The Sun.
London, England, 1837-02-07 00:00:00

printed the papers under the authority of the House, that
would have been a conclusive defence. • He agreed with
the Right Hon. Baronet, that the best course. to adopt
would be to see what was done before the Learned
Judge, and if he told the jury that the defence was a con-
clusive one, then there would be no necessity for the House
to interfere.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought as Mr: Hansard kid em-
barrassed himself by the course he had adopted, must take the
consequences. Ile could .see no occasion for his pleading
the truth of the libel, or the general issue. •
Lord J. RUSSELL, who was very inaudible, quite
agreed that the petition ought to lie on the table for the
present. • ,
Mr. ROEBUCK considered no person publishing papers
under authority, ought to be exposed to the trouble
and expense of such an action as this.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) On the contrary, whoever published under
the sanction of the House, ought to do-. so under
perfect security. To say that there . was 'a diffe-
rence between publishing and selling that which Was pub-
lished, was a distinction worthy of lawyers, but not
consistent with common sense—(Cries of: " Hear, hear,"
and laughter)—the moment a thing was printed it was
published to all intents and purposes; and Courts of
Justice had determined that putting a letter into
the Post-office was a publication ; and whenever the
votes of that House were printed they were published—
all the world knew them—all the world would kno,v them
—and the publisher ought to be protected.
Mr. WYNN said that he could not agree with the
Hon. Gentleman that the publication was of the same kind
when a Court ordered documents to be printed for its
own use, and when it was sent out to the public. There was
in his (Mr. Wynn's) opinion, a decided difference between
one case and the other, but the House could order documents
to be printed, not only for its own use, but for that of the
public, and this, therefore, called for greater circumspec-
tion as to what documents should be published ; and he
wished, in making these observations, merely to shew
what inconvenience might arise from a want of this' circum-
spection.
Mr. BERNAL said that whatever, was the result of the
action, he was sure the House would not suffer the Messrs.
Hansard to suffer any loss. He looked upon this as a
matter of course, and lie therefore moved that the peti-
tion do lie on the table.
After a few words from Mr. WYNN, which were in-
audible,
Mr. O'CONNELL said that when he was requested
last Session to present the petition, last Session he had said
lie would not do so unless the matter was determined
to be followed up against the Judge. Without this condi-
tion he said he would not undertake to present it ; and then
it was said that all that was wanted was, that it should be
presented, and that some person would be got to bring it
before the House this session. He did not think it
would have been printed, or he would not have presented
it ; he had merely laid it on the table of the House.
After a few words from Mr. WYNN, which were
not heard from the Gallery, the subject dropped.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the Order
of the Day for the second reading of the Mu-
nicipal Corporations' Act Amendment Bill. The
llonourable and Learned Gentleman, in an-
swer to a question from Sir William Follett, said that the
Bill was almost entirely the same as that, the principles of
which had been approved of last Session by both Houses of
Parliament. An opportunity of discussing the details of
the Bill would be afforded when it was in Committee.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT was glad to hear that
they would have a future opportunity of discussing the
details of the Bill.
Sir E. WILMOT wished to draw the attention of his
Majesty's Attorney-General to a question as to whether,
in this or in any other Bill, a remedy could be
afforded for an inconvenience which had occurred under the
last Municipal Amendments Act. He alluded to the cir-
cumstance of several parishes in Counties of Cities which
Were excluded from the Municipal controul of the
Cities.—(Hear.) This had happened in Warwickshire, in
the county of the city of Coventry, and there had been
greats
t.
difference
They wished
f opinionof
i amongst the profession on
a ub ethe
possible to avoid a great deal
.of law on this subject, and he therefore suggested 'to the
Attorney-General whether it was possible in this • Bill,
or in any other, to carry into effect. the intention
of the last Act, so that they might be told shortly and
clearly what county these parishes were in.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL was understood to
say that the parish limits would be fixed in every borough.
Mr. SCARLETT would suggest to the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman opposite, that it would be advisable
to postpone the introduction of this Bill for a short pc-
riod—(Hear)--in order that the Corporations might
become well acquainted with its details. Farther, were it
to be brought on upon the day proposed, he believed there
would not be much time for discussing it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL supposed the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman would like to go on until the 21st
of June, which was the longest day in the year.—(Laughter.)
All the Corporations were now sufficiently acquainted
with the provisions of the Bill, and he thought that
if he named Friday next, that would be as distant a
period as could reasonably be expected.
Mr. SCARLETT would certainly object to next Friday.
Hasty legislation might require another Bill-to be brought
forward, and be thought that three weeks would enable all
parties to become acquainted with the provisions of the Bill.
Sir W. FOLLETT thought there need not be great
haste in having the Bill sent through the House, thought he
admitted it might be desirable to have some legislation on
the subject.
The Bill was then read a second time.
Sir R. PEEL did not think his friends were at all un-
reasonable in asking that this question should be post-
poned till this day week.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. SCARLETT moved that the Committee on the
Corporations Act Amendment Bill be fixed for Tuesday
next.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he hoped to have brought in
the Municipal Corporations Bill for Ireland to-morrow
night, and it had hitherto been his intention, in such a case,
to have proposed the second reading of the Bill on Monday
next.

