The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-16 00:00:00

EDUCATION.

Mr. W. J. FOX gave notice that on Thursday, the Bth
of May, he should renew his motion on the subject of
education. .

CANADIAN CANALS.
Mr. T. DUNCOZII3E wished to know if the report
of the American
papers was true, that the Canadian
Government had closed their canals to the American
shipping?
Mr. HAWES had no official information on the
subject.
ST. ALBAN'S ELECTION.
On the motion for resuming the adjourned debate on
the amendment to the motion for the discharge of Henry
Edwards,
Sir G. CLERK
suggested that both the motion and
the amendment should be withdrawn, and the debate
renewed on the petition of Mr. Edwards.
Mr. AGLIONBY had no objection to the
course, and the :notion and amendment were withdrawn
accordingly.
The order of the day for considering the petition of
H. Edwards having been read,
Mr. AGLIONBY said that that matter was at present
entirely in the hands of the House, and he believed they
would be prepared to temper justice with mercy. He
had himself on the preceding night presented a petition
from Mr. Edward., in which that person had not at-
tempted to deny the allegations charged against hiss,
but having stated that he had been found guilty of a
breach of the privileges of that House, expressed his con-
trition. for his offence, and throwing himself on the mercy
of the House, had prayed that he might be discharged
from custody. He further stated that during his con-
finement he had the misfortune of knowing that those
nearest and dearest to him had been dangerously ill.
Under these circumstances he (Mr. Aglionby), would
move that Henry Edwards should be called to the bar of
the House and reprimanded by the Speaker, and then
discharged on payment of his fees.
A pause of a few moments here took place, and no
other Member having risen,
Mr. E. ELLICE proceeded to say, that, as Chairman
of the St. Alban's Election Committee, he felt it was then
the duty of the House to deal with that matter as they
might think fit. He should add if there bad been for-
merly any doubt as to the propriety of the report made
by the Committee, that doubt must have been com-
pletely removed by the petition ofUr..Edwardr.—(Hear.)

Sir F. THESIGER said he had expected that one of
the law officers of the Crown would have risen to inform
the House what course it ought in their opinion then to
pursue in that matter. But as they had not done so, he
telt compelled to assume the rather unwelcome task of
pressing with severity against a man who had acknow-
ledged his offence, and who had expressed his deep con-
trition for that offence. It eppeared to him (Sir F. The-
siger) that it would really be trifling with the House—
(Hear, hear)—to dismiss Mr. Edwards at that moment.
That person had at first presented a petition to the
House in which he had indirectly denied that he had
been guilty of the practices with which he had been
charged. But at present it appeared that that first peti-
tion was entirely false.—(Hear, hear.) He had shifted
his original ground, and had addressed the House in lan-
guage which amounted to an admission of his guilt. And
what was it of which he had been guilty? He had been
guilty of a gross and scandalous attempt—and an attempt
which bad been successful—to obstruct the course of
justice by bribing a witness who had most important evi-
dence to give to the Committee to keep out of the
way. The consequence had been that the whole in.
quiry had been defeated, and that the petitioner before
the Committee, after all the expense and trouble to
which he had been put, had been denied a fair opportu-
nity of substantiating his case. Mr. Edwards stated in
his petition thet those nearest and dearest to him had
been dangerously ill, and had suffered severely on his ac-
count. But that was one of the natural consequences of
gross misconduct. It was a providential arrangement
that men should not only suffer in their own persons for
their faults or their crimes, but that they should also
suffer in the misery which they inflicted on their rela-
tives and friends, and the certainty of that misery fre-
quently deterred from crime men who might be insensi-
ble to the mere personal losses or inconveniences to
which they might give rise. There might be many
zealous partisans who would readily expose themselves
to a few days' confinement by pursuing such a course of
conduct as that which Mr. Edwards had followed, if they
felt that after the lapse of those few days they could
escape with impunity. He believed that Mr. Edwards
had not yet sufficiently expiated his guilt, and he there-
fore felt compelled to move, as an amendment to the
motion of his Hon. Friend the Member for Cocker-
mouth, that Mr. Edwards be committed to Newgate.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that he quite
concurred in the view which his Hon. and Learned
Friend the Member for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger)
had taken of that case. The only reason why he had
not sooner risen to address the House was, that he did
not feel that the law officers of the Crown were pecu-
liarly called upon to state their opinions to the House
on questions in which no point of law was involved.
Mr. Edwards had virtually admitted that he had been
guilty of a gross and outrageous violation of the privi-
leges of the House; and he (the Attorney-General) felt
that that person had not undergone a sufficient punish-
ment for such an offence.

