The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-27 00:00:00

•'

/~''

.-t- -.- V-

THE SUN, LONDON', MO ND AT .EVENTNO JUNI! 27, 1842.

the Han. and Learned Member for Bath was Chairman,
he was informed that though a Methber-a life House he
coud not be admitted ; he begged to ask, whether the
Committee were justified in issuing that order, and whe-
ther it was not a breach c f the privileges of that House ?
Mr. ROEBUCK said the lion. Member might have
saved himself some trouble, if he had asked whether such
an order had been issued or not. No person atttnding.
on that Committe had received any such instructions
it was a misconception on the part of the person to whom
the Hon. Member applied.
Mr. COCHRANE said, on applying foradmission, he
was told that no person was allowed to enter unless he
was a member of the Commitea. He certainly added,
that if he (Mr. Cochratie) would send in his name, he
might be admitted. He did not do that, as he did not
want to ask any personal favour of the Hon. and
Learned Member.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, in order to set himself right
he might state that one Hon. Member had come into
the Committee that very day, asking if Members of the
House were to be admitted. He was informed that the
Committee was at that moment under deliberation,
and that the Committee had come to the unanimous
conclusion that it was for the interest of the inquiry
that it should be conducted, if possible, with only the
witness under examination present.' That. resolution
was read to the Hon. Member when he applied for ad-
mission.

Major BERESFORD said he had sent in a special
message, requesting to know if he might be present at
the inquiry ; the Committee deliberated on the subject,
and he was told that he could not be present.
—(Hear, hear.) He then stated that he had applied
for admittance as a Member of Parliament, but chiefly as
a person interested in the inquiry. About twenty mi-
nutes afterwards the Committee sent for him again, and
he was then told that it was the unanimous con-
clusion of the Committee that the person under
examination should alone be present. He entered
into an argument to the effect that he claimed
admittance chiefly as a matter of right, as a per-
son accused, who had a right to hear the evidence
adduced against him. This was the right of the greatest
criminal, even of one who might be pronounced a felon
on the next day.—(Hear, hear.) He claimed to be pre-
sent on the ground that evidence might be adduced
which he might be enabled to refute, while, if be was
absent, it was brought against' him in the dark, and his
character might be calumniated behind his back,
without the power of reinstating it ; he might be
stabbed behind his back by anonymous enemies.—
(Hear, hear.) He was bound to_ state that the
manner of the Honourable Member and of the
Committee was kind and courteous in a great degree, bnt
they decidedly stated the principle by which persons were
excluded. If he insisted on his right as a Member
of Parliament, he was told he might be present.
He (Major Beresford) then stated that having laid his
reasons before that Committee, and having been refused
as a principle, he would not avail himself of his right as
a Member, as if he did so he considered he should be
entering the room under false pretences—(Cheers)—
and under those circumstances he should decline enter-
ing the room. At the same time he felt bound to state,
as far as his own examination went, that although it was
most stringent and searching, yet it had been conducted
in a most gentlemanlike manner.
Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE thought the House
would agree with him in opinion that some explanation
was necessary, as from what had occurred there had
been great room for misconception. •
Mr. YORKE could confirm the statement of the
Hon. Member for Bath. It was not the intention of the
Committee to. condUct the inquiry as though a charge
had been made against any individual ; and the Com-
mittee had come to the determination unanimously that,
out of delicacy to all. the parties concerned, it would be
best that the inquiry should be conducted with closed doors.
The application of the Hon. Member for admission had been
met precisely in the manner in which the Hon. Member
had stated, and the Hon. Member having been refused
admittance as "a
party concerned, but having had admit-
tance granted to him as a Member of the House, said that
he considered it useless to assert his right as a Member
of the House, and retired. The question of, refusing ad-
mittance to a Member of the House had never even been
raised before the Committee.
Mr. ROEBUCC moved that the documents which he
had presented should be printed for the use of Members
only.—Agreed to.
AMERICAN SLAVES IN CANADA.

On the motiou for the reading of the Orders of the
Day being put,
Mr. HAWES wished to ask the Secretary of the
Colonies, if it was true that on the 17th January last,
the authorities of the United States of America had de-
manded of the authorities of Upper Canada that' they
should deliver up a person of colour, named Nelson
Haggett, as a fugitive from justice, it being well
understood that a fugitive from justice meant
nothing more than a runaway slave. No charge
was made against the man '-except that he
was a fu2itive from justice. The demand was
acceded to, and Nelson Haggett was taken t 3 Arkansas,
and lodged in gaol. He (Mr. Hawes) :wished to know,
whether this statement was cerrect, and what was the
policy intended to be pursued by Her Majesty's Govern-
ment in similar cases.
- Lord STANLEY said the Hon. Gentleman was not
correct in his statement. It was perfectly true that an
application had been made to the Canadian authorities
to deliver up the individual in question as a fugitive
from justice. He was charged generally with highway
robbery. There was an act of the Province of
Upper Canada, authorising the Governor to deliver
up to the American fugitives , from Justice,
charged with certain specifid crimes, on being
furnished with the warrant fer..the committal of such
person, and also on being furnished with a copy
of the depositions, - provided it should apppear
from those depositions, that the person so de-
manded had been guilty of would have been a
offence against the law of Canada. On the first appli-
cation made for the delivery of this man Haggett, these
documents were wanting, and the Governor refused to
deliver him up. A second application was made, accom-
panied by the proper documents, and from the de-
positions it appeared that the man had actually
committed a robbery on a person not Ids master, and he
was accordingly delivered up and imprisoned in Arkansas.
The question- as to the propriety of delivering him up
had been submitted by the Governor to the Executive
Council, and, by their advice, the man had been delivered
up.