The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-07 00:00:00

GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION.

Lord F. EGE RTON appeared at the bar, and informed
the House that three gentlemen, named Green, Lalor,
and Lushington Preston, who had been summoned to give
evidence before the Great Yarmouth Election Committee,
had refused to answer certain questions, or to appear before
the Committee, on the ground that having received certain
notkes, they considered themselves as the -defendants. The
Noble Lord said that he believed the proper course would be
!o move that the persons be called to the Bar, and he therefore
:low made that motion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought if any evidence bad been
riven, the proper course would be to have it printed, and then
have the persons at the bar to-morrow.
Sir R. INGLIS begged to call the attention of the House
to the last clause of the Report. The individuals alluded to
had refused to answer, in consequence of certain notices served
upon them by the Committee. He thought the Noble Lord
( Egerton) should state what that notice was, and that it be
printed with the votes.---( Cries of " No.") He begged to move
as an amendment, that the notice the Committee had served upon
the witnesses be laid on the table of the Ikuse, in the same
manner as the petition and evidence of Prentice, so that it
might be printed and circulated.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought when the witnesses were brought
to the Bar, that would be the proper time to state the sub-
stance of the notices.

Mr. WILK S said the Hon. Baronet had totally misun-
derstood the state of the question. These witnesses had been
examined before the Committee.—( Cries of " No, no," and
a laugh.) They had been summoned to be examined, and had
refused on the ground that notices had been served upon them,
but they did not state that they had been served by the Com-
Caittee.

The SPEAKER then put the question that these three persons
be called to the bar and examined.

Sir R. INGLIS thought the notices should be produced.
Mr. TA NCRE D said they were in the possession of the
witnesses.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said this was a case—a prima
facie case at least—of direct resistance to the authority of
the House, and there could be no objection to their being called
in immediately, and hear what they had to say. The House
could then consider what further steps should be taken.
Mr. PHILL I P S—These witnesses had refused to answer any
questions at all, and their case, therefore, differed from that
of Prentice. He suggested that they should be called in
immediately.
Mr. HAWES begged to ask the Hon. Member for New-
port whether he had made enquiry as to the progress the
Witness Indemnity Bill had made in the other House ?
Mr. HUME could answer for the Hon. Member, that the
Bill had advanced one stage since,
Edward Yarmouth Lushington Preston was then brought to
the Bar, rind examined. In answer to questions from the
Speaker, he stated, that he had been summoned by the Chair-
man of the Great Yarmouth Committee to gite evidence be-
fore that Committee, but he had also received another summons
or notice, which he should read, with the permission
of the House. The notice was to the effect that his evidence
would be required before the Committee, in consequence of a
petition presented to the House of Commons in June last,
and that the decision of the Committee was likely to affect him
by an imputation of bribery, or with being a party aiding and
assisting, others in the commission of bribery. It was signed by
Ashurst and Gainsborough, agents to the petitioners, and he
(Mr. IZreston) considered, according to the law of the land,
of which he knew something, that he could not be called upon
to give evidence as a witness, as he considered himself in the
light of a defendant.—(Cries of " Hear," followed by loud
cries of " Order, order," from the Ministerial benches.) The
witness added that these were the reasons which induced him
to refuse to answer the questions put to him.
Air. HUME--Have you still those objections to answer
these questions put to you ? I have. I contend that I cannot
be called upon to answer any question, as I am nut 4 witness,
but a defendant.

Mr. O'CONNELL Whether the questions may af-
fect you or not, will you still object to answer them ?
I must.

Mr. PRAED—You consider yourself to be a defendant to
the whole case, and therefore is it not that you consider that
the whole of it aifee;,s you ?—Most decidedly.
Mr. °'C°l".:lL-LL—But if the questions put toou do
not in any
W./ affect you, do you still refuse to answer—Am
I to be the
judge of whether they will affect me or not?
4 1‘,1",. ".'CONNELL—You 4re the Qilly judge of that?---
it. I must say that I am bound to contend that, with all
resrett to the House, I am not bound to answer.
Pas any action been brought against you ?—No,
Suppose the
question to be asbed of you does not affect you
in any way, will you still refuse to answer 2-1 stand here as a
defendant, and I contoud
You stand there to answer the questions put to you—and
therefore, as a Member of the Mouse, I repeat my question?