The Sun.
London, England, 1835-06-12 00:00:00

for altering or amending the grants to the Presbyterians of
Ireland, which went under the name of the Reyium Donum.
Lord MORPETH said there was no intention to open the
question in the present Session, but there were some points
connected with the subject which would require the interfer-
ence of the Legislature.

IRISH TITHES.
Mr. SINCLAIR—It had been rumoured that the question
of Irish Tithes was to be postponed ; he wished to know whe-
ther that was the case or not?

Lord J6ilisrliFS iiil said that as the second reading of
the Corporation Bill bad been fixed for Monday next, it would
be impossible to bring this question forward—the day on which
it was intended to bring it forward was the Friday following.
IPSWICH.

Mr. GISBORNE moved the Order of the Day for dis-
cussing the report of the Ipswich Committee. The reason
why the motion which he made was not supported by a
greater number of precedents was the difficulty of establishing
such cases. But the case of the Camelford election was a
precedent quite in point. The House in that case resolved
that Callington should be taken into custody. He would call
the attention of the Right Hon. Baronet to an authority upon
this point whose sufficiency would be admitted. It was the
authority of the late Speaker of that House. When Calling-
ton, in extenuation of his offence, pleaded grievous bodily in-
jury, and his not having been served with a warrant, the
Speaker replied, " You allege that you were not served with
an order. It is true you were not ; but you are reported by
the Committee to have wilfully absconded to avoid being so
served. Do not, therefore, now hope to mislead us by so vain
an excuse ; such,attempts as those shall never succeed, but
always terminate, as in your case, with the disgrace and
punishment of the individual." The question then for the
House was, whether it was to proceed on its own view of the
evidence or act upon the report of the Committee. In his own
opinion the House ought to act on the report of the Com-
mittee, the recommendation of which was not to punish but to
take into custody. It might be said that his motion affected
persons who had not been before the Committee, but he
would say in answer to that, that they had Counsel and
others there to defend them. The Hon. Member concluded
by begging to be allowed to omit the words " for their
several and respective offences"—(loud cries of " hear,
hear, hear")—in the motion which he had last night pro-
posed, and at the same time, to include the names of John
B. Dasent and John Pilgrim in the warrants of the Speaker.
The motion that John Bond, Arthur Bott Cooke, Robert
Beauchamp Clamp, Frederick O'Malley, J. Eddowes Spar-
rowe, John Clipperton John Bury Dasent, and John Pilgrim
be taken into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending
this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant ac-
cordingly, was then put.
Mr. P. STE WART rose to explain the reason of his hav-
ing abstained from originating any motions of this nature,
founded upon the report of the Committee which he had
brought up to the House. He begged to assure the House
that, as Chairman of that Committee, he did not wish to omit
anything which might properly have fallen within his duties in
that capacity ; but the fact simply was this, that the Commit-
tee had not authorised him to take any steps of the kind; and
he, therefore, thought it best to content himself by bringing
up the report, and leaving tbe House to act upon it as they
should think proper, being perfectly prepared to abide by that
decision when it came.

Lord J. RUSSELL said that it appeared to him, after
what the Hon. Member for Derbyshire had stated, the House
bad acted perfectly right in adopting the course they had done
in postponing this discussion. He perfectly agreed in the
sound discretion which dictated the alterations proposed by the
Hon. Member in his motion, and he hoped that, in its present
shape, the House would adopt it. It appeared to him a highly
unjust course to draw a distinction, and to punish a man who
disobeyed the mandate of the Speaker, but to allow another
to go scot free who was successful enough, by conspiracy or
otherwise, to evade its being served upon him ; and he was
glad to find that the authority of the late Speaker bore him
out in that view of the case.
Sir R. PEEL rejoiced at the delay which had occurred,
and he thought that the Hon. Member for Derbyshire had also
good reason to be glad of it. That delay had given the Hon.
Member an opportunity of referring to precedents, and of
making a very important and judicious alteration in the word-
ing of his motion. In calling the parties to the Bar of that
House, by virtue of the Speaker's warrant, to answer certain
charges, they ought not to prejudge that they were guilty of
'certain offences. That would be highly untimed, and very
unjust. He was glad to see, therefore, that, by the omission
of the words " for their several and respective offences" from
his motion, the Hon. Member had consented not to assume the
Lguilt of those parties as a thing established.—( Hear, hear.)
Under this view of the case, and the terms of the motion being
thus amended, he could see no objection to the names of all the
parties who had been mentioned in the report of the Com-
mittee, being included in the Speaker's warrant.--( Hear.)
The authority of the late Speaker for the position that the
-utfence of absconding to evade the service of the Speaker's
writ was equally culpable as the refusing to obey it after it had
been served, would fully justify such a course upon the facts of
the present case. At the same time, however, he could not
help thinking it would have been better, had the time of the
Mouse allowed it, that the Ilouse should have heard the
erfalence adduced before the Committee, and have formed their
&wn judgment upon it. He could cite a case precisely in
Taint, of certain parties who absconded for the purpose of
evading the service of the Speaker's warrant. On that occa-
sion the House did not take the report of the Committee as
the basis for their proceedings, but caused the evidence ad-
duced before that Committee, as taken down in shorthand, to
be read at the Bar, and then, upon their own authority, and
their own construction of that evidence, not the authority or
construction of the Committee, proceeded to summon the par-
ties implicated before them.
Mr. GISBORNE inquired the date and reference to the
case in question ?
Sir R. PE EL replied, the case of the Grantham election
Committee in 1820, when the course he had described had
been entered on in a case very similar to the present. He could
see no objection to the House hearing the evidence read at the
bar, before they proceeded to act in the present case ; while
on the other hand, he did see a very serious objection against
any judicial body, which the House was under the present cir-
cumstances, taking the authority of others when acting in
their judicial capacity, when they had an opportunity of form-
ing their own opinion upon the merits of the case. l3efore he
sat down he begged to be permitted to ask of the Hon. Mem-
ler what course he intended to pursue in reference to the Ma-
gistrates whose conduct hnd been referred to in a subsequent
part of the Committee's report ?
Mr. GISBORNE would rather enter upon that subject
after the present motion had been disposed of.
Sir R. PEEL inquired when it would be brought before
the House ?

