The Sun.
London, England, 1835-08-06 00:00:00

THE SIN, LONDON, IttURSDA Y, AUGUST 6, 183.

ago, whether the Charity Commission which had omitted to
inquire into the state of several Charities, especially in Lin-
colnshire, was to be revived.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S reply was totally inaudible in
the Gallery. _ _

LICENSED VICTUALLERS.

Sir J. CLERK wished to know from the Chancellor of the
Exchequer whether he intended to bring forward any measure
for the purpose of relieving the Licensed Victuallers.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said he
would answer the Hon. Baronet's question to-morrow week.
GREAT YARMOUTH ELECTION.
Lord F. EGERTON appeared at the bar, and informed
the House that three gentlemen, named Green, Layton,
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
notices, they considered themselves as the defendants. The
Noble Lord said that he believed the proper course would be
to move that the persons be called to the Bar, and he therefore
now made that motion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL thought if any evidence had been
given, 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 House, 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. WILKS 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-
mittee.
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. TANCRED 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. PHILLIPS—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, and examined. In answer to qoestions from the
Speaker, he stated, that he had been summoned by the Chair-
man of the Great Yarmouth Committee to give evidence be-
fore that Committee, but he had also received another summons
or notice, which he shonld 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 darty aiding and
assisting others in the commission of bribery. It was signed by
Ashurst and Gainsborough, agents to the petitioners, and he
(Mr. Preston) 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.
Mr. 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 not a witness,
but a defendant.
Mr. O'CONNELL Whether the questions may af-
fect you or riot, 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 affects vou. Most decidedly.
Mr. O'CONNELL7—But if the questions put to you does
not in any way affect you, do you still refuse to answer ?—Am
I to be the Judge of whether it will affect me or not?
Mr. O'CONNELL—You are the only judge of that?—
A. Then I must say that Ism bound to contend that, with all
respect to the House, I am not bound to answer.
Has any action been brought against you ?—No.
Suppose the question to be asked of you does not affect you
in any way, will you stilt refuse to answer ?—I stand here as a
defendant, and I contend
You stand there to answer the questions put to you—and
therefore, as a Member of the House, I repeat my question.
I stand upon the same ground I did before. I should be ex-
tremely sorry to appear to defy the Honourable, but I must
contend that I stand as a defendant in the whole case.
Does that mean to say, that if the question does not refer to
you, still you will refuse to give any answer to it—say yes or
no ?—After some hesitation, and referring to some paper, the
witness said, " I must decline to answer any question put to
me by the Great Yarmouth Committee."
Mr. O'CONNELL—I am answered.
Mr. R. C. FERGUSSON—Was there any question put
to you at all ?—Yes.
What was it?—l really can't recollect.
Mr. PEASE—Was it not, " Are you a voter of the bo-
rough of Creel Yarmouth ? "—That was the question.
Mr. R. C. FE RG USSON—Why refuse to answer that
question ?—Because I think I should not be called upon to
answer any question in a case in which I am defendant.--
(Loud cries of " Withdraw.")
The witness was taken from the bar, when
Mr. O'CONNELL rose and said he felt himself bound to
move that the witness who had just been removed from the
bar be committed to Newgate.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he very much re-
gretted the absence of his Learned Friend the Attorney-Ge-
neral upon that occasion, because that question was one of
the very utmost importance. At a time when this, when
party excitement ran so high, it was extremely desirable
that the House should come to a calm decision upon the
subject like that before it. According to his view of the
liw, the witness was perfectly justified in the course he had
taken, because he did not think that this was a
case at all analagous to that of Prentice, lie hav-
ing answered a variety of questions. One was put to him
which did not in any way affect him, which lie refused
to answer, after having answered every previous one.
It did appear to him to be a hard case to compel a witness to
answer questions which might criminate him. Here was a
witness called before a Committee to inquire into the
propriety of prosecuting that very individual.—( Cries of
No, no," and " hear, hear.") Such, however, might be the
probable result.—(Hear.) He did then think it a hard
case to tell a witness we are going to get evidence from you which
may be used against you, because it may implicate you in acts of
bribery, but you must not refuse to answer. It appeared that such
a witness a fortiori was not bound to answer.—( Hear.) He,
for himself, would not answer any such question. He believed
he had the perfect concurrence of the Attorney General in
this opinion. He should decidedly vote against the motion.
Mr. HUME said there might be in some Courts of Law,
technicalities with which he might be unacuainted, but if such
was the law of the case, all enquiry would be needless.
all enquiry would be defeated ; for an agent would only have
to tell a witness that he need not make any answers that
affected himself. This opinion appeared most strange to
him, and if it were correct, there was an end to the authority
of this House.--( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL never heard anything with half so
much astonishment in his life.—(Hear, hear.) Was a man
to be protected from giving evidence without giving any
legal reason for it ? Would that course protect the innocent ?
The witness was called upon by the notice served upon
him to be cautious not to eliminate himself in any manner
whatever. That was the broad ground upon which
be stood, but not that he should not give evidence which
might criminate others. He had been taunted with attri-
buting bribery to one side of the House, but he did
not do any such thing after this. He heard the opinion just
given with the utmost astonishment, he might say horror._.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. TANCRED defended the conduct of the Committee.
Mr. BAR CL AY would ask any Hon. Members if indi-
viduals were brought before them under these circumstances,
whether they would not give them the same warning not to
criminate themselves. They might feel conscious that they
had committed bribery.—(Hear, hear, from Mr. °Connell.)
be assured that they did so, for the sake of argument, and then
they knew that upon conviction they would be sentenced to
two years imprisonment in Newgate. He had always been
ready to promote enquiry, but this was a most unfair mode of
proceeding.
Mr. NICHOLL could assure the House that the resolu-
tions upon which the Committee had acted were verbatum ei
literatim. A copy of the resolutions moved by the Noble
Lord (Russell) last Session, and carried in that House without
a dissentient voice. If the agents for the petition had fol-
lowed those Resolutions there would have been no difficulty.
(LEFT SITTING.)

