The Sun.
London, England, 1833-03-27 00:00:00

BRIBERY AT LIVERPOOL.

Mr. BANNERMAN moved that the order of the
(1,1, requiring the attendance of Elizab,th Robinson, who
hid iefu,ed to answer questions before the Liverpool Elec-
tion Committee, be read.

The order of the day having been read, Elizabeth Ro-
binson was brought by the Sergeant-at-Arms to the Bar.
Mr. SPEAKER—What is your name? Witness—
Elizabeth Robinson.
sir. SPEAKER—You were summoned as a witness
before the Liverpool Election Committee, were you not ?
Wonem—Yea.

Mr. SPEAKER—You were asked 'questions by that
Committee, which you declined to answer, were you
not ? Witne.s—Yes.

The SPEAKER—What was the reason you declined
to answer the question ? Witness (crying)—Because I
am in danger of iny life.

Tue SPEAKER—Do you say you were in apprehen-
sion of personal risk, it you answered the question put to
you ?—( l'he witness hesitated to answer, but continued
io cry, and the question was repeated.) Witness—l was
afra;d of my life.

Mr. SPEAKER—You did not decline to answer the
question with any wish on your part to conceal what you
knew from the Committee ?—I was afraid that if I an-
swered what was asked of we, I should be in danger.
Mr. BANNERMAN, after what had now been stated,
would move that the order be discharged.—(Cries of
" No, no.") . .
Mr. SPEAKER to the witness—Have you the same
feelings of alarm it you were now to answer the question ?
Sir, I have had from the first; I dare net answer it.
ROBINSON--Have you been threatened by any
one, „Or_ what. reason have you to suppose that you will

be in any danger ? have been threatened by
nobody, hut one person.
Mr. ROBINSON—WiII you state who that person
is who has threatened you ? Witn .ss--I dare not tell.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. BANNERMAN then moved that the further at-
tendance of the witnesses should be dispensed with.
Mr. BENETT second-d the motion.
Mr. HUME wished to know whether the information
which could he given by the witness was of importance.
Mr. BENETT thought not.
Lord HENNIKER considered it material that the wit-
ness should he pressed to answer the go-stions put to her.
The witness had been produced to prove bribery to the
amount of 31. odd, and he submitted if her presence be
dispensed with, justice could not be done.
An Host. Mesrum considered that the plea on the part
of the witness was not sufficient to induce the House to
a low her to persist in not answering the question.
All that the witness stated in justification of the
course she had adopted was, that she had been threatened
by one party; now he considered that if•even that state-
ment was true, the law was sufficiently strong to protect
her from the consequences of that thrett. It appeared to
him that the Committee should be made acqoainted with
the person who had threatened the witness—the name of
the culprit ought to be known.—(Hear, he er.)
Mr. S. RICE considered that the House would not
discharge its duty, and would encourage timid ' itnes-es
to be timid overmuch, if they acceded to the request. It
they acceded to that request, they did more than any
Court of Justice could do, anal would declare themselves to
be totally unfit to conduct such an inquiry.
Sir R. PEEL said that the House ought to assure the
witness that if she performed her duty the House would
orotect her ; but it she refused to answer the questions
put to her, the House had no other alternative than to re-
start to the extreme powers, which the House, as well as
the Court of King's Bench, enjoyed over witnesses who ob.
structed the course of public justice, by refusing to answer
the questions put to them.
Mr. BANNERMAN, as Chairman of the Committee,
begged to say that the Committee had gone as far as the y
could in assuring the witness that the law of the House was
competent to_protect her.

Mr. HUAIE ,gged that the witness should be re-
manded till to-morrow, which would give the oppor-
tunity to some friendly adviser of urging upon her that
she must tell he House the truth. I.: was clear that, it
the House yielded in this case, it would hereafter have
constant refusals of witnesses to answer questions. He
was sorry that any female should be placed in this Si-
tua.ion---.hot she must be clearly given to understand that
she must answer the question to-marrow.

Lord ALTHORP was understood to express an opi-
nion in favour of oliPaininz an answer from the witness ;
but was with great difficulty heard in the gallery.
Mr. D, W. HARVEY believed that this was a wicked
contrivance to defeat the ends of jus,ice. The witness
must be told that she must answer eery question.
Sir T. FREMAN FLE conside eel that it was neces-
iry to exert the authority of the House is this in-
stance in some way or other.—(Hear.) He considered
that it was necessary to compel an answer to the question,
giving the woman at the same time the full protection of
the House. He thought the only way to afford that en-
tire protection, would b • for tie House to order the man
to be taken into custody as soon as the woman gave his
name.

