The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-05 00:00:00

they would be doing great injustice to Mr. pox, and to
their own character.

Lord MfGENT thought his Hon. Friend, Mr. Ten-
uyson, quite justified in the question he was about to put
resprtipg Mr. 'Alkvenan Parker, when interrupted.
Mr. F. PALMER, howeveF reluetanetik, iii th€ abientte
of some other mover, would move the witness's COM.
mitment.

Mr. Secretary PEEL was averse to such a proceeding.
Mr. F. PALMER had no wish to press his motion on
the Committee, and therefore withdrew it.

Mr: TENNY- SOP( thought he had now done enough to
t!te !hedge, he had gtVeri *al proposer to
suspend these proceedings) of proVing his case at the Bar
Of the House. He was, however, in the hands of the Com-
mittec;, and would be guided entirely by their advice as to
whether he should proceed any further on the present oc-
casion..
r4r. b:I3AIMEg was by no means satisfied from the
evidence which had been taken, that any such ease had,
been made out as could warrant the disfranchisement of
East Retford.

Mr. VEL-RGUSSON; whert he first altered neon this
matter in the tottitnittee above etaiir, Nail entertained th 6
same opinion as to the general inexpediency of these pro-
ceedings, with that which had just been avowed by the
lion. Member for Corfe Castle. Since the case had been
proceeded with at the
.har of this Committte, his own
opinion was entirely changed.—(Hear, hear.) With re-
spect to the reference which his Hon. Friend (Mr. 'fenny-
,onj was So Willing to make to the pleasure of the Com-
mittee, as tb whether he should call any more witnesses,
it were surely much better. that his Hon. Friend, who
must be better acquainted with the strength and the bear-
ings of his case, should exercise his own discretion in that
Particular.
Mr. Secretary PEEL agreed in thinking that it would
be much better for the Hon. Gentleman to exercise his
own discretion in the matter.

Mr. SYKES contended that they were proceeding with
some degree of irregularity.
Mr. LUMLEY should feel great pleasure whenever Mr.
Foljambe should be able to attend, in enabling the Com-
mittee to avail itself of that gentleman's evidence on many
important particulars.
Sir ROBERT WILSON moved,, that Mr. Hotlgkinson
be called in.

Mr. Hodgkinson was called in accordingly, and exa-
mined by Sir R. WlLS*N—Witness.was a Magistrate of
East Retford, and had not voted during all the last two
and thirty years at any election for that Borough, except-
ing the last. At the election a little more than S 2 years
ago, he had received 20 guineas from one of the candidates
six or seven weeks after his return.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.

Mr. TENNYSON having been so lately applied to, to
determine on the course which be had to pursue, felt no
difficulty whatever in saying that he should now chic
hisca=e.

Mr. GEORGE I3ANKES reserved to himself the
right of calling other witnesses tl'ian those that might be
produced at the har upon the present occasion.
Mr. Secretary PEEL also reserved to himself the right
to consider the whole case, upon carefully reading over the
evidence.

Edward Brwn was then called in and examined by Mr.
TENNYSON—What situation di) you hold in the Bo-
rough of East Bares] ?—I am Town Clerk.
Did you ever receive election money ?—I appeal to the
Cliair:nan whether I ought to answer that question.
The witness was here ordered to withdraw.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that the witness
was not bound to answer any .questioh which tended to
criminate himself.

Sir ROBERT WILSON expressed his surprise at the
doctrine laid down by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
His own feelings and opinion; •as to the power of Parlia•
ment, led most decidedly to the decision that the witness
must answer.

Mr. LITTLETON was surprised to hear the Attorney-
General utter such a doctrine as they had just heard. Me
was surprised to hear him, the Law Officer of the Crown,
so ignorant of the laws of Parliament.—(Hear, hear.)—
His ignorance, however, was a trifle compared with the
contempt of the priVileges of that Mothe which Ms doctrine
involved.;

Sir C. BURRELL thought the witness was bound to
answer all questions, and he hoped be would be told that
he might do so without fear of prosecution.

