The Sun.
London, England, 1835-07-22 00:00:00

TITHES.

Mr. DOBBIN presented a petition from John Huson,
Esq., a most respectable gentleman, resident in the county of
Durham, complaining of the very unjust charge of tithe made
upon his lands. The land was abbey-land, and had not been
subjected to tithes for one hundred years ; but, under the late
compulsory Tithe Act, the Commissioners set it down at the
rate of 701., reducing the value of the land full 1,0001. The
Hon. Member also presented a petition to the same effect, from
some other landholders in the county of Durham.
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD bore testimony to the re-
spectability of the petitioners, and supported their prayer.
ACCOUNTANT'S OFFICE.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL moved for certain Re-
turns connected with this office, which were ordered, and im-
mediately afterwards were brought up and laid on the table.
Sir R. INGLIS presented two petitions against the con-
templated Irish Church Bill.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition from the
Licensed Victuallers of Macclesfield, complaining of the pre-
sent rate of duty upon licenses.
Col. JONES presented a petition against the claims of Ba-
ron de Bode, from a place the name of which we did not bear.
Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented a petition from 1,163
inhabitants of a parish in Mayo, in favour of the contemplated
Bill for the regulation of the Irish Established Church, and
praying for the total abolition of tithes.
IPSWICH ELECTION.

Mr. WYNN brought up the Report of the Ipswich Election
Committee, which was as follows:
" 1. That it appears to the Committee that Thomas Moore Keith
aided and abetted the procuring and continuing the absence of
John Pilgrim, toprevent his giving evidence on the petition against
the Ipswich election, and that he used the charge of embezzlement
ac a means of inducing Pilgrim to remain in concealment for the
same purpose.
" 2. That on Pilgrim's return to Norwich, an infotmation was
laid against him for embezzlement, which had tie effect of delaying
obedience to the Chairman's summons, and his attendance before
the Committee on the Ipswich election.
"3. That it does not appear to the Committee, from the evidence
before them, that there is any proof that these prosecutions were
taken for the purpose of procuring such delay.
" 4. That it dues not appear to the Committee, from the evi-
dence before them, that any charge is proved against Joseph Sewell,
John Blake, or John Joseph Blake."
Mr. HUME believed the invariable rule to be that when-
ever a party was reported against in this manner he should be
ordered into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. WYNN thought the rule was not quite so clear as the
}lon. Member thought. In the case of the Magistrates who
were reported against by the former Committee, they were not
ordered into custody. The House would not take that course
before reading over the evidence, and judging for themselves.
Mr. WA SON.—The Right Hon. Baronet had made a
mistake in the allusion to the former case. All the parties
reported against specifically, were instantly ordered into cus-
tody. The case of the Magistrates was different, as they were
only reported to have been guilty of a breach of the privileges
of the House, without its being stated what the breach was.
Mr. HUME considered that the Committee had been ap-
pointed in order to save the time of the House. He thought
the duty of the house was clear, and he would move that
Mr. Keith, the gentleman reported against, be taken into
custody by the Sergeant-at- Arms.
Sir R. INGLIS asked whether the Hon. Gentleman had
given notice of this motion.
Mr. HUME did not think that any notice was necessary in
a motion of this nature.
Mr. SINCLAIR thought that the time of the House ought
not to be occupied in examining witnesses. He thought that
the matter had been referred to a Committee for that purpose.
Mr. WILK S—The Committee had gone beyond that. It
was not a mere reference to examine witnesses—the Com-
mittee were empowered to form an opinion, and it was
necessary that that opinion, under such circumstances,
should appear, for it was to no purpose that the Comnai":„
t.l.y giving
should simply come to a decision unless, after distinc
their opinion, that House was to act upon it.
Sir J. WROTTESLEY suggested. `.'sat as many mem.
bers had entered the Haase since tl-sj- Report had been read,
it should be read again.
.The Retr.ot having been ;Tad accordingly,
Mr. W.YNN said, when the proposal for the appointment
of the Committee was made, there was a considerable differ-
ence of opinion ,in that House upon it, and he appre-
itended that when the Committee was appointed, the
great object was to save the time of the House, and to
save them from the inconvenience of examining witnesses
at the bar of the House. While some Members were
coming, and others had only heard one part, and others another
part, the same questions were put over and over again, and
It was the least conducive to justice of any mode of pro-
reeding, If the mere opinion of a majority of a Com-
mittee was to be conclusive, where was the use of directing
them to report the evidence to that House ?—(llear, hear. )
Why lay the Minutes of Evidence before the House, if the
He.use was bound to submit entirely to the discretion of the
Committee ? The question was, whether a witness had
prevaricated or rarseonded, and he wished before they came to
a decision, the evidence taken before the Committee should
be laid before the House, and then they would be able to judge
what WAS the real meaning of the words " aiding or abetting."
These words admitted of very different constructions, and it
was only fitting that the House should know the case before
they fixed the punishment. He only wished that the House
should have an opportunity of reading the evidence before
they determined upon it.—( Hear, hear.) . Wiatever
might be the decision of that Hanse whether
it wauld be different from that come tss'oy the Committee or not,
lie thought that it would be 111r)VC satisfactory after the evidence
should have beesia pilAted. lie believed that one day would be
sufficient to pto-laOliirs in possession of the evidence ; and
if upon this delay they Could have the evidence, their decision
would give infinitely more' satisfaction.
'Mr. I'. M. Sit WART felt bound to differ from that
iihich had been stated by t4great authority which had just sat
'clsavn. In the former instencr, the House did not wait for the
."VitiUting of the evidence, but committed the parties on the re-
' poifoltbe Committite. 'lie thought that the same course ought

~~