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

IPSWICH ELECTION.

Sir B. VERE moved, according to notice, that J. E,
Sparrowe be brought to the Bar, and reprimanded and dis-
charged.
Mr. AGLIONBY said before the motion was agreed to,
he 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 petitition 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, wit lout 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
offence, 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 think 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 INGTON 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,
still he thought 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 the country—( Cheers,)—
when the punishment 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 he 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 House
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 Hon. 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 man
would attempt to lend himself to the abstraction of any wit-
ness from the examination of this House.—( Hear.)
Mr. P. STEWART would not dwell on the enormity of
the offence, but he would say they must take the law as it now
stood, and he thought Mr. Sparrow had undergone as severe a
punishment as the House could think of giving him.—
The Honourable Gentlethan opposite said he only proposed
to incarcerate him until the end of the Session, why
even to them sitting there in the light of day enjoying the
freedom of debate, there was something appalling in the idea
of having to remain here until the end of the Session.—
( Hear, and laughter ) He would ask whether a profes-
sional individual, after being confined six weeks at a
great pecuniary loss, and then coming forward in a
penitent manner, was not entitled to the merciful consideration
of the House.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. AGLIONBY denied that be 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 be should oppose the discharge
of Mr. Clipperton.

Dr. Liii3HINGTON explainel. He merely suggested
to put it upon the same footing as bribery, that is make it
punishable at common law the offence of evading the
Speaker's warrant, or aiding- others in doing so.
) iLcrd 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 tt,
enforce attendance in any way if they adopted such a course.
It would place them below the Courts of Cctunnit Law,
and it was a oroposition which he dill_ nut think that
he could ever be disposed to '7;iisent to. Regarding
this particular case the cieest'':n under consideration was whe-
there were any object 'answered by continuing this person in
prison. Withe--:,
Mr. CI giving any opinion regarding the case of
'-eperton- , he thought that in this case for the offence
`,-inmitted 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 effill-
tually deter others from the same offence. The course thny
had alrendy taken was a very right and a very necessary course,
but he did not think it necessary to continue it. At the same.
time ha considered this as one of those cases in which the person
concerned had expressed deep contrition, but at the same time
lie stated that he was ignorant of the offence. He would not,
therefore, say that in a similar case he would pursue the same
course.

Mr. AGLIONBY withdrew his motion, and the prisoner,
Sparrow, was ordered to be brought up to-morrow and dis-
charged. _ _ _

CASE OF MR. CLIPPERTON.

Mr. FRE SHFIELD rose to move the discharge of Mr.
Clipperton, confined for the same offence. He hoped the
House would feeLthat 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 oue
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
Mr. Clipperton, he trusted the statement of that
fact would have that effect. He trusted the House would
grant the prayer of his
TheStio". Laving bee put,
ASON should certainly feel it his duty to oppose
the motion of the Hon. Member opposite. Mr. Clapperton
had put statements that were not founded on fact in his po-
session. The Hon. Member proceeded to comment in
very severe termsupon theconduct of the petitioner.
which he insisted was any thing but that of a man of honour.
Instead of his fortune being injured by the proceedings of that
House, he thOught he would be found the Parliamentary
agent of every borough in the county on future occasions.—
(Cries of Oh, oh.") The petftioner stated that the wit-
news had absconded of their own accord, and not by
any contrivance of the petitioner, and yet the evidence of Mr.
Clippeton and other, witnesses before the Committee, was di-
rectly contrary to this statement.
(tart- syri:Axa.),