The ATTORNEY GENERAL conceived that he was
entitled to stand up' and defend himself after the unfounded,
coarse, and wanton attack made upon him.—(Hear, hear.)
He saw nothing in the opinion he had expressed to warrant
the Hon. Member in vomiting forth his anger.—(Hear,
and laughter.)—He repeated that, without the promise of
protection from the House the witness was not bound to
answer a question tending to criminate himself.
Mr. Secretary PEEL, Mr. S. RICE, and Mr. LITTLE.
TON, rose at the same moment. The calls for Mr. Peel
and Mr. Rice continued for some time, when
Lord SANDON appealed to the Chair, and the decision
was in favour of

Mr. S. RICE, Who said that he should be sorry to stand
in the way of the Right Hon. Secretary.
Mr. Secretary PEEL only availed himself of the cour-
tesy of the Right -Hon-. Member for Linierick in order to
put an end to the discussion which his Right Hon. Friend
(the Attorney-General) had raised in consequence of the
attack which he conceived had been made upon his profes-
sional character. He did not think that any thing that had
hem said on. either side called for the observations which
hid been made. He certainly thought that this ease dif-
fered front the ordinary cases of law, and that the witness
was not entitled to refuse answering the questions put to
him ; but thathe was protected from legal consequences as
to any thing he might sayfor the furtherance of public jus-
tice, in conformity with one of the orders of the lionise,
passed in 1818.
Mr. WYNN observed that the reason of the difference
.between that House and a Court of Law, with respect to
evidence, was, that whatever evidence was given in a Court
of Law would be evidence afterwards against the witness,
Whereas what was taken in that House as evidence, could
only be given elsewhere by permission of that House.
_ Mr. LITTLETON 'disclaimed making any remark
upon the manner in which the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite had indulged in that irascibility of his temper for.
which he (Mr. L.) had given so little, cause. All that he
had said was, that the Right Hon. Gentleman was igno-
rant of the practice of Parliament in consequence of au
opinion which he had given.
Mr. TWISS submitted, that it was not' in the power of
that House to put a stop to the course of any Court of
Justice, by restricting its members fro& giving evidence.

The SPEAKER rose to *make a fete observations in
. consequence of what had fallen. from the. Hon. Member
who had just sat down. He had understood him to say,
,that any. Member of that llouse might be called upon to
give evidence in a Court of Law of the proceedings of
that House. •Now, there was no doubt on his (the
.SPeaker's) mind—and it was time he should be set right
-if he was wrong,—that no Member of that House could
give. evidence of their proceedings, without the direct or
implied permission of the House.—(Hear, hear, hear.)—
No one hut a Member had a right to hear what passed in.
'the House, and the evidence, therefore, of no one else could'
.be received-as to their proceedings.—(Hear, hear.)
The witness was then called in,- and informed he was
'protected by the orders of the House against the legal con-
sequences of any evidence he gave at the Bar.
He theti-stated, in answer to Mr. Tennyson, that he bad
received election. money in 1818 and 1820. He found
two letters at • his house, inclosing 20/. each, but from
whom they came, he knew not.
• Mr. Secretary PEEL.—You speak as though the pay-
ment of this money was customary only among the lower
Order of freemen. How came it to be sent to a person in
your station ?—At that time I was a poor clerk in the office
in which I have now the honour to be a partner.
By Mr. SPRING RICE.—He had never heard that it
. was. the practice for a losing Member not to pay. It was
the impression on his mind that there were forty voters
who did not take money.

By Alderman WAII;HMAN.—There was a general ex-
pectation of receiving money amongst the freemen.
.By Mr. J. WOOD.—When witness had the interview
with Sir H. Wilson, he- told him the electors expected
money.
Some questions were put by Mr. G. BANKES, which
were not of any consequence.
Jonathan Bankes was a freeman of Retford for 29 years,
and witnessed several elections in that time. Has received
money, but did not know whether it was election money._
(The witness then went on fencing so, that he was ordered
to withdraw; and when called in was warned to answer
directly. )_.He admitted then that he bad received election
money as often as three times.
William Hadson, Thomas Appleby, William Clarke, and
Joseph "'Marwick, were examined, and gave testimony as to
the practice of receiving money for votes at East Retford.
William Leadbitter, the next witness, denied any know-
ledge of the elections referred to, or of the practices imputed
to the parties concerned ;
he had never received any mo-
ney-..-never knew of any having been offered.
William Newton, clerk to a solicitor, concerned in those
elections, had several conversations with Lesdhitter, in
which he made admissions totally unconnected with his
evidence, as stated above.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.

Lord NUVENT observed, that title witness not only con-