to be pursued in the present instance.—(Hears
hear.) He entertained very little doubt, that the evidence
taken before the last Committee was very similar to that
which was given before the Committee of which be Was thtt Chairman.
Mr. MILES thought if Hon. Members would wait
till the evidence was printed, they tvould be disposed
to deal with this individual more leniently than if
they proceeded to older hiT.r, into custody without it. 'his,
considering the state c the individual, would be extmnely de-
sirable, as probably the House might aggravate 'his condition
if it acted hastily with him.
Mr. HEJXIE could assure the Hon. Member that in moving
this he had merely done it officially, He was willing to admit
that what the Hon. Member had stated was worthy of the con-
sideration of the House, after it had vindiceied its own autho-
rity.—( Cries of " Hear,") If the authority of the House vans
not supported, it could not administe:r the justice of the country.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY fulls. ; admitted the statement Of the
Hon. Member for ili;:,ldlee.;ox,
cate its own that the House ought to vindi-
`...l.gnity, but he thought that vindication would
take more effectually if it did not act O.', the evidence
`..ad been printed.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL was diF:posed to move, as an
amendment, that the motion sho,:tid be put off till Friday.
If the House ordered this individual into custody, it might,
as had been stated, aggravate his state of mind, for which he
would be sorry.
Mr. HAWES thought, when the evidence was laid before
the House, it would be found to be an ample justification for
the most severe punishment being inflicted on this individual ;
n6r did he believe that the results anticipated by the lion.
Member opposite, as to the aggravation of his state of mind,
would take place. This impending delay would be quite as in-
jurious to Mr. Keith as any present proceeding. He (Mr.
Hawes) was fully aware of the circumstances stated by the
Hon. Member for Somersetshire, and it was thls knowledge
enabled him to state, that .delay would not, in his opinion, be
the wisest course.
The question was then put that the motion for directing
the Sergeant-at-Arms to take Mr. Keith into custody be
postponed to Friday, which was, agreed to.
Mr. P. M. STEWART trusted the House would indulge
him for a few moments on a matter personal to himself. The
concluding sentenfle of the Report condemned the Chairman of
the Committee, for signing a warrant for the arrest of Pil-
grim,. one of the witnesses, as being contrary to the usual
practice, which was to resort to that House for the warrant of
..tie Speaker. That sentence was a gentle hint to himself (Mr.
P. M. Stewart), and he pleaded guilty to it. The House was
aware of the difficulty they had experienced in tracing Pilgrim
at home or abroad, and when a summons out of five or Six
had at length been served upon him at Norwich, he had been
arrested under a warrant from the Magistrates of that town.
It was then suggested that he (Mr. Stewart) should
send a summons to the Constable of Norwich, but he bad
doubted whether such a proceeding would be sufficient,
and, without much consideration, had issued the warrant. -He
believed the Chairman of a Committee could not sign a war-
rant, and that he (Mr. Stewart) should have applied to that
Ilouse.—( Hear.) The Magistrates were, therefore, perfectly
right in refusing to act upon that warrant.
Mr. WYNN could assure the Hon. Member that the para-
graph to which he had alluded had not been introduced for
the purpose of casting any imputation upon him, but because
if such a precedent was improper, and if acted upon by future
Election Committees, it would be extremely inconvenient.

CASE OF MR. SPARRONVE.
Sig• 13. VERE moved, according to notice, that J. E.
Sparrowe be brought to the Bar, and reprimanded and dis-
charged.

