The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-24 00:00:00

to go abroad. There were three points necessary to
be established before the petition could be consi-
dered valid. First, there should be a case pend-
ing ; secondly, the witness must have declared
his intention of going abroad ; and, thirdly, the ques-
tion upon which he was to have been examined, must
be material to the point at issue. He believed that
each of those points was established in the Ipswich
petition ; first; there could be no doubt but that a
case was pending ; secondly, it was certain
that Sir Thomas Cochrane had declared his
intention of going abroad ; and, lastly, it was
stated by the petitioner that he had been informed
that Sir Thomas Cochrane was in possession of certain
documents which it was material should be produced.
The Hon. and Learned Member then quoted Ar-
chibald's Practice, page 243, to show that such
evidence would be sufficient in a• Court of Law
to make a Judge grant a rule nisi under the
.circumstances. And if a Court of Law deemed it
unnecessary to show the materiality of the evidence,
surely it could not be necessary in that place, which
was :the grand inquest of the nation, that they should re-
sort to any quibbling to prevent the petitioner having the
relief he applied for. He would therefore move that
Sir T. Cochrane be called to the bar of the House, to
answer the allegations in the petition. But if any other
Hon. Member would suggest any other proposition,
which would be less inconvenient to Sir
Thomas Cochrane, all the correspondence at the
same time being produced, and no injury resulting
to any party, he (Mr. Wason) would agree to it.
But if the Attorney-General should consider it neces-
sary to show that the correspondence was abso-
lutely material and essential, he was ready to
prove that it was so at that very moment. He would
therefore conclude by moving that Sir J. Cochranca
be called to the barjof the House, to answer the elle-
_

gations contained in the petition.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the
House, that neither the Honourable Gentleman
.opposite, nor any other Gentleman, could
feel more deeply than he did, the necessity of
paying the utmost respect to any mandate, warrant, or
authority which issued from the Speaker in virtue of the
high office which• he held, directing the attendance of
witnesses, and that the House should have the privi-
lege of commanding the same species of evidence
as any other power ; but having made the concession
he was at a loss to know what was the object of
the Honourable Gentleman opposite in calling
Sir Thomas Cochrane to the bar of the House. The
Courts in Westminster-hall had no doubt the power
under particular Acts to obtain evidence which might
be afterwards used for the purposes of trial, and it
might be extremely desirable that the House should
possess the power now ; but beyond all doubt,
the House did not possess that power. If the Ho-
nourable Gentleman's object was, that Sir
Thomas Cochrane should appear at the bar
of the House to be examined, and that the
answers he gave were not! be an oath, but that
they were to be laid hefore the Committee,
substantiated by the oaths of other persons,
it was clear that the Hon. Gentleman could hardly
be acquainted with any of the rules of evidence or the
use of an oath.—(Hear, hear.) If a person swearing
that he heard Sir Thomas Cochrane make certain
statements were sufficient, it was contrary to
all rule that the evidence of such a person
should be sufficient to substantiate the statements
that should be made. on oath by Sir Thomas Coch-
rane himself. It might be quite right that some
means should be hereafter adopted to enable the House
to obtain the testimony of persons who are about
leaving the country, and he (the Attorney-General)
agreed with the Honourable Gentleman opposite,
that undoubtedly the power of compelling such evi-
dence might be exercised with advantage by that
House. In point of fact, he had inquired and
ascertained that Sir Thomas Cochrane had been ap-
pointed to the office which he was about to
fill, and the duties of which he was about to discharge
before he received the Speaker's subpoena ; about that
fact there was no doubt whatever ; and he would call
the attention of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite to the
counter-disadvantage under which a party was placed
in consequence of his being appointed to an office
to which rank and gallantry had entitled him.
That might have been the reason why he was
called upon to appear at the bar of the House ;
but he (the Attorney-General) did not mean
to say • that it was the case in the present instance.
It should be observed that Sir T. Cochrane was not a
candidate at, and had nothing whatever to do with the
last election ; therefore it could not be supposed that he
could give any material evidence in relation to it. He
certainly had been a candidate before, and a successful
one, but he (the Attorney-general) was not aware that
there had been any reflection cast upon him whilst he
sat in that House. The present motion •was made upon
some grounds which were not disclosed in the petition,
jealousy.
He which were kept back from a groundless
He thought it would have been much better to state those
grounds, that every Hon. Member might know for what
reason it was that Sir Thomas Cochrane was to be
called to the bar. What was the real position in which
the House was placed with respect to this petition ? Sir
Thomas Cochrane was a candidate at a former election ;
the petition did not state that lie interfered in any way
whatever with the last election. Now, lie would suppose
for a moment that he had written sonic letter in a news-
paper, intimating that application had been made to him
to become a candidate, and that he had declined to
comply. He was utterly at a loss to conceive how that
could be a legitimate ground for calling Sir Thomas
Cochrane to the bar of that House, or for making any
inquiry as to what passed when the proposal was made
to him. If it was Aleant as recrimination upon those
who made that proposal, he could say, without fear of
contradiction, that it would not be evidence with respect
to the pending inquiry. But the House was not so en-
tirely without a remedy as the Hon, Member seemed to
suppose. That House had the means of doing justice,
if any justice were required to be done, They must, n
that occasion, take it for granted that Sir Thomas
Cochrane was fully impressed with what he owed to that
House, and the necessity of obeying any warrant which
might issue against him. If from an erroneous judg-
ment as to the value of his testimony, or as to the obe-
dience which he owed to the House, he should go abroad,
not having given that information which was deemed
material to the matter in issue, application could be made to
the Special Commission, who might postpone for 24 hours
their further meeting, and might then come to that
House to apply for a further postponement, in order
that justice might be administered. If it should be ima-
gined that Sir Thomas Cochrane had gone abroad to
avoid giving evidence which might be favourable to the
petitioners, still it was perfectly competent to that House
to postpone the proceedings until he had returned to this
country.—(A laugh from the Opposition.) What could
the House do ? Could they issue a writ of ne exeat
regno, and prevent Sir Thomas Cochrane from going
abroad in the service of his country ? If Sir
Thomas Cochrane were at the bar of the House,
what use could they. make of his answers ? After
giving the subject full consideration, and attending to it
with that gravity and attention which he deemed be-
longed to the question, it appeared to him (the Attorney-
General) that it was impossible for the House to take
any step to restrain Sir T. Cochrane from going abroad.
He (the Attorney-General) would undertake to say that
every Court of Westminster-hall would reply to such an
application, Ist., that the Court could never assume that
a witness was wantonly called on to absent himself from
his duty, and 2d., that they could not assume that any
subject of the realm would deal contemptuously with the
powers of the Court, or would fail in that respect
to the law which every one owed. The answer
would be that the Court could take no notice

