The Sun.
London, England, 1851-04-14 00:00:00

ST. ALBANS ELECTION.

On the order of the day being read for the considera-
tion of the minutes of eridenee of the St. Albans Elec-
tion Committee,

Mr. AGLIONBY said, as the final report had been
received, and as that report recommended that a
Commission should be appointed to make a
searching iaquiry into the iniquities and
corruption which prevailed at St. Alban's,
thought it was unnecessary, and would answer no good
end, keeping the warrants of the Speaker in force
against the four persons who had absconded, and vexing
the officers of the. House in trying to put them
into execution. He would, therefore, move that
the warrants against these persons be discharged, and
that Henry Edwards should be discharged from custody
without payment of costs.

Mr. BAKES considered that the question before the
House was, whether Edwards should be brought to the
bar. He did not agree with the lion. and Learned
Gentleman that the warrants as regarded the other
four persons should be discharged, as ho understood
the Committee to say in their report that their inquiry
had been defeated in consequence of important witnesses
having been kept out of the reach of the officers of the
House. He thought that a Commission to inquire into
the delinquencies of the borough would be no compen-
sation to the petitioner at all, and in the present instance
would by no means satisfy the ends of justice.
The ATTORNEY- GENER AL said that if it were
the intention of the House to discharge Edwards from
custody be could see no reason why he should be sum-
moned to the bar of the House at all except for the pur-
pose of being reprimanded.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER objected to Edwards being dis-
charged, at all events, without payment of fees.
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER could not see why
the man should be discharged at all. The clear
course to pursue would be to summon him to the
bar of the House, and at any rate not to discharge
him unless he could scow that he was not guilty of
what had been laid to his charge. The two reports
which had qeen presented to the House, showed that
not only bad this individual been guilty of contempt of
the authority of the House by inducing witnesses to
abscond, but even still further, that this contempt had
been successful, and had prevented the Committee from
fully discharging the duty for which they had been ap-
pointed. It appeared from the decisions of Lord Campbell
and all the other eminent authorities of the House that
this man's commitment was just and legally enforced.
He thought therefore that it would be inconsistent with
the dignity of that House if they were to allow this
man to be discharged without having been brought to the
bar of the House and subj, cted to the questions of those
;embers who had been engaged upon the Committee.
At least he certainly would nut consent to his discharge
without some such process be:rig gone through as that
which be bad described.—(Hear.)
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that he perfectly
agreed with the Member for Plymouth in the great im-
portance of this question, and he had like him made
himself perfectly acquainted wilh the whole facts of
the case. The circumstances were almost precisely
similar, it was true, but the matter which they had to
discuss was not the existence of an authority wbic)s had
always been exercised in that House, and which no one
elsewhere ever presumed to question, but whether that
authority had been properly used. As in the instance
of the Ipswich election, and in that of the celebrated one
of the Sheriffs of London, no one had attempted to question
the endorsement on the back of the warrant. The diffi-
culty still remained as to whether the Committee
had been rightly constituted or not, and whether
they had the power to issue those warrants.
moouatth
It appeared to him that as there was a question of
doubt the prisoner ought to be discharged upon payment
of costs; but, of course, if Mr. Edwards were anxious
to prove his innocence, of course he ought to be heard
at the bar, and discharged without payment of the
fees in the event of his succeeding. In the case of
F
Williams, and Jones, who were tried for the Mon-
shire riots, a technical objection was raised to their
conviction,r
but that was overruled, though it gave rise
to some doubt on the point, and the prisoners
were,
transported for life instead of being
executed.
acting upon the same principle,
therefore,
llethought,
they ought to pursue the same middle coarse inl this case.
Sir F. THESIGER hoped theouse would be cau-
tious how it proceeded, because this carte might hereafter
become a precedent on their books. He had no doubt
whatever that Mr. Edwards had been tampering with
justice, and he therefore could not concur in the course
suggested by the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General.
Why were they to discharge a man
who had been guilty
of a breach of the privileges of the House, and ac-
complished the object which he had in view by
stifling a most important inquiry?—(Hear, hear.)
He, for one, would object to his discharge until he made
some submissioti to the ague or promoted s potitiop

LONDON,

or gave some explanations on the subject considering
that he had clearly defeated the ends of justice.
Sir G. GREY considered that Edwards ought no longer
to be kept in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms,
as the proceedings of the Committee had now termi-
nated, but ought to be sent as a prisoner to Newgate.
Mr. ANSTEY said the question for the House to
consider, was not whether they could compel Edwards
to do any thing to further the administration of
justice, but whether he had or bad not been
guilty of a high offence against the privileges of Parlia-
ment, and whether being guilty it was fit for the House
to dismiss him without punishment?
The MASTER of the ROLLS considered that the
prisoner ought either to be committed to Newgate or
be discharged. It was very clear that the evidence
which he had been the means of suppressing was of a
very important character, but he bad neither explained
bis conduct nor expressed his contrition, nor evinced a
desire to show that he was not guilty of a breaoh of the
House.

Mr. S. WORTLEY agreed with the Master of the
Rolls, that the prisoner ought to be committed to New-
gate. He was inclined to think that there might be
a further question for the consideration of this
House, ♦iz., whether the Attorney-General should not
be directed to prosecute Edwards.—(Hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the House could do nothing
better than commit the prisoner to Newgate to-night.