The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-26 00:00:00

when they were invested with the 'sewer nk tryiiii;; ajLretttjift
than the Judge of the Queeit'e Bnt iti4 a lord Cif ies'elve
men. Then it ;swirl be taid. that tf. teildttiar so constiruted
might guide themselvea by the. rules established in Cour s of
Justice-. tint th'ee came the question that the Learned
Attateelseeeteneral had put, that where a witness refused to
enewer a question which had a tendency to eliminate hirneelf,
he was protected in the refusal ; but that if he eii:dea6lilred to
shelter himself under that plea wh'elii lir4erly app'y,
'he was not to he osoleletede t'.4l 'lion. Chairman had told
them that the Upon which the question was argued
tea!, thet tat qnestion would nut in fact criminate the witness,
end he must take the majority in this instance to have the same
power of deciding the question as a Court of Justice;
It was impnssible to go into the merits of the tpleetien,
because in order to tlo ste, he Would be obliged
to ask not only whet th qiiestiOn itself was, but also what the
previous Tiestiens Were; tend What the circumstances under
which it seat desirdut to as that question. The only mode in
which he could trace it to any satisfactory conclusion was his com-
plying with the authority of the Committee. He had heard
nothing to Seduce him to believe that that ought not to be taken
as the ground of their decision. There might be cases where
they %light feel distrust, but such eases would be special and
single eases. He had scent doubt whether his Hon. Friend's
motion would ahseter the purpose. He thought the proper
course for the House to pursue, would be to inform the witness
that he Must go before the Committee and answer the question.
Mr. Hume, Mr. O'Connell, and several ether Members here
rose together to address the Hose, Mr. flume, however,
called out Mr. Speaker, in a loud voice, and was greatly
cheered from all parts. The o: her Honourable Members gave
way, and
Mr, fIUME then addressed the Hare. He thought the
ttearse that ought to be pursued perfectly plain; the House
had committed its power to the Committee, and he thought,
therefore, the right course would be for the House to have the
witness called to the bar, and informed that he must go before
the Committee and answer the question.
Mr. O'CONNELL did not doubt that the law Lild down by
the Attorney-General was correct. But he though. the wit-
ness, having told part, ought to go on and tell the entire. A
Bill had at one period passed this House on the subject, but
Lord Brougham struck out the most important clauses
in the House of Lords. He never did anything more
mischievous; it was a time when he could get the House
of Lords to concur with him. Would it not become
a Government, strong in the House of Lords, to
bring in a similar Bill which they would c wry ? He
apprehended that they had nothing to do with the Com-
mittee, as its decisions were without appeal.
R Sir R. PEEL said ht. agreed with the Noble Lord, the
Member fur London, that there was a very great distinction
between the extreme powers possessed by the House of Com-
mons, as the great inquest of the nation, by an inquiry at the
bar, and the powers possessed by a certain portion of the
House as a tribunal under a special Act of Parliament. It did
not at all necessarily follow, that the powers and privileges of
the tribunal being defended by statute, were joined with an
inherent right to exercise all the powers i ossessed by the
House of Commons itself. Upon the whole, he thought it the
safest course for the House to pursue was to remit the witness
to the Committee. They ought not to interfere with the
powers of the Committee. He thought it would be dangerous
to examine the witness at the bar of the House, with the view
of forming an opinion as to his answers. He was afraid that
the witness might form an erroneous opinion of the decision of
the House. He had said that he would submit to the
authority of the House—( Hear, hear)—that if the House
said that he was bound to answer, without reference
to consequences he was ready to submit. He ( Sir R. Peel)
did not think that their answer ought to he given on any such
terms. He was not prepared to say, you are bound to answer,
even if the answer should criminate yourself. He had gone as
far as any One in defending the rights of that House, and he
should do so again, but he was not prepared to say witnesses
were bound to answer before a Committee any question
whatever. They might estabhsh a precedent. which might be
most dangerous to their own inquisitorial power. He inferred,
that the Committee did not claim for itself a power to compel
this witness to answer, but they did claim a power of deciding
whether the witness was acting bona fide, on the ground of
criminating himself, or whether he was using it merely for the
purpose of withholding evidence. It appeared a nice question for
any tribunal to determine, when it compelled a witness to answer
a question, whether the answer would criminate the witness or not.
