The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-27 00:00:00

If the Committee had reason to believe that the question
might lead,to painful disclosures, the House would allow
them to decide accordingly, and he was sure that they
would do justice to all the parties.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, he wished to know whether or
not a witness before a Committee of the House of Commons
was to be placed in a different situation from that in
which he would be placed before any other tribunal
in the kingdom?—(Hear, hear.) If he were before the
Court of Queen's Bench, and a man were to ask him if
he had committed a murder. what would be his answer ?
If he were guilty, he would say, " I don't intend to
criminate myself," and the Court would say the
question was an improper one, because of
its tendency to criminate the witness.—(Hear, hear.
hear.) Now he wanted to know if, when
an Hen. §Member or any man in this kingdom
were to be brought before a Committee of the House
he was to be asked a question which might tend to cri-
minate himself, and be forced to answer it, upon pain
of imprisonment—as a lawyer he desired to hear
from lawyers an answer to that question. lie
did not want to make the question a party one,
He wanted to strip it of all that. He was glad it was on the
other side of the House. He wanted to know from those who
were of that honourable profession on both sides of the House,
whether any one would he bold enough to say, that it was the
law of England, acknowledged by her Judges, expounded by
those who had hitherto been above all imputation—he wanted
to know, whether by the law, that a man coming before any
tribunal in this kingdom was bound to answer a question which
tended to criminate himself ?—(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—No.
Mr.l OEBUCK.—No. He knew the Attorney-General
would say, No. Now came his ( Mr. Roebuck's) application.
How was this House to determine whether any private gentle-
man was compelled to answer a question, unless the House
knew whether it criminated him, and how were the House to
knew it? They coald not knew it until they knew what the
question was, He for one protested against being compelled
to vote blindly in such a matter. He wanted therefore to know
what this question was.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said, that the Learned Gentle Man had
asked a question very emphatically, which had nothing, to do
with the matter. The Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fleming) did
not say that giving an answer to this question would criminate
him. He said directly the reverse. Suppose this was an action
in the Court of Queen's Bench, and the witness, instead of
saying his answer would tend to criminate himself, but as in
this case, that he was unwilling to answer through motives of
delicacy, though those motives were very great, he appealed to
the House, would the Court of Queen's Bench hesitate one
moment ?_( Hear, hear.) No. They would say "We are very
sorry to trespass on your feelings, but you must answer the
question." There frequently were cases when parties had
strong reasons to refuse to answer questions, but motives of
delicacy alone were not sufficient to allow witnesses to
withhold their evidence. The case of Lord Carrington
, for example, was one of private conversation with a lady.—
( Hear, hear.) Questions have frequently been put to medical
gentlemen of the first experience, which they would not answer
for any quantity of property that could be given to them—but
they have been compelled to reveal the circumstance by the
Court. Everything the law required the Hon. Gentleman
to tell, he must tell. Did he know that by refusing to answer
this question, he was violating his oath?—( Hear, hear.) He
(Mr. O'Connell) did not know the Hon. Gentleman, but he
believed he was quite incapable of violating an oath, but still
unintentionally, no doubt, he was doing so, by standing,
between the tribunal and the fact it sought to ascer-
tain.—( Hear, hear.) If the tribunal had not de-
cided aright, they would have an opportunity of re-
considering the question when the Honourable Member came
before them, and there could be no apprehension that they
would enforce any violation of confidence, unless it were ab-
solutely necessary to the merits of the case. The Honourable
Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck) had raised a question that
was not now in discussion. It could not be doubted that the
Hon. Gentleman ( Mr. Fleming) was bound to answer.
Sir R. H. INGLIS objected to the sweeping doctrine laid
down by the Attorney-General that every witness was com-
pellable to answer every question. It should have been quali-
fied by the relevancy of the question, and further by the con-
fidence between a professional agent and his principal. He
(Sir R. H. Inglis) objected to the introduction in the House
of the particular question put in the Committee. They were
to consider not whether the question was relevant or not, or im-
portant or not, but whether the party questioned had refused
to answer. If an Election Committee were not a fit tribunal
to decide on questions of election taw, that House was im-
measureably less fit to do so. He ( Sir R. H. Inglis) re-
tained the opinions on this subject that he had expressed yes-
terday, narrelv, that the party should be sent back to the Com-
mittee and answer such questionsas were put to him—in fact,
that the party should submit himself to the Committee. That
was all they had a right to require from the Hon. Illember
for Hampshire, and if he objected to the questions put to him
on the ground of irrelevancy, let the Committee decide the
matter.
Mr. FORBES wished to ask what course the Committee
should pursue if Mr. Fleming should decline to answer their
question ?—( " Question," and " Spoke.")
The question was then put, and the Ayes had it.
Mr. Fleming was now ordered to attend in his place forthwith
and haring appeared accordingly,
The SPEAKER, addressing the Hon. Member, said he
(the Speaker) should best discharge his duty by reading the
resolution that the House had just agreed to, which was that
John Fleming, Esq., having declined to answer a question put
to him by a legal tribunal, be now informed him that any ob-
jection which he might have to answering them should be sub-
mitted to the Committee and determined on by them.
Mr. FLEMING bowed and took his seat with a sang jived
that provoked general laughter.
IPSWICH ELECTION—CASE OF LUCAS.
On the Order of the Day for the attendance of Henry Fisk,
Elizabeth Ann Cullen, and the Surgeon of Newgate at the bar
of the House being read,
The SPEAKER directed Elizabeth Ann Cullen should be
called in.
Elizabeth Ann Cullen then came to the bar, and was exa-
mined as follows :
The SPEAKER—Is your name Elizabeth Ann Cullen?—
It is.

