The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-26 00:00:00

BANKRUPTS.

JOSHUA FITCH, Halsted, Essex. auctioneer, to surrender
July 5, at twelve, and August 7, at half-past eleven, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Burleigh and Erratt, Haverhill, Suffolk ; Wi.
glesworth and Ridsdale, Gray's-inn-square, London.
WILLIAM HENRY ROSKELL and THOMAS SMITH,
Shoreditch, plunters, July 7, at eleven, and August 7, at half-
past twelve, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Over on, Shoreditch.
HENRY ROGERS, Oxford-street, jeweller, July 2, and Au.
gust 7, at eleven, at the Court of Bankruptcy. Whitehouse,
Castle-street, Holborn.
WILLIAM MILLER ANDERSON, Foley-place, St. Mary.
lebone, surgeon, July 5, at one, and Aug. 7, at eleven, at the
Bankruptcy Court. Lowe, Lothbury ; Walthew, Norfolk-street,
Strand.

JOSEPH SA LTHOUSE, Mountbarrow, Ulverston, Lancas-
ter, cattle-dealer, July 14, and August 7, at nine, at the Sun Inn,
Ulverston. Tyson, Ulverston; Walmsley, Keightley, and
Parkin, Chancery-lane, London.

ALFRED PETTET, Norwich, music—seller, July 9, at nine,
and August 7, at twelve, at the Angel Inn, Norwich. Austin,
Field-court, Gray's Inn ; Staff, Norwich.
JAMES HORNBY, Liverpool, corn-merchant, July 7, and
August 7, at eleven, at the Clarendon.rooms, Liverpool. Mawds-
ley, Liverpool; Adlington, Gregory, and Faulkner, Bedford-row,
London.
JOHN EDMUNDSON, Manchester, cotton-manufacturer,
July 12, 13, and August 7, at ten, at the Star Inn, Manchester.
Walmsley, Keightley, and Parkin, Chancery-lane, London;
Lonsdale and Thomas, Manchester.
THOMAS DUNSDON, Worcester, confectioner, July 6 and
August 7, at twelve, at the Hopmarket Inn, Worcester. Bed-
ford, Gray's Inn-square, London; Bedford, Worcester.
HENRY GICK, Liverpool, joiner, July 7 and Aug. 7, at
two, at the Clarendon Rooms, Liverpool. Robinson, Liverpool;
Blackstock and Bunco, Temple, London.
HMNRY THOMAS NEWTON, Derby, liquor.merchant,
July 2 and Aug. 7, at eleven, at the office of Messrs. Moss and
Le Hunt, Derby. Adlington, Gregory, and Faulkner, Bedford-
row, London • Moss and Le unt, Derby.
THOMAS' LAWS, Chancery-lane, victualler, July 7, at one,
and Aug. 7, at eleven, at the Court ,of Bankruptcy. Wtl.
loughby, Clifford's-inn.
WILLIAM WHITTEMORE, Brighthelmstone, Sussex,
booksellor, July 4, and Aug. 7, at ten, at the Court of Bank-
rnptcy. Thomp,on, Mildred's-court, Poultry.
RICHARD COLLIER, Warminster, Wiltshire, victualler,
July 6, at seven, 7, at ten, and Aug. 7, at eleven, at the Bath
Arms Inn, Warminster. Helder, Clement's Inn, London ;
Goodman and Griffith, Warminster.
WILLIAM BALDOCK EDRIDGE, Long Acre, coach.
maker, July 16, at eleven, and Aug. 7, at twelve, at the Court
of Bankruptcy. Robins, Bernard-street, Russell-square ; Tur-
quand, 'l'okenhouse-yard.
THOMAS CHARLTON, Whitee hapel, linen-draper, July 7,
at eleven, and Aug. 7, at one, at the Court of Bankruptcy.
Turner, Basing-lane, Bread-street.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, Jusz 25.