On the motion of Lord J. RUSSELL, the clerk at
the table here read from the journals of the House a
resolution declaring that any attempt to induce witnesses
not to give evidence required by the House was a high
crime and misdemeanour, and that the House would pro-
ceed with the utmost severity against persons guilty of
such an offence.

The clerk at the table also read the resolution for the
commitment of H. Edwards to the custody of the Ser-
geant-at-Arms, and the statement of the offence with
which he was charged. • .

The motion and the amendment having been put from
the Chair,

Mr. AGLIONBY said it appeared to be the general
feeling of the House that Mr. Edwards had not yet
undergone a sufficient punishment for his offence; and,
yielding to that feeling, he should not press his motion.
The House would on a future occasion decide when it
would be proper to discharge the prisoner.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he was glad to find that his
Hon. and Learned Friend (Mr. Agiionby) had decided
on not dividing the House on that occasion, because it
was manifestly desirable that the House should, if possi-
ble, come to a unanimous vote on all matters affecting
their privileges. It was but right that they should
severely punish that grave offence. He should observe
that, after the course which that case had taken, he was
very glad that they had postponed their decision upon it
until that evening.
Mr. BANKES said it was not his intention to offer
any observations contrary to what appeared to be the
nnanimousieeling of the House; but he wished to take
that opportunity of saying a few words with regard to
the other parties against whom warrants had been issued
by the Speaker, and begged to ask the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government whether any intention
existed of offering a reward for their apprehension, in
conformity with the course pursued on former occa-
sions of a similar kind? For this course they had the
precedents of the Grantham case and the Penrhyn case,
if he was not mistaken. Ho would also suggest that
they ought to have the short-hand writer's
notes of the proceedings of the Committee on
the last day of their sitting, when he believed
no evidence was received. He had understood
the Honourable Chairman of the Committee to state
yesterday that the question of the competency of the
Committee at the moment when they gave their report
was never raised or claimed to be raised. This was not
in accordance with a statement which he had read in one
of the public journals of that day, which indeed was
directly the reverse, for there it was said that the ques-
tion of the competency of the Committee was raised by
counsel, who ventured to address them not ea a Com-
mittee but as Members of that House. Could it be
said, then, that the point was not raised ? He also found
by the same authority that the Learned Counsel for the
petitioner did expressly, again and again, urge upon the
Committee the propriety of adjourning, in the hope of
obtaining the testimony of those witnesses, and that it
was stated by one party who appeared before the Com-
mittee that he had reason to believe that within an hour
he should be able to give an account of one of these wit-
nesses. For this reason he should be disposed to move,
at the proper time, for a copy of the short-hand writer's
notes; and although it might not be competent for him
to move for the speeches of counsel, he might move for
information as to the applications made by counsel with
regard to the petitioner or with regard to the sitting
Member. When the commission should be moved for,
he should move, in accordance with precedent, that it
should be composed of Members of that House.
Mr. E. ELLICE, jun., after what had fallen from the
Hon. Member who had just sat down, felt bound to offer a
few words of explanation as to what had taken place be-
fore the Committee on the last day of its sitting. The
Committee met, and proposed, in consequence of what
had taken place in that House, to meet objections as to
the legality of their proceedings. No such objection was,
however, raised on either side. An application for a
further adjournment was made to them in their capacity
as a Committee, and in point of fact the party making
that application naturally admitted that they were a
Committee legally entitled to decide the question. The
Committee, however, bearing in mind that they had
already been adjourning for a week or a fortnight, and
yet appeared as far from any chance of obtaining the
attendance of the missing witnesses as ever, did not
think it incumbent on them to hang up the case against
both the petitions and the Bitting Member over the
Easter holidays, and, therefore, came to their decision
without the slightest doubt as to its propriety. Having
come to that decision, he communicated it to the counsel,
who said that, being precluded from a further adjourn-
ment, he could not go on with the case. Here he (Mr.
E. Ellice), perhaps, was wrong in not at once clearing
the room; but a conversation arose in which he distinctly
stated that no formal objection had been made to the
proceedings of the Committee.
Mr. BANKES explained.

