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

would attend the third reading.
The clause was then agreed to, and, Kith clause 3,
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Sir EDWARD SUGDEN rose to propose an-
other clause. The House never before had the power
invested in them by the Bill, and it should be guarded
by preventing the House having in custody the person
who hal brought actions after the action was discharged
by the Act, The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then
proposed the clause contained in his speech in the early
part of the evening.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL opposed the clause, which
he thought altogether inconsistent with the principle of '
the Bill, and a direct limitation of the privileges of the
House.—(Hear, hear.)
After a few words in explanation from Sir E.
SUGDEN, the motion was negatived.
Mr. JONES moved a clause to subject persons
giving false evidence before Committees of the Housc
of Commons, to the pains and penalties of perjury,
though such evidence be not given on oath. The
Hon. Member, after illustrating, by several instances
that occurred within his own knowledge, the necessity
for this provision, alluded to a remark made on a
former occasion by the Hon. Member for Dublin (Mr.
O'Connell), that the persons who opposed the privileges
of the House were Ultra-Tories or Chartists. This
was unfair : he was not an Ultra-Tory, and certainly
he was not a Chartist ; and what would the Hon.
Member have said, if he (Mr. Jones) had accused all
who supported the power chimed by the House, of
seeking those unconstitutional powers and the exercise
of that tyranny which the House had exercised at
former periods

Mr. M. ATTWOOD hoped that no technical ob-
jection would be taken to the clause, the necessity for
which was illustrated by the case of Mr. Polack. He
differed from the Noble Lord the Member for North Lan-
cashire, and emphatically denied the right of the House
to publish libels by wholesale. If this were permitted,
witnesses migi.t offer themselves before Committees for
the purpose of slandering their neighbours. Instances had
been known in which witnesses had corrected 'their evi-
dence after having given it before a Committee, so that the
evidence as published by Hansard differed most materially
from the notes as taken by Mr. Gurney This House took
evideuce affecting private character in the loosest manner,
and then it Ives published to the world, and the persons
affected by it had no redress. Evidence was frequently
printed as having been given before Committees, which
had never been given at all—and to protect this loose sort
of evidence, Sheriffs, plaintiffs, lawyers, nay, even
children, were to be committed for contempt of
the privileges of the House if they dared to
question the right of the House to publish this loose evi-
dence. Ile thought the privilege ought to have been
examined into as it stands at present, with a view to de-
termine what portion of it ought to be abandoned, and
what maintained, instead of the vigorous coercion
support of it which had been exercised.

The SOLICITOR GENERAL objected to this
clause, first on the ground of form, which had been most
properly raised by the Chairman. Forms might in some
instances be had recourse to with a view of unfairly de-
feating a proposition, but when rules were made for the
purpose of preventing matters being brought forward in-
cidentally in a discussion, which could not be fairly expec-
ted to arise, as was the case on this occasion, he thought
it perfectly fair to call for a strict application of the rule.
It could not base been conceived that in a discussion on this
Bill such a notice would have been brought forward.
—( Hear.) He would submit to the Hon. Member
himself whether he had fully considered to what
his proposition would be likely to lead. It certainly did
not address itself to the preamble of the Bill. The object
of the Bill was to give summary protection to the officers
of the House ; the clause proposed .oy the Honourable
Gentleman had no relation whatever to this subject.
( near, hear)—and it would produce an eff,:ct it,finitely
more extensive than the Hon. Member seemed to appre-
hend. Persons seldom avended Committees of that House
voluntarily, and when they were called upon to give evi-
dence, it was not, as in Courts of Law, evidence merely as