The Sun.
London, England, 1827-04-07 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

The SPEAKER wished to be permitted to call the at-
tention of tile House to a subject of great importance.
There had been put into his hands three letters, addressed
by a person who signed himself " J. C. Jennings," to a
Right Hon. Member of the House, the Secretary of State
for the Home Department. The first of these letters con-
tained comments on part of a speech made by the Right
Hon. Secretary a few nights ago. The writer stated him-
self to have been in the gallery of the House of Commons,
and to have beard that speech ; and he contradicted, in no
courteous terms, what was said on that occasion by the
Right Hon. Secretary. The second letter was still more
decided in its language ; and the third, which was written
this day, expressed the writer's determination to give his
answer to the Right Hon. Gentleman from the gallery of
that House.—(Laughter.)
1
The Clerk then read the letters.

In the first letter, Air. Jennings stated, that he was in
the gallery of the House of Commons on the preceding
night, when he heard Mr. Peel say, that he had written
to that gentleman, stating that some Jurors on a Coroner's
Inquest, held on a gentleman in the Fleet Prison, had been
made drunk for the purpose of influencing their verdict...._
He begged to say that this statement was totally false; and
he defied Mr. Peel to show any such statement under his
(Mr. Jennings's) hand. He had also heard Mr. Peel say
that Mr. Hume was deceived in him (Mr. Jennings) ; but
he might be allowed to say it was Mr. Peel that was de-
ceived in him, and not Mr. Hume.

The second Lotter, dated 18, Norfolk street, Strand,
April 4, stated, that Mr. Jennings expected an answer to
his letter of the preceding day. The assertion made by
Mr. Peel, respecting him he described as " deliberately
false." The observation was made coolly, not in the heat
of debate ; and in a place where he knew that he (Mr.
Jennings) would be unable to return an answer. To at-
tempt thus to debase him in the eyes of the world, and of
the House of Commons, was a moral assassination, and he
called on Mr. Peel to apologize to hint for the slander he
had thrown out against him. Unless he did so, he would
make him stand at the bar of public opinion, and brand
him with the character of a convicted liar. He again de..
fied Mr. Peel to produce the statement in his (511.. Jen-
nings's) hand-writing.
The third letter, dated April 6, stated, that as Mr. Jen-
nings found that Mr. Peel was determined not to make
him any apology for the false statement he had made to the
public and the House of Commons--a statement ruinous
to his credit and character—he should, therefore, regardless
of consequences, speak on the subject front the gallery of
the House of Commons,—(Laughter.)
Mr. PEEL had certainly taken no notice of the two
first letters, but when be received, in the fore part of this
day, theletter in which the writer declared his intention
to speak to him from the gallerriyouos, fe
theto placeiiee.a Houma of
lettersCmm-
breach
hofe
tfheeltpirtivilegtobees hoifs
the House,
aa it involved serious
in the Speaker's bands. It would be recollected, that a
few evenings since the Hon. Member for Aberdeen had
made a motion relating to the state of the Fleet and other
pnrutinreceived a great many co-
icl. He
ationa s on this Peel) rat, from the writer of the letters
now before the House ; and from the counter-statements
made to him, he certainly bad advised the Hon. Member
for Aberdeen nut to plane too much confidence in the 841.