Are you the sister of Obadiah Barwick Lucas ?—I am.
Examined by Mr. PAKINGTON—Did Obadiah Bar-
wick Lucas reside with you in Bond-street, Ipswich, in the
month of April, 1837 ? yes.
Do you recollect any conversation taking place during that
month between your brother and a man named George Scho-
berg ?—Yes.
Do you recollect that the day subsequent to that conversation
George Schoberg committed suicide ?—Yes.
State to the [louse what was the effect which the suicide of
Schoberg produced on the mind of your brother. —The effect
produced upon my brother's mind was such that we were afraid
to leave him alone.
Were you in the habit of seeing your brother since 1837 ?
—Yes.

Has his mind recovered from the shock of that excitement ?
—Never.
Has he b?en, since that time, in a state of nervous excite-
ment ?—Yes.
Do you consider his memory was impaired?—l do.
Did you see your brother on the evening p-eceding his ex-
amination before the Election Committee ?—I did.
In what state of mind was he then ?—He was exceedingly
excited.
Did you see him since his commitment to Newgate ?.
In what state did you find him ?—ln the same state.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
The Surgeon of Newg-ate next appeared at the Bar, and, in
replyto a question from the SPEAKER, said that he had known
Lucas since the time of his confinement in Newgate. He had
seen Lucas that day. He had seen him professionally. Lucas
was out of health. He considered the man was in a gloomy
state of mind.
In answer to a further question from Mr. PAKINGTON,
the witness stated that he had particularly directed his atten-
tion to the state of mini of Lucas within the last day or two.
The man appeared to witness to be labouring under
great nervous excitement. Witness considered it quite
possible that the state of nervous excitement under
which the man laboured, might so have affeet9d his mind
as to render it probabl, that he could not give c irrect ovid..nce
with respect to a transaction in which he had taken part nine
or ten months ago.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Mr. PAKINGTON then rose and said, that he did not
know whether the conclusion to which he hasl come, from the
evidence just given, might be the same as that. at which the
House had arrived. Ile hoped, however, that it would not ap-
pear to those Hon. Gentlemen with whom he had the pleasure
of acting in the Committee, that he was going to pursue a
eourse at all inconsistent with the step which they had taken in
ordering the commitment of Lucas to Newgate for the false
evidence which he had given ; and that it would not be sup-
posed by the House that he was at all deviating from the opi-
nion he had expressed on a farmer occasion, that Committees
were bound to resort to the powers which they possessed, when
he expressed his opinion, that the statements which had been
male at the Bar, raised a strung presumption that the false
answers which Lucas had given them, were, in a great degree,
occasioned by his infirmity. The Hon. Gentleman accordingly
moved, that Obadiah Barwick Lucas be discharged from her
Majesty's gaol of Newgate.
Mr. PARKER thought that the end which the House had
had in view in showing its determination to cause the autho-
rity of the Committees to be respected, and their questions to
be answered truly, had been attained, and he supported the
motion.
Mr.O'CONNELL doubted that the man ought to have been
committed at all. Upon reading the evidence, it seemed very
probable that his contradictions were occasioned by fatuity—
( Hear, hear)—and that no Jury would convict him of wilful
perjury.—(Hear, hear.) After what the House had heard,
there scarcely could be any opposition to his discharge.
Mr. DARBY als.) concurred in the motion for discharging
the prisoner.
Sir C. B. VERE read a certificate from a surgeon attend-
ing Lucas, stating that he was labouring under strong nervous
excitement.
After a few words from Mr. PAKINGTON, the question
was put and carried.
NOTICES OF MOTIONS.
Mr. J. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would, on Thurs-
day, the 10,h of May, c.ll the attention of the House to the
state of Roman Catholics in the army and navy (as we under-
stood)

'—Yes.