Mr. AGLIONBY wished to put it to the House whe-
ther it would not be wise for the purposes of justice to
discharge the warrant against the three persons who
were not yet in custody?—(No, no.) The reason was
this. If the warrant continued in force they would keep
out of the way, and the Commission would lose the ad-
vantage of their evidence. If, on the contrary, the war-
rant was discharged and they were allowed to come
home they would, no doubt, be ready to come forward
and give evidence under a bill of indemnity.
Sir G. CLERK protested against this course, and was
rather inclined to support the suggestion of the Hon.
Member for Dorset, to address her Majesty praying that
a reward might be offered for the apprehension of those
individuals, having first summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms
to ascertain what steps ho had taken to
,serve th•
warrant.

Lord J. RUSSELL agreed entirely with the recom•
mendation just made by the Right Hon. Baronet. He
did not think it would be i❑ accordance with precedent
for the Crown to offer a reward withotit first receiving
an address from that House.

The amendment for committing Mr. H. Edwards to
Newgate was then carried without a division.
THE KAFIR WAR.

Mr. ADDERLEY then brought forward the motion
of which he had given notice, with reference to South
Africa. He had presented a petition signed by parsons
in London connected with the Cape, praying that the
House would be pleased " to recommend to her Majesty
the appointment of a Commission of Inquiry to proceed
as speedily 83 possible to the Cape of Good Hope to in-
quire into, and report upon, the relations between this
country and the native tribes on the frontier of her Ma-
jesty's possessions in Southern Africa." There was one
name appended to it which had more significance even
than the others, namely, of the gentleman delegated to
represent the grievances of the Cape to her Majesty on
behalf of nine-tenths of the whole electoral body there.
The important duty bad devolved on him (Mr. Adderley)
of stating those grievances. He asked the House to
consider the question not as a party question. At this
moment there was no such thing as a Government at
the Cape of Good Hope, nor had there been for
two years any Government there, either despotic or
democratic. The Council had not been filled up for a
year and a half. The Governor was obliged to act on
his own responsibility; he was not able to get a single
vote in supply, at the same time there was a dangerous
war on the frontier, and the policy of the Government
with respect to native tribes had entirely failed. There
were three propositions which would fall to be consi-
dered by the House. There was first that of which he
had given notice, for a commission of inquiry as to the
best mode of adjusting the relations between this coun-
try and the Kafir tribes. The object of that resolution
was to wind up for ever those outstanding engagements,
treaties, and agreements, into which her Majesty had en-
tered with the tribes and settlers at the Cape, in order
that on the concession of representative government to
the Cape that colony might in future take the responsi-
bility of its own defence. A precedent had been set for
the appointment of a commission to inquire on the spot
in 1827, when Lord C. Somerset was Governor of the
colony and Lord Bathurst Secretary for the Colonies.
Another proposition was made by the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government, who thought inquiry ne-
cessary, and immediately necessary. The Noble Lord
acknowledged that the Executive at the Cape was at a
dead lock, but the object of the Noble Lord was very
The Noble Leal
different from his (Slr, Adderley's).