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

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 toil 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 be did criminate himself.—(Cries of " Or-
der, order," " Chair, chair.") Then with re ipect to the qua-
lifi:ation laid down by the Hon. and Learned Member. for
Cork—(The rest of the sentence was lost in criis 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 thmi cath they had to take.
They had to try the question. Hew try it ?—(" Order,
order.") They had to try it by the law of the land, inde-
pendent of the opinions which Hon. Gentlenren might forM.
They had to try the question by the law of the lanil as they
bad heard that day, and he bound. by etc rules of law.—
" Circler, order.") 'Thou 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. It this was con-
veyed to the minds of the Committee. he thought the House
would not be troubled again on the subject. Haviag this con
veyed to their minds, they would know what their duty wLs.
Then with respect to the witness going back to the Committee ;
he wished to seek information on this point. He thought the
ends of justice would be answered if the witness were mimed
to go where he pleased.

Sir T. WILLIE slid, 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, thst the witness had been
required to show not that it would criminate him, hut to
satisfy the Judge that it might criminate! him. He would give
an instance. A witness was asked, " Did you ever see that
paper ?" a bill of exchange being put into his hand. He
said, " I decline to answer that question, because it may
crimate me." " How ?" said the Judge. "Because it has
been imputed to ma 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.
The SOLICITOR-GENEIIAL 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 an 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 he 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 witness? He thought the House ought to be-sure that
they had a guarantee for the attendance of the witnese.-
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 d6ubt, 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 lIONVICK,

Mr. GODSON said the Committee had thought, the wit-
ness having been paced in the custody of the sergeant-at-
Arms, that they had no further power over him, as he was in
the custody of the House.

Sir G. k.'3..ERK thought some words ought to be added to
the resolution, or the witness might think that he was bound
to answer the question.

Mr. LAW thought it would be only fair that the Speaker
should inform the witness that if he had any objection 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 be unfair to the witness, and, therefore, he should
propose that the Speaker do make that intimation to 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'ot the in,
fallibility of the judgment of Election Committees. —( LaugW er,
and Hear, hear.) He understood in the present case, from the
Right Hon. Baronet, that the individual himself had accented
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 fur that purpme.
After a few words from Mr. Jr am and Lord J. RussEtt,
The SPEAKE tt put the question on the original motion
which was negatived without a division. Mr. Law's amend-
ment was then put and agreed to.
Mr. C. WOOD then moved that John Renn having ex-
pressed his readiness to submit to the authority of this House,
be now discharged, and be ordered to attend the Committee
to-morrow.

The SOLICITOR•GENERAL moved that the witness be
discharged immediately.
The question was put, and
Sir HOBERT INGLIS said the witness was the same as
any other witness, and was subject to the authority of the
Committee, and a summons of that Committee would bring
that witness to the bar of that House.—(No, no.) The
House had no more authority to command the attendance of
a witness at the bar of the House than a private individual.
The power was fixed by law in the Chairman, and he alone
had any control over the case.

Mr...C. WOOD said that what he had intended to move was
very similar to what the Solicitor-General had suggested. (He
Mr. Wood) thought that some reason should be given and put on
record as to why the witness was discharged. He therefore
wished to move that, the witness having expressed his resdi-
ness to submit himself to the authority o: the House, he be
discharged, and ordered to attend the Committee silting on
the Southampton Election Petition, at its meeting to-morrow
morning (this day).
The amendments of the Solicitor-General and Mr