CHURCH RATES.—A meeting was held on Mon-
day at Stoke Church. On a division it appeared that the
majority against the rate proposed was 220.—Devonport In-
dependent.

ABYSSINIAN WHEAT.--This description of wheat
was introduced to this neighbourhood (Dunbar) by Lord Lau-
derdale, and sown in his experimental park on the 13th of
November last, after a crop of clover of an Italian species.
Although the wheat was sown of the common thickness, not
above one half of it braided, but the plants tillered out very
much, and it came into ear with the other descriptions of
wheat generally sown in this country. The ear is bearded,
and consists of one principal and many smaller ears growing
out from its sides at irregular distances. Should the pickles
all come to maturity, the number must be very great, and the
crop most productive. The straw is large, and not tubular,
as in other wheat, but filled with pith, and is strong and solid.
From its thickness and inflexibility, it will not answer for bed-
ding.—Kelso Mail.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT

IN RE ANN PDX.
This motion, to discharge an order for a writ de ventre in-
spiciendo stood over in the paper, it will be recollected, for
yesterday. Mr. KNIGHT, on the part of Mr. Marston, the ap-
plicant for the writ to examine Mrs. Fox, now addressed the
Court, and said that an affidavit had been lately sworn by Mr.
Alsop and another gentleman, both of the medical profession ;
that they had seen the lady, and that she was riot five months
gone with child. The Learned Counsel altogether objected
to this evidence ; his client had a right to have the fact sub-
mitted to the test of a Jury, or of such tribunal as the Court
should appoint. His client had been called by the other side
a Jew. He was in truth an unbelieving Jew—or, in the lan-
guage of Shakspeare, " Hebrew Jew." In this state of things
it was submitted to the Court that the proper course would
be to refer it to the Master to appoint proper persons to see
the lady.
There was then some conversation between counsel as to the
selection of the persons to examine the lady, and especially
whether a reference to the Master was necessary.
Mr. KNIGHT insisted that the reference would operate as a
pressure upon the parties to agree to some arrangement which
they never would concur in if they were left to themselves. On
both sides there was implacable hostility. And it appeared
this delicate lady had caused Mr. Marston to be burned in
effigy at Uttoxeter. There was an auto da fe under the very
windows where the tremulous creature lay.—( Laughter.)
Mr. KINDERSLEY alleged this was utterly untrue. The
Lady was not to blame if the inhabitants of the town had
warmly espoused her cause against Mr. Marston. If it were
true, he would consent that the lady should be immured by the
Sheriff within the walls of a castle.

Mr. KNIGHT was willing to take issue on the point. Per-
haps Mr. Duckworth would take charge of the lady at his
house.—(A laugh.)
Mr. Duck worth declined the proposal.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR asked whether there was any in-
stance of depositing a lady with the Clerk in Court for the
usual purposes ?—( Laughter.)
The Learned COUNSEL agreed there was not.
His HONOUR gave judgment, and said Mr. Marston was en-
titled to something in the nature of the old writ ; and on the
other hand the lady had ground for not having the severity of
the ancient process inflicted upon her. The middle course
was, therefore, the proper one, and the order of reference
asked by Mr. Knight was very reasonable. It was then ar-
ranged that the Master should appoint two matrons, if the par-
Sties differ, who, accompanied by a medical man on each side,
should visit the lady once a fortnight, she receiving two days
previous notice of their intended visits.

FREEMAN V. BLENCOWE.

Admiral Freeman devised to Mrs. Freeman, his son's widow,
an annuity of 6001., in addition to her jointure of 800/. a-year,
and charged upon the same estates as the jointure was charged
upon, and with the same powers of distress and entry for its
recovery, to commence from the day of his decease. He then
devised the estates upon which the lointure was charged for a
term of 500 years, in trust to raise a sum of 15,000/. for his
grand-daughter, Miss Freeman, and he devised the reversion of
the estates to his grandson, Mr. Freeman, to whom he also
bequeathed his personal estate. This being a bill to raise the
15,000/., a question was made whether the annuity was
charged on the personal estate, and in case the real estates
should prove deficient for both the annuity of 800/., and
the 15,0001., whether both sums should not abate propor-
tionally.

His- HONOUR said it was plain the annuity was not charged
upon the personal estate ; it was a mere gift of an annuity
out of real estate, in addition to the jointure with which the
estate was already burdened. Then as the annuity was given
in addition to the jointure, those who take the term of years,
take it subject as well to the annuity, which was a gift in
possession, as to the jointure wherewith the estate was already
charged.

PREROGATIVE COURT.