Mr. M. O'CONNELL presented petitions from the
North-western Metropolitan Union, and from the Na-
tional Political Union of Ireland, complaining of the mis-
appropriation of Church property, and praying for its
equal distribution. Also from Bath, praying for
an equal measure of Reform for Ireland as for
England ; and against the privilege of Parliament Bill.
Also a petition from the Political Union of Bristol in
favour of an enlarged Reform Bill for Ireland. The Hon.
Member also presented three petitions from parishes in
Cork against tithes.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY presented a petition from the Pro-
testant Dissenters of Colchester in favour of the Government
plan of education in Ireland. The Hon. Member gave
notice that on the bringing up of the Report of the Pre-
vention of Bribery Bill, he should move the insertion of a
clause to compel every Member to take an oath that
he had not given, promised, or intended to give, money
or lands to any person for his Tote.
The HON. MEMBER then presented a petition from a
Mr. Walker, a solicitor at Bristol, praying that the proper
officer of the House might be permitted to attend in the
King's Bench to-morrow, with the Journals, in order to
prove the presentation of a petition on a certain d iy. Peti-
tioner had an action of libel against the Mirror of Parliament
for the publication of a speech of Dr. Lushington's on the
presentation of a petition, in which that Hon. Gentleman
had reflected greatly upon the petitioner, and it was ne-
cessary at the trial to prove that such a petition had
been presented. The Hon. Member moved the bringing
upofthe
with the Journals.
petition, and also that the officer of the House
should attend
The SPEAKER said that on Saturday, while in that
House, he had received a letter from the petitioner re-
questing that he would give directions to the proper
officer to attend with the Journals in order to prove the
presentation of a petition to that House, and also stating
that it was important that no time should be lost
as the trial was likely to take place that day or
Monday. The answer which he had given to that
letter was, that inasmuch as the prodution of the Journals,
with a view to prove something in a Court of Law,
affected the privileges of the House of Commons, he shoal,'
take the same course as he had heretofore usually done
on .former occasions—that was, to call upon the party
while the House was sitting to present the petition. Upon
the presentation of a similar petition in 1831, the House
negatived the request, and the present application was of
the nature of a reversal of that decision,
Lord ALTHORP considered that assenting to the
prayer of the petition would be contrary to the privi-
leges of the House. He had no doubt that what
was required of the petitioner was to prove words
spoken by an lion. Member on the presentation of a pe-
tition. Although he felt doubt and hesitation on the sub-
ject, he considered tile House bound not to agree to the
production of the Journals.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought the Noble Lord opposite
was under a misapprehension. He (Mr. O'Connell) did
not understand that the object of the petition was to
prove what an Hon. Member had stated on the presentation
of the petition, but in the indictment averments were con-
tained that a petition was presented, and it was necessary
that the Journals of the House should be produced to
prove that fact.
Lord ALTHORP considered that it was not essential
to the purposes of justice that the House should comply
with the request of the petition. It would be trenching
on the privileges of the House to allow their officer to
present their Journals on such an occasion.
Mr. HUME had presented the petition referred to, but
did not see that the complaint was attached to the pre-
sentation of it, but to the debate which followed. He
did not see that that House should stand in the way of
justice between the two individual parties who alone were
concerned.
Mr. O'CONNELL insisted that as there was an aver-
ment which was necessary to be proved before the indict-
ment could be sustained, and as no other kind of evidence
was admissible to prove the truth of that averment, if
justice was not to be defeated, the Journals ought to be
produced.
Sir R. PEEL considered this a question of considerable
difficulty. The House was bound, as having a general
soperintendance over the Courts, to facilitate, as far as was
consistent with their privileges, the due execution of justice.
It was, therefore, their duty to facilitate the proof of the
averment, if necessary to the justice of the case. He could
not see the principle upon which the production of the
Journals was refused. At the same time, however, he
recommended some course should be adopted, in order to
ascertain that their production was necessary.
Lord ALTHORP agreed with the Right Hon. Baronet
that the production of the Journals should be proved ne-
cessary, and appealed to the Speaker how far the privileges
of the House were involved in the question.
The SPEAKER having been appealed to, said tba-
whatever decision the House came to on this case, 'haul.)
he determined by its own merits; and that the production
of the Journals was to be judged of by their interfering or

' of iaterfering with the privilege of the Wu.. Al.
though the production of the Journals wee nesemary to thi" • ,
nroof of the averment, as the indictment was arm* it \
ilii.-i
Wis questionable whether the indictment, Wog etiww_
drawn, the production of the journals was nesseess* i :/-)
he end of justice. In 1831 a similar appyna -
~/
was negatived. The discussion is Oietwitstese sr.eil .#015,-;
however, be made the subjeet sf -teatime-he the or
below, and, therefore, it could sot. tfittiefere:tti:ktli'the
privilege, of that House '
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, that the person who bad
put the petition into his band was advised by two Has.
and Learned Members (his Counsel) that the production
of the Journals was necessary to the justice of Lis true.
Mr. CAMPBELL felt no difficulty in stating that their
production was necessary to the proof of the averment, as
the indictment was framed, and that the privilege, of the
House would not thereby be interfered with.
Mr. STANLEY said it was desirable that the Hon. and
Learned Member should have gone a step further, to prove
that the indictment could not be so framed as that the proof
of the averment by means of the production of the jour-
nals, would be rendered unnecesary.
Mr. GOULBURN said that this action was brought
by the plaintiff for a libel contained in a corrected
report of a speech made by the Hon. Member (Dr.
Lushington.) The petition, however, complained that
a second speech delivered by the Hon. Member had aegr 1-
vated the former libel. He was therefore of opinion that the
production of the Journals was wanted for the purpose of
aggravating the case against the Hon. Member. e for
one would not agree to their being produced.

Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE said it had not been
made out to his satisfaction that the averment was
at all necessaryin order to sustain the indictment. He
thought the better plan wee to call either the oounael
or the agent to the Bar, in order to give evidence on the
matter. As to the course suggested by the Hon. Member
for Tamworth, there was not time for a Select Committee,
ss the trial was expected to come on to-morrow.
Mr. BURGE took it to be perfectly clear that the aver-
ment was necessary, for counsel were always unwilling to
burden their cause with what was useless. The indict-
ment referred to a petition, and therefore the averment
was necessary.

Mr. J. CAMPBELL was most anxious to be rightly
understood. He did not offer any opinion ai to the alle-
gation contained in this averment being indispensably ne-
cessary. He had not drawn the indictment, ;:nd if he
bad, he certainly should not have included any such aver-
ment.—(Hear, hear.) On being appeah-d to by tke Hon.
Gentleman, be said, that as the indictment now stood, it
was very desirable that the Journals should be produced.
Mr. HARVEY felt that after that statement, he would
not press the matter further, and he therefore begged
leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.—Petition to lie on the
table. .