Mr. GISBORNE said perhaps, after all, he had better ex-
plain his intentions on that subject also, particularly as be
could do so in two words. He only hoped, however, that the
House would bear in mind that the two cases were perfectly
distinct. The course which he proposed recommending to the
House in respect to the Magistrates implicated in the Com-
mittee's reports, would vary from that which he had already
proposed in reference to other individuals connected with these
transactions, only inasmuch as the words of the report of the
Commissioners varied when speaking of the two classes of in-
dividuals The Commissioners reported that the conduct of
the Magistrates, Samuel Bignold and Edward Temple Booth,
Esqrs., appeared to them to be a breach of the privileges of
this House. Now, he believed that the course which the
House usually adopted in cases of breach of privilege was,
not to take the parties into custody, but to order them to ap-
pear at the bar on a certain day. That was the course which
he intended to propose to the House in the present case.
Sir R. PEEL certainly concurred with the Hon. Member,
that there was a very great difference between the charges
against the two classes of persons implicated in the report of
the Committee, and he therefore agreed that a different
course should be pursued in reference to them. What he
would now ask, however, was this question, which, without
discussing it himself, he would put to the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman in the Chair for his decision upon it, namely, whe-
ther any precedents existed to show that the House had ever
devolved upon any other tribunal than itself the duty of de-
termining whether a breach of privilege had or had notbeen
committed ?—( Hear.)
The SPEAKER, who was scarcely audible behind the
Chair, was understood to express an opinion that the House
should not be any further bound by the report of the Com-
mittee in this case than to take up the question of the alleged
breach of privilege, with a view of deciding upon it.
Sir R. PEEL, in accordance with that opinion, put it to
the Hon. Member whether the House could properly proceed
to summon to their bar the parties guilty of the alleged breach
of privilege before they had read the evidence relating to the
case, and made up their opinion whether the case of breach of
privilege existed or not ?
Mr. CHAPMAN said that, as one of the Committee on the
Ipswich Election, he begged to say that it had not been the
intention of the Committee, in saying what they did in their
report, to dictate to the House, but merely to suggest to it
their surmise that a charge of a breach of the privileges of the
House had been incurred by the conduct of the Magistrates
named in the report. With respect to the individuals who
had absconded from the Speaker's warrant, it happened that
two of them, Dasant and Pilgrim, afterwards appeared and
gave their evidence ; the former voluntarily did so, and it
therefore appeared to the Committee that in so doing he had
in great part freed himself from crimination. For himself,
be did hope, that, in regard to both these individuals, the
House would act with less severity than towards the others
named.

Mr. GISBORNE was understood to acquiesce in the sug-
gestion that no motion should be made on the subject of the
two Magistrates until the evidence of this breach of privilege
was before the House.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL agreed with the Right
Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel) that it was becoming and neces-
sary in every proceeding like the present to act only upon the
very best evidence which could be got. But for that very
reason he thought it was better in the present case to depend
upon the report of the Committee. This opinion was strictly
in accordance with the practice of the Courts, which always
preferred an opinion founded upon evidence orally delivered,
than upon a mere hearsay report of it. In conclusion, he
would observe that, as a lawyer, there were no proceedings
which he viewed with a more unwelcome eye, or which the
country more reluctantly took up than cases of contempt. At
the same time, however, he must express his opinion, that if
ever there were a case of the kind which called for visitation it

was the present one. There were five or six individuals, aided
mid abetted by the agents and solicitors of the parties engaged
in the contest, and also, he was grieved to say, by a gentleman
belonging to the honourable profession of the Bar, charged
*ith avoiding, he would almost say by conspiracy, the service of
the Speaker's warrant. The case was such that it did not ac-
tually coma within the reach of a criminal indictment for con-
, ,