He did not think that a witness was to be allowed to entertain
any vague opinion as to what would criminate himself.—(Hear,
hear.) But, on the other hand, it was difficult to determine
whether or no the answer to any given question would crimi-
nate himself. That was a discretion which must rest with
every tribunal ; and he was sure that the tribunal appointed in
the present case would act with due consideration and justice.
—( Hear, hear.) The course which was to be pursued must
he left to the discretion of that tribunal, ar:d it was to deter-
mine whether an answer ought to be given or not._( Hear.)
air. WAKLEY begged to refer the House to what had
taken place within the last two years, on the trial of a Peer be-
fore the House of Lords. Dare a witness refuse to answer the
questions which were put to him, on the ground that the an-
swer would criminate himseh ?—( Hear, hear.) That occurred
within the last two years, before the highest authority
in the land, and had excited great public attention, but the
trial was put an end to, in consequence of the refusal of a wit-
ness to answer questions that might criminate himself. He
was not required to state the answer in order that the Judge
might determine whether the answer would criminate himself or
no ; but he was allowed to exercise his own judgment. He
hoped some of the Learned persons engaged in the trial,
would state the circumstances of the case to the House, as he
did not think it could be that this House and the other House
of Parliament should be at issue on so important a subject.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said, he apprehended the
duty of a tribunal to be this—whether the individual refused to
answer under a bona fide conviction that the answer would
criminate himself, or whether it was only for the
purpose of evading justice, he refused to do so.
The rule of law that obtained before an Election Committee
was the same as that observed in every other tribunal. No
witness was bound to answer any question which would tend to
eriminate himself. It appeared to him (Sir W. Follett) that
the best, course was to send back this man before the Corn,
mittee to exercise their judgment as to whether he persisted in
refusing to answer a bona fide question.
Mr. C. WOOD said he was sure the Committee
claimed no authority which might not be claimed by
any other legal tribunal. All that the House knew of the
ease was that the witness had refused to answer a certain ques-
tion, which they thought he ought to answer. If, however,
they merely sent back the witness before the Com-
mittee, the result would possibly be that the present
difficulty would again arise, and they would again have
to go over the subject to-morrow. He apprehended that
the best course would be that a general intimation should be
given from the Chair, that it was the opinion of the House,
that the witness should only refuse to answer any question
which might criminate himself, and that the Committee should
decide whether such a question had been put. The Com-
mittee had proceeded in the usual way, and he therefore
thought that they had a right to presume that the Committee
would exercise that power which was vested in them.
Mr. GODSON said, that this discussion would have one good
result. He had learned, with some surprise, the opinion of the
Learned and Hon.Attorney-General on this subject,viz., that the
witness might refuse to answer any question tending to crimi-
nate himself. This was certainly the practice in the Courts of
Law. No lawyer would deny that a Court of Law had the
power to decide whether the witness was dealing hone stly with
them. What was the demeanour of the witness before the
Committee? When it was decided that he must answer
the question, he immediately bowed and said he threw himself
on the Committee. The Honourable Member for Halifax
had told the House that several times the witness had answered
questions under the compulsion of the Committee, but in none
of those answers did he criminate himself, except in the be-
ginning, and then he did criminate himself.—( Cries of "Or-
der, order," " Chair, chair.") Then with respect to the qua-
lification laid down by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Cork—( The rest of the sentence was lost in cries of " Order,
order.") One good result would come from this discussion.
Committees would henceforth know how they were to proceed.
They would know the nature of the oath they had to take.
They had to try the question. How try it. ?—(" Order,
order.") They had to try it by the law of the land, inde-
pendent of the opinions which Hon. Gentlemen might forni.
