The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-29 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY MORNING, JUNE 29, 1842.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

• The Duke of WELLINGTON said the. Noble Lord
certainly could never have thought that letters strictly
private could have been- laid before that House. It was
stated that these letters were priVate, but that they had
been quoted in the Report which had been laid before
the Housc.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord wished to
know to whom all these letters had been addressed. and
he wished to have all the answers to them.—(llear.)
He (the Duke of Wellington) thought it was a motion to
which the House should not agree ; and if the Noble
Lord had given 'notice of his motion, he (the Duke of.
Wellington) should have recommended him 'net to move
for private letters. He thought his NOble Friend should
withdraw his motion, and it might be a very proper sub- ,
ject for discussion hereafter, to inquire how far the let-
ters were written with a view to influence a Report.
Those private letters might perhaps come out in that
discussion._ _ _ .

HOUSE OF LORDS, June 28.

Their Lordships met at Five o'Clock. Several Bills
upon the table were advanced a stage.
A message from the Commons brought up the Muni-
cipal Corporations Act Amendment Bill (Ireland), Ron-
ma's Naturalisation Bill, Les Bazielles' Naturalization
Bill, and other Bills, which were severally read a first
time.

IRISH MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS BILL.
On the motion of the Duke of WELLINGTON, this
Bill was read a first time.

The NOBLE DUKE also gave notice that he should
move the second reading on Thursday, next.
THE FOREST OF DEAN BILL. _ _

This Bill went through Committee, and was ordered
to be read a third time on Thursday.
ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS.

r.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL replied. To all the
letters which Mr. Phelan wrote, he signed himself as " 1).
Phelan, Assistant Poor-law Commissioner." Now, if Mr.
Phelan had signed his name just " D. Phelan," it would
then appear as if they came front the individual D. Phe-
lan ; but " AssiStant Poor-law Commissioner" being an-
nexed made them official documents, and public thkett-
tnenta, notwithstanding the word " private" was pre-
fixed. Ile did say, then, that the Poor-law Commis-
sioners were bound to furnish those letters. Sufficient
time had elapsed, to have enabled them to have obtained
answers from all the persons who had been written to.
He thought that such conductshould not be borne ; if
their Lordships, however, were.sonteiit to bear it pa-
tiently, be was content to do so too. He begged leave
to withdraw his motion.
The Duke of RICHMOND objected to the Noble
Lord's withdrawing his motion, and moved instead—That
it be rejected.
The question was then put. and the motion was rejected.
The Earl of MOUNTCASHEL gave notice, that on
Friday he would present a petition from the Medi&
Association of Ireland, on the subject with which he had
this evening troubled them. In presenting that petition
he would have an opportunity of going more at length
into. the
.whole question.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
JURISDICTION OF JUSTICES.

On the motion of the Duke of RICHMOND, the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lord Chancellor, the
Lord President. the Duke of Richmond, the Bishop of
London, the Bishop of Durham, the Marquis of Lans-
downe, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Bishop of Chichester,
Lord Melbourne, Lord Wynford, Lord Brougham. Lord
Cottenham, and other Noblemen, were appointed a Corn
mittee to inquire into the.mode of administering oaths.

The LORI) NCELLOR informed the House
that the Bill which had passed for uttering the jurisdic-
tion.of Justices of the Peace, would come into operation
in the middle of the quarter sessions, and thereby occa-
sion great inconvenience. He had prepared a short Bill
to postpone the operation, which he now laid on the table.
The Bill was read a first time, and ordered to be read
a second ti lone tomorrow.
The House then adjourned.

ROUSE OF COMM-ONS, Jane 28.
The SPEAKEK took the Chair shortly before Four
&Clock.

The Sheriffs of London appeared at the bar and pre-
sented,a petition from the Lord Mayor, Aldermen, and
Commons of the City of London, in Common Council
assembled, stating that the petitioners had learned that
bribery and corruption were practised at the last gene-
ral election for Members to represent the Commons
of England in that House, which, if persevered in,
would subvert the Constitution anti revolutionise the
country, and thereby destroy the happiness of the people.
Tho petitioners, therefore, prayed that the House would
take measures effectually to prevent the recurrence of
such practices in future.
PRIVATE BILLS.