on one side or the other, but would leave the case

to go on till they saw whether the witness had forgotten
his duty or not, and if he should forget his duty he
would be open to judgment. The House could do no
more than Westminster Hall, and all Westminster Hall
could do was to leave the matter where it was. If the

law were defective let it be amended, but at present the
House could not interfere ; and by calling Sir T. Coch-
rane to the bar adopt a course new and unprecedented,

and certainly not very respectful to the very gallant
person concerned, and not very respectful to the framers

Of the law. If the Honourable Gentlemen opposite per-
sisted in pressing his motion to a division, he (the At-
torney-General) should meet it with a direct negative.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped not.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who had just sat down, had exhibited that consummate
skill in his profession for which he (Mr. (:Connell) so
much respected him. But he thought that the Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had relied upon merely
technical difficulties. There were facts which it was

alleged Sir T. Cochrane had in his possession. The
evidence was not of a personal nature, but consisted of
documents and letters. It had been alleged that those
documents and letters were of very material consequence
to the proper hearing of the case. It had been also

alleged that Sir T. Cochrane had been served with the

Speller's order, as he was about to leave the country
before the case could be heard. Now was it fitting that
that House should allow of that state of things, and
agree, upon the mere prospect of the present Members
being permitted to retain their seats, that the
Committee should be adjourned until the Gallant
Officer returned from the service upon which he was about
to go? and as he (Sir T. Cochrance) would, no doubt, act
with the same gallantry as he had displayed upon former
occasions, it was not quite so certain that he would
come back.—(Laughter.) That being the state of the
case, that part of the Attorney-General's argument, in
which he ridiculed the idea of taking down the evidence
of Sir Thomas Cochrane, and offering it as evidence
to the Committee, was perfectly right. It would b•
taken in evidence; but if Sir T Cochrane stated at the bar

that he had in his possession the documents, and that he was
about to go out of the country before the Committee sat,
should not the House have the power to prevent the
Gallant Admiral ? He (Mr. O.'C.) by no means meant
to impugn the conduct of Sir Thos. Cochrane. The

Attorney-General did not tell them that the Gallant
Officer had not those documents in his possession ; but
it was not denied that the Gallant Officer did possess
them. It was not to be supposed that the Government
sent him out of the way in the present instance, but
they ought to see that they did not now lay down a
principle which some other Government might use for
purposes which perhaps could not be justified. All they
wanted the Gallant Admiral to tell them was,
whether or not he had those documents in his possession.
If he had, let him produce them ; if not, there would be
no inconvenience to him from the matter, but much
loss might arise to the petitioners by the non-production ,
of the Papers. He (Mr. O'Connell) admitted that the