The Sun.
London, England, 1840-03-14 00:00:00

to circumstances in which they themselves had borne a pa. t,
and which, therefore, strictly came within their own cog-
nizance. But if they were examined much more at large,
they were in general little apprised of the questions which
would be put to them—the extent of those questions was
limited by no legal rule, but frequently extended even to
matters of hearsay. If the witness had the option
of declining to answer any questions that might be put to
him, there might h,, some ground for I.roposing such a
provision ; but if he attends compulsorily, how could
it be fair tm subject him to the iisks of an indictment of
this nature? Attusion had been made to the case of a
person connected with New Zeeland Now, in that case
the witness had been wited his opinion as to the character
of an individu,.l. In such a c,se he vrcuild ask how was a
witness to proceed? Was he to give his honest opinion
lor not? Would they compel him to give an opinion, and
,I then tell him that he should be subjected to toe penaltie
I of indictment for perjury for having so done—that he
must be subj2cicri to the expense of sending to New Zea-
land for witnesses to testify to the correctness of his
opinions ? (Cheers.) They compelled witnesses to
come before that House togive evidence, and they proposed
to place them in the situation of defendants to-an iodic -
ment for perjury—and it should be remembered that in-
dictments for perjury were frequently found in instances
in which the evidence given was not talse. There were
as frequeNt instances of malicious indictments for pet jury
as of perjured evidence, and they would subject eve,y j
person giving their information to this peril. If it were
correct—that it was true, could be easily proved—
there then might be some reason for the proposition of the I
Hon, Gentleman. But all those who had to defend
persons accused of perjury were aware of the difficulty of
provin7 that which was strictly true. There were no cases
which inflicted more torture on the advocates who had to
defend them, and it frequently happened that it was not
until a witness actually came into the box that they were
furnished with the means of showing that the charge of
perjury was itself founded on the grossest perjury. They
called a witness before them, tuey asked him a va-
riety of questions of a most various and extensive nature,
and ho must answer those questions at the peril of his
ruin, for he might not have the means of defence, he
might, in tlse first place, be too poor to go to the
necessary expense ; he might be deprived of the means of
proving the truth of what he had stated by the death of
witnesses, and they would subject a man to all these perils
because they had called him fur public 'imposes. The
alteration proposed was calculated to impede the inquiries,
of the House. What had fallen from the Hon. Member
for Viihitchaven was very important as regarded the puts-
cations of that House. Undoubtedly it might be right to hear
many things before a Committee which it might not be
right afterwards to publish ; it was necesary to exercise
caution, but the House had a right to publish whatever it
might think fit for the information of the people. Sup.
pose they were investigating some case of gross abuse—
they must, of necessity, publish defamatory matter, 'more
especially if they were desirous of knowing the misdeeds of
persons abroad, with a view of making that knowledge the
foundation of subsequent legislative enactment. Unless
they published this, they would not publish the foundation
of their legislation. Were the people of England to l'sc
the right to the exercise of the efficient privileges of that
House? Who, he would ask, were the people in whose
behalf the lion. Member was standing up as against the
privileges of the House of Commons ? Was it the great
body of the people of England who had aright to the in-
formation possessed by their representatives ? No ! it was
for the few whomight be the subjects of that information.—
He had said that the House ought to revise its privileges.
The people knew what those privileges were when they
sent them there—they came there to exercise every one of
those privileges for the public benefit. They were trus-
tees for the people of every privilege which they pos-
sessed.—( Cheers ) They had no power, after having
received these privileges from the people, of resigning
any single one of them.—( Hear, hear, and cheers.)
They would be unfaithful stewards if they were to
do so, as it was impossible to foretell how soon an
occasion might arise in which the exercise of that very
privilege so resigned might become of the utmost impor-
tance fer the public welfare.—( Loud cheers.) On these
grounds, he should certainly oppose the bringing up of the
clause.
o n sirdeear
mb l
e of the Bill,
edt that hi s proviso
and w
s
striMctr.actOorNdaEnScesawid he co p with the
calculated to raise the dignity of the proceedings of that
House. With regard to one of the objections, the House
could at any time prevent proceedings for perjury, by re-
fusing the short-hand writer's notes.
extract from a speech of Mr. Brougham (now Lord
BrMourg.hHamA)LFORD supported the clause, and read an
in support of his views.
Mr. M. ATTWOOD spoke in favour of the clause.
Ile could not but look with apprehension on the dangerous
the Sol
course recommended by the Hon. and Learned Gentlemen,
The Committee then divided, and the numbers were—
FiAc:gt:atribn- es°: e 'I
motionll
the motion 2O
was then ordered to be brought on 120
The Report w
Mon-
day, anpdEtThelTHloousNe resumed.
PETITION
MESSRS. HANSARD.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he wished to call the
n non
attention of the House to the petition of
oethe Messrs. Han-
card.e
tpi
toi
ssde
tr served dt
he 9th of
on those
gentlemen, A n notice ciet ofap paenaetewdarertoimonthheadp
March last, by Stockdale, and he pro
same course on the subject as that which they hiLluradopted
the
in the case of the former notice of the 27th of February The Noble Lord then proposed a resolution to the effe.t
that by this new notice John Joseph Stockdale had been
Guilty of a contempt and of a breach of the privileges of
the House ; and that all Sheriffs or others who might act,
aid, or assist in the said action would also be guilty of a
violation of the privileges of the House, and would subject
themselves to its severe displeasure.
Sir R. H. INGLIS opposed the resolution, as he did
not think that whatever plausibility there might have been
in the course they had formerly pursued on the subject,
there was any reason for their having recourse to so violent
a proceeding now.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that by passing the resolution
the House would be merely acting in conformity with the
rule they had already laid down. He did not see anything
in the new Bill to prevent them from doing so, as there was
a special provision in that Bill declaring that they did not