Sir W. FOLLETT seconded the motion, as he could
see no disadvantage which would result from delay.
Mr. WASONsaid the great inconvenience of the post-
ponement was the immense expense to which it would put
the parties now in town interested in the Bill.
Mr. SCA RLETT said his answer to that objection
was, that all Corporations had agreed that the expense
should be paid out of the corporate funds.—(Loud cries of
" Spoke, spoke.") -
After a few observations from the ATTORNEY-GE-
NERAL, which were not distinctly heard, the Bill- was
ordered to be committed on Wednesday week. •
FICTITIOUS VOTES (SCOTLAND.)
On the motion of Mr. HORSMAN a 'Committee was
appointed !on the registering of fictitious votes in Scotland,
and the names of the Membrs appointed to form the. Com-
mittee read over by the Speaker.
Mr. PRINGLE objected to the list on the.gronnd. that
some of the Members to his knowledge were not and
would not be in town in time to form the Committee.
Mr. STEUART believed he had seen all the Members
whose names had been read over in the House except,one.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL supposed there could be
no objection to his Hon. Friend moving the appointment of
the Committee. on another day, provided there was any
material objection to its appointment at present.
Mr. HORSMAN—His feeling had been that as mat-
ters were likely to be discussed before that Committee
of very grave importance to the Members for many
counties in Scotland—(Hear, hear)—whose agents had
been employed in getting up these fictitious votes, it would
be better to avoid putting them on the Committee.—(Loud
cries of " Hear, hear.") With that exception he had
chosen the Members indifferently from both sides of the
House.

Mr. R. FERGUSON observed, that if his name had
been on the Committee he would have felt it his duty to
decline acting. -
The following Committee was then appointed :
Horsman, Edward Duniop, J. O'Connor Don
Baring, B. Ferguson, Gorge Rae, it William
Buller, B. Fre:natal.), Sir' . 'Warburton,
Campbell, Sir Maule, Fox Stormont, Lord
Campbell, W. Murray, J A. Stanley, Lord
EVIDENCE BEFORE THE HOUSE.
The SPEAKER would beg to call the attention of the
House to a matter which had been recently discussed, res-
pecting the manner in which evidence should be taken before
Select Committees of the House. When Select Com-
mittees were appointed, a very important duty was confided
to them, and in order that it would be executed in a fair and
impartial manner, it was essential that they should be properly
defined. Now he (the Speaker) apprehended the clear
course to be pursued was this. If the evidence were sent from
the short-hand writer to the Committee before it was printed,
an opportunity would be afforded if the witness thought fit
to remain in town to see his evidence, and after that verbal
alteration was made, should any inaccuracy afterwards ap-
pear, he may apply to the Committee to be re-examined.
This would effectually secure the proper giving of his
evidence by the witness. (Hear) Another case
which had been suggested was, that it very fre-
quently happened that witnesses did not find themselves
in a condition to answer many of the questions that were
proposed, and required time for reflection. In such a case the
course he thought should be adopted was that the witness
should only answer such questions as he was prepared with,
and to defer those which he found a difficulty in answering.
Supposing all this to be acceded to, then he had to
submit to Honourable Members that they should p 0
their questions with brevity and preeision, Every
means should also be given for the accommodation