AGLIONBY said before the motion was agreed to,
be would like to hear some reason assigned for the -dis-
charge of this person, who had so grossly outraged the laws
of the country.--( Hear, hear.) His petition set forth
that he had been in confinement for six weeks. He (Mr.
A.) was certain that there were many now in goal, and
had been for six months, for a much less offence than this per-
son had been guilty of.---( Cheers.) This was one of the few
instances of a person caught almost in the very fact, and he
trusted the House would not part with him till the end of the
session, without some reason being given for taking such a course.
Mr. HUME agreed with his Hon. Friend. If it was not
to be a mere farce to bring up a man of such distinction
upon a charge of this nature—a man who knew the
laws better than most people—charged with such an
°llene°, they should not part with him without any reason being
assigned for it. When a motion was made for the liberation of
the Dorchester Labourers only a few nights ago, they were
met with reasons certainly, but not in his opinion valid ones;
and he did not thick them such guilty criminals as Mr. Spar-
rowe. He thought they ought at all events to keep him till
the end of the Session, however long that might continue.
' Dr. LUSH INGT ON took no slight view of the offence
with which this person was charged, for it was one
that involved infinite danger to the cause of justice—
that had involved an expense of many thousands of pounds.
Notwithstanding his strong conviction of all these circumstances,
eetilShe ehought that it would be much better to discharge
those persons yet in custody, and bring in a Bill making that
offence punishable before a Jury of th country--( Cheers)__
when the judgment would be given by a Judge who was not
a party to the question—( Great cheering)—for which
the punishment was awarded. He did not think it was
the duty of Parliament to punish in that sense of the word.
They only asserted their dignity and privileges by making an
example in order to prevent a repetition of the offence. In his
opinion the dignity of the House would be better kept up, and
the purposes of justice better served, if the House would now
release those parties, and provide as lie had suggested for the
punishment of such cases by a judge and jury.
Sir R. PEEL had serious doubts as to the policy of adopt.
ing the plan of transferring to any other tribunal the power
of that house to enforce its authority.—( Hear, hear.)
The Honourable and Learned Member who had just sat
down (Dr. Lushington), urged the inconvenience and
possible injustice of the House acting at once as prosecu-
tor and judge ; and proposed, in cases of obstruction to the
warrants of the Speaker and the authority of the House, that
it should be referred to a jury to determine the degree of
criminality of such obstruction.—( Hear.) But the Rouse
was only exercising that power to enforce its own authority, as
in the Court of King's Bench, or any other, and he
thought they would greatly weaken their privileges and
encourage contempt of their authority. The lion. Member for
Middlesex had referred to the argument he ( Sir R. Peel) had
used in favour of a mitigation of the sentence on the Dorches-
ter labourers ; and if the mitigation in this case depended upon
the Crown as in that case, .the argument would equally apply,
and should admit that the Crown might decide upon the
case with reference to Parliament. He was of opinion that.
the end of punishment had been sufficiently answered, after six
week's imprisonment ; and that, after this example, no DAM
would attempt to lend himself to the abstraction of any wit-
ness from the examination of this House.—( Hear.)
Mr. P. STE WART would not dwell on the enormity of
the effence, but he would say they must take the law as it now
stood, and lie thought Mr. Sparrowo had undereeme as severe
a punishment as the House could think of giving Min.
The Honourable Gentleman opposite sen he only proposed
to incarcerate him until the end t the Session. Why
even to them, sitting there in the light of day enjoying the
freedom of debate, there eras something appalling in the idea
of having to remain here until the end of the Session._
( Hear, and laeeehter.) He would ask whether a profes-
sional indie'elual, after being confined six weeks at a
great pecuniary loss, and then coining forward in a
penitent manner, was not entitled to the merciful consideration.
of the House ?—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONI3Y denied that he had made any such
amendment as that imputed to him by the Hon. Member. All
he opposed was the discharge of the man this day.
Mr. RIGBY WA SON said he should oppose the discharge
of Mr. Clipperton.
Dr. LUS ING TON explained. lie merely suggested
to put it upon the same footing as bribery—that is, make
punishable at common law the offence of evading the
Speaker's warrant, or aiding others in doing so.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that such a course
as that recommended by his Honourable and Learned
Friend would very much weaken the authority of that
House, and he doubted whether they would be able to
enforce attendance in any way if they adopted such a course.
It would place them below the Courts of Common Law
and it was a proposition which lie did not thinketlia
be could ever be disposed to consent to. Regardina-sfles
particular case the question under consideration was, whether
there were any object answered by continuing this person in
prison? Without giving any opinion regarding the case of
Mr. Clipperton, he thought that in this case for the offence
committed the punishment that had been inflicted was
sufficient..—( Hear, hear, hear.) He did not think that a
continuance in prison a few weeks longer, would more effee-
tually deter others from the same offence. The course they
had already taken was a very right and a very necessary course,
but he did not think it necessary to continue it. At the same
time he considered this as one of those cases in which the person
concerned had expressed deep contrition, but at the same time
he stated that he was ignorant of' his offenese. Ile would not,
therefore, say that in a similar case ho ;mute pursue the same
course.

Mr. AGLIONBY, vit
La
Sparrowe, was Qr'ima". ow his motion, and the prisoner,
to. be brought up to-morrow and di{-
charged,

A, • CASE OF MR. CLIPPERTON.
FRESHFIELD rose to move the discharge of Mr.
Clipperton, confined for the same offence. lie hoped the
House would feel that Mr. Clipperton had suffered enough
already for what he had been guilty of. Mr. Clipperton
had no connexion whatever with the election—he was not
at Ipswich at the time, he happened to be the agent of one
of the parties, and in that character he was bound to protect
his interest by every means in his power. Mr. Clipperton had
seven children, the eldest only twelve years, and the youngest
about three months old.—( Hear, hear.) If nothing else
would call upon the House to act leniently towards
Nlr. Clipperton, he trusted the statement of that;
fact would have that effect. He trusted the House would

i.__ ........... ..
I grant the prayer of his motion.
The question having been put,
Mr. WASON should certainly feel it his duty to bppose
the motion of the Hon. Member opposite. , Mr. Cltpperton,
had put statements that were not founded on fact iu his po-
'session. The Hon. Member proceeded to co:nment in
very severe terms upon the conduct of the petitioner,