Mr. W. W. WYNN apprehended that when the
House appointt-d a Committee to act in matters for the
House, the House would resent any contumacy offered to
the Committee in a refusal to answer just as it would a
contumacy offered to itself. In the case of Sir
Abraham B. King, the House refused to enforce fur-
ther compulsion, from the imtnateriali'y of the answer
endeavoured to be obtained to the point that was to be in-
quired into ; but here the refusal to answer was with respect
to a question essentially affecting the inquiry, and, there
fore, it was absolutely ne• essary to compel an answer.
Probably it would be a sufficient protection for the wit-
ness to order the man to attend at the bar,
when his name should be given, and if he refused,
that he should then be given into custody. In
calling in the witness again, it miztit be as well to
caution her, that unless she answered the question she
must go in.o custody.

An HON. Alcmßen observed that she had given
her evidence, as far as it went, with the greatest candour ;
that she laboured under much excitement on refusing to
answer this question ; and that if the House could con-
sistently relieve her from answering, he was sure it would
be a great satisfaction to the Committee.

Mr. SHAW thought as they were now acting on prin-
ciple, it was necessary to compel the witness to answer
the question.
The SPEAKER considered it to he the feeling of the
House, that the witness should be called to the Bar again,
and sdnionished to answer, upon an assurance of having
the full protection of the House.
_ _

On the witness being called in ag tin by the Sergeant,
Mr. SPEAKER told her that the House had
listent-d to the excuse she had offered for not
answering the question put to her, which the
House did not consider satisfactory. That the House ex-
pected that she would answer to the Committee any ques•
tion put to her, and that she might depend on the
justice and entire protection of the House on
properly discharging her duty. That the House .were
sa•isted in admonishing her, presuming she had acted
under a mistake ; but that if she persisted in her refusal.
she would be in danger of being committed into
the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, for a breach of the
privilege of the House. That she might therefore rely on
the full protection of the House, the House being satisfied
that she would act as a faithful, honest, and upright
witness.

The witness was then ordered to withdraw, and attend
the Committee to-morrow morning.
Lord ALTHORP rose for 'he purpose of requesting
the Hon. Member opposite (Mr. Robinson) to postpone
his motion, of which he had given n..tice, for the
appointment of a S,lect Committee to consider and
revise the existing system of taxation, with a view to a
repeal of those burdens which pressed most heavily on
productive industry, and the substitution of an equi-
table tax on property in lieu thereof.—(Hear, hear.)
He thought that the Hon. Member's object would
be much better served by waiting until he (Lord Althorp)
had made his getter fit-14116a! statement.
Mr. ROBINSON hoped he could show to the satis-
faction of the Noble Lord and of the House, that it was
his (Mr. R.'s) imperative duty to ascertain the sense of
the House before the Noble Lord made his financial
statement. He hoped toerefore the Noble Lord would
not consider him as actinz contrary to the Government,
if he telt himself obliged io persevere in his motion.
SIR E. CODRINGTON AND SIR R. PEEL.

Sir R. PEEL said he was perfectly prepared, having
looked at his papers, to make the statement called for
by what took pl ice in the House last night, whenever the
House and the Gallant Member thought it most conve-
nient.

Mr. M. ATTWOOD postponed his motion on the
monetary syst,m of the country till Friday next.
Col. HAY (we believe) hoped that at an early period
the Noble Lord (Althorp) would take the excise laws
relating to that part of the kingdom to which he be.
longed (Scotland) into consideration. He had great
confidence in the commis.don appointed by the Noble
Lord, but he hoped the subject would be brought forward
on an early day. '
'EAST INDIA CHARTER.

Mr. WYNN begged to ask the No le Lord opposite
whether he nad any obj ction to lay the correspondence
between the Government and the East India Company,
and the other papers which were read at the meeting of
the East India Proprietors on Monday, on the table of
the House before the Easter recess. It was his wish, and
the wish of many other Mernbe,s, that they shoo d have
those important papers as early as possible, in order that
they might have all possible information on the subject
before entering into consideration of the changes which
the Government proposed to make in the charter of the
East India Company.

Lord ALTHORI) did not think that there could be any
objection to their being laid upon the table previous to
the recess.