Rotima's Naturalization Bill was read a third time and
passed.
The Lords' amendments to the Stockton and Hartle-
pool Railway Bill were agreed to.
The amendments to the Report on the Blackburn and
Chorley Road Bill were read a second time, and the Bill
was ordered to be re-committed. _ _

The Lords' amendments to the Liverpool Poor Bill
were agreed to.
NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRh L AND).
Mr. SEIAW presented petitions from places in Ire-
land against the present system of National Education
in Ireland.

had been taken to apprehend the perpetrators,
of it.. None had as yet been taken, but he hoped that
the leaders would soon be brought to justice.
BUSINESS 01? ..mE HOUSE.
Mr. LABOUCHERE had last night understood the
Right Hon. Baronet to say that he should to-day first
move the third reading of the Tariff Bill, next
the third reading of the Colonial Customs Bill,
and then the Committee on the Poor-law Bill. Now
from the Votes it appeared that the Right Hon. Baronet
had given notice that he would move the third reading
of the Tariff Bill first, then the Committee on the Poor-
law Bill, and lastly the Colonial Customs Bill.
Sir ROBERT PEEL said the Right Hon. Gentleman
was perfectly right in his recollection. He (Sir R.
Peel) was surprised when he saw the Votes this morning;
and if the House had uo objection he would adhere to
the course which he had originally proposed to the House.
COINAGE OF HALF-FARTHINGS.
Mr. HLJME, seeing the Right Hon. the Master of the
Mint in his place, wished, as a proclamation had been
sent to him with respect to the coinage of half-farthings,
to ask whether it was a hoax or really the ease?
Mr. GLADSTONE said the Hon. Member should by
right have put his question to the Chancellor of the
Exchequer ; he would, how 'ver, inform him that it was
riot a hoax that the Government intended to make an

issue of such coin ; it was not, however, a coinage in-
tended exclusively. for the people of this country, bat
such a coin being in request in some of the colonies, it
had been thought advisable to issue such a coin.
DISTRESS IN PAISLEY.
Mr. WALLACE, seeing the Secretary of State for the
Home Department in his place, begged to inquire if it
was true that the Commission and Commissioners, who
had been intrusted to provide for the destitute poor in
Paisley, had been withdrawn ; and, secondly, whether
they had left means behind them to provide fir the desti-
tute population?
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the gentlemen adverted
to had not been sent to distribute public money, but
charitable funds raised for a charitable purpose, and their
servicesbeing no longer required they had left Paisley.
The subject then dropped.
-CORPORATIONS (IRELAND) BILL.
Lord ELIOT moved the third reading of the Corpora.
tions (Ireland) Bill.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that the Government were
entitled to great credit for having taken upon themselveS
to bring forward the present measure. He believed
it would be productive of great good.
The Bill was then read a third time, and passed.
NOTTINGHAM COMPROMISE.
The Order of the Day was then read for the attend-
ance of John Walter. Esq.. at the bar of the House ;
and Mr. Walter having come to the bar,
The SPEAKER then called upon the Clerk to read
the Special Report of the Committee, presented yesterday.
The Clerk having read the Report, .
The SPEAKER said that he had now to ask Mr.
John Walter, whether he had any further statement to
make besides that contained in the Report just read ?
Mr. Walter said he begged to assure the House,
that in refusing to attend that Committee he was very
far feuds offering any disrespect to the House ;
neither did he feel any reluctance to lay before the Com-
mittee appointed by that House the fullest explanation
in his power of all the transactions in which he was
personally concerned as connected with the late elec-
tion far Nottingham ; on the contrary, he should feel
excessively painetLif he were prevented, by what he
conceived to be a paramount duty, from rendering obe-
dience to the House by declaring all he knew. He hoped
that it would be considered additional proof of his re-
spect for the House, if he abstained from consuming its
time by any lengthened defence of the course he had
taken—a course dictated by the deepest and most con-
scientious sense of the obligation imposed upon every
subject of the British Crown, to stand upon his
constitutional rights, and to demand that he should
be tried by none but an impartial tribunal, to which
personal prejudice and affection should be alike
unknown. He had receive] a summons at a quarter-
past three o'clock last Friday, requiring his attendance
forthwith, with an injunction to produce paperS he had
never evenseen, especially the much talked of compromise.
The House was now in possession of the grounds which
had induced him to take the course he had pursued.. He
believed it would be difficult to find any parallel in the
records of a free State, any example, any
precedent, not already revoked with indignation
by the public voice, for a proceeding by which a subject
was to be arraigned before a Court, the presiding mem-
ber of which had used expressions of so much personal
hostility as the lion, and Learned Member for Bath had
used respecting him ; and the House would be pleased
to observe that those expressions were used, not pri-
vately, not in a whisper, but openly and loudly in
that very House, in the superior tribunal . itself
from which the inferior tribunal, over which the
Honourable Member presided, had emanated. He
trusted, therefore, that he might claim the indulgence
and protection of the House, when placed, by no act of
• his own in so embarrassing a position. Having, with all
deference to the House, made those observations, which
be hoped would be considered in the nature of a respect-
ful protest, he would submit himself to any order which
the Speaker would think proper to address to him, and
he planed himself in the hands of the House.
The SPEAKER then asked, whether any Hon. Mem-
ber had any question to ask ?
No question having been put,
The SPEAKriI, addressing Mr. Walter, said—You
may -withdraw.
Mr. Walter having, acs'ordingly, withdrawn,
Mr. ROEBUCK rose an said, that he conceived he
should best perform the duty in nosed upon him, which
was a ministerial one, .as ChairMait of-the Committee
appointed to inquire into certain proceedings relating to
the late election at Nottingham, by moving simply, in
the formal terms, " That Mr. Walter do attend the
Committee, and give his evidence, to-morrow, at eleven
o'clock.
Sir W. SOMERVILLE seconded the motion.
The question having been put, •
Sir R: H. INGLIS ruse and said, that he retained the
opinions he had already repeatedly expreSsed. He hal,
On a former occasion. alluded to the position of the Hoe.
and Learned Member for Bath, to whom he might now
refer, without being guilty of any informality, because
he was the -individual who had moved the attend-
ance of Mr. Walter. If he had been ini-orinei on
a former occasion, he trusted he should not now
be violating courtesy or propriety by addiessing himself
more especially to him. He would not enter into the
question how far the individual who had lately appeared
at the Bar of the House might or might not have a right
to complain of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath.
-Strictly speaking, no party had a right to allude
to former discussions in that House. He hoped,
however, that the House would not enforce
in the present instance that technical rule. Mr. Walter
had no doubt been guilty of a breach of privilege in re-
ferring to a former speech of the Honourable and
Learned Member for Bath ; but. he (Sir R. H. Inglis)
hoped and believed there was nis Hon. Member
Who would think Mr. Walter had improperly
violated any privilege by. making that allusion.
Bat if that reference was made, and made blamelessly,
and if the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath did not
deny that he used those words, he owned he could not
understand upon what principle the one could sit as
judge, or the other could be blamed for refusing
to appear as a criminal.—(Loud cheers.) He thanked
the I-lon. and Learned rtecorder for Dublin for correcting
an error ; Mr. Walter was not criminal it appeared,
he was only accused. The distinction might be suffi-
ciently clear to a legal mind ; but it was
not so clear to the majority of that, House as to make it
very important what would be used. Practically
speaking, every individual called before .that
Committee, •by the acknow;edgMent mad© on
the previous day, was summoned before an
inquisitiori.(Hear, hear.) He used the word delibe-
rately. He was called before an inquisition, in which,
without knowing who might have been heard before him,
or who might be heard after him, he is to answer
before an individual who Lad declared himself
personally aggrieved by him. He was :here required to
answer any such questions as the majority of
the Committee might think fit, touching every
matter connected with the last election for
Nottingham ; and without seeing his accusers,
without seeing any witness, he was compelled to sub-
ject himself to their inquisition.—(Hear, hear.) . He
had understood that the Committee had. resolved
that whenever an allegation was made against
any individual, that person should have due notice
given him of it. Would that be tolerated in any
court of law whatever ?—(Hear, hear.) Was there any
court in England, in which such a perversion and denial
of law and justice would be permitted ?—(Cheers.)
He did not look to one side of the House or
the other; he appealed to the liaise generally, and he
asked them as English gentlemen, whether they would
consent to the continuation of this system ? He
bad intended, a few nights ago, when he heard
that an- Honourable Member had been refused
admittance to the Committee as a party, though he was
told he might be admitted if he insisted on his right
as a Member, to have tried whether this tri-
bunal, giving it credit for every impartiality and
desire for justice, ought not to conduct their
proceedings on the same principles upon which every
other Court of England, from the highest to the lowest,
:conducted its inquiries, with one memorable exception.
That exception was- the Star Chamber—and in another
country there was another exception in the Inquisition.
Let him not be told of time case of a Grand Jury ; that
was a preliminary inquiry, and there was a wide dis-
tinction between that tribunal • and the tribunal
which the house had; he ventured to say, too
hastily, instituted,' A traduced persoil required
to appear' . and subunit himself to. seven judges.
Admitting that they were of absolutely unimpeachable
character, was it fitting that an English subject should be
called -before this tribunal without any power of protect-
ing himself, when, if it were a jury, he might challenge
the jurymen? The Hoe. and Learned Member himself
(Mr. Roebuck) would riot contend' that he should sit as
a juryman at the trial of Mr. Walter, and if not as a
juryman ought he sit as a Judge ? But the lion. and
Learned Member was not the only party with
whom the House had to deal. Mr. Walter
had appeared at the lair of the House, had
made his protest, and stetted his willingness to sub-
nut to its order. With that order he did not, in tl:e
circumstances of the case, think it his duty to interfere.
Who had been Mr. Walter's advisers, or whether he had
had any at all, he (Sir R. Inglis) knew trot ; but, if lie
had been his adviser, he would not have counselled him
to take the course he had done. In his opinion he had
relinquished the high ground upon which he might have
stood. First, by writing the letter which he had done;
and, secondly, by the statement that he had made to the
House. Then they bad a witnes4, but
a different case might occur. With that ;will-
ing witness they might deal as thy thought fit;
but suppose an individual should claim the bn nrtit, not
of the law of the country, but of the principle of ;he law?
—(Hear.) An individual might claim to be-tried'before