They had to try the question by the law of the land as they
had heard that day, and he bound by the rules of law.—
" Order, order.") Then they had to do justice as in a Court
of Justice—they were to decide whether or not the witness was
dealing fairly and honestly in refusing to answer a question on
the ground that it would tend to criminate himself, and if the
Committee should decide that he was not dealing fairly and
honestly, then he must answer the question. If this was con-
veyed to the minds of the Committee, he thought the House
would not be troubled again on the subject. Having this con-
veyed to their minds, they would know what their duty was.
Then with respect to the witness going back to the Committee;
he wished to seek information on this point. Ile thought the
ends of justice would be answered if the witness were allowed
to go where he pleased.
Sir T. WILDE said, he could not agree with his Hon.
Friend as to the law. If it were sufficien; for a witness to re-
fuse to answer, because by answering he would criminate him-
self, the Committee would have very little to do.— ( Hear,
hear.) The rule, as acted upon according to his experience
for the last forty years, had been this, that the witness had been
required to show not that it would criminate him, but to
satisfy the Judge that it might criminate him. He would give
an instance. A witness was asked, "Did you ever see the*
paper ?" a bill of exchange being put into his hand. He
said, " I decline to answer that question, because it may
crimate me." " Huw ?" said the Judge. " Because it has
been imputed to me that I have committed usury with respect
to that bill." That objection was allowed. He quite agreed
with his Hon. Friend, that they were required, as judges, to
act with great caution ; but he could not admit that a witness
should be allowed to escape merely by answering that the
question would criminate himself. If that were the case, it
would be impossible for the Committee to proceed.
'[he SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained.
Mr. HARDY, who spoke amidst much interruption, and
loud cries of " Oh, oh," insisted that the individual to whom
the question was put, was the best judge whether he could
answer the question or not without criminating himself.
The SPEAKER said the question which he had to put
was, that John Renn be called to the bar, and informed that a
Select Committee of the House of Commons appointed to try
the merits of art election petition was a legal tribunal, consti-
tuted by an Act of Parliament, and having power to enforce
answers to its questions, and that he be then discharged.
After a few words from Mr. WATsON and the SOLICITOR-
GENERAL for Ireland,

Sir R. PEEL wished to know whether, if such a motion were
carried, the House would have security for the attendance of
the witnes ? He thought the House ought to be sure that
they had a guarantee for the attendance of the witness.
Mr. C. WOOD thought the witness should be remitted
from his contempt, 'after being advised as to his future conduct
by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER thought there could be no doubt, if the
prisoner was discharged, the House had the power to compel
his attendance.

In the conversation that followed, after a few words from
Lord HOWICK,
Mr. GODSON said the Committee had thought, the wit-
ness having been placed in the custody of the ~:ergeant-at
Arms, that they hod no further power over him, as he was in
the custody of the House.

Sir G. CLERK thought some words ought to be added to
the resolution, or the witness might think that he was bound
to answer the question.
Mr. LA W thought it would be only fair that the Speaker
should inform the witness that if he had any abjection to answer
the question, he should urge his reasons for refusing to answer
before the Committee, and that the Committee was the proper
tribunal for deciding. Any course short of that would be
thought to he unfair to the witness, and, therefore, he should
propose that the Speaker do make that intimation t o the witness.
Sir THOMAS WILDE thought that under all the circum-
stances, perhaps the best course would be to discharge the party.
Mr. P. BORTHWICK rose amidst loud cries of " Oh,
oh," " Question, question." He thought, as a point of order
and form, that the course usually pursued should not be de-
viated from in the present instance. Speaking, from his own
experience, he must declare he had no high opinion of the in-
fallibility of the judgment of Election Committees.—( Laughter,
and Hear, hear.) He understood in the present case, from the
Right Hon. Baronet, that the individual himself had accepted
the tribunal. He was, therefore, of opinion that the witness
should be recalled and asked if he persevered in refusing obe-
dience to this Committe, and if he said he was unwilling to
answer the question that he be discharged. The Hon. Mem-
ber then moved the witness be recalled for that purpose.
After a few words from Mr. Jznvls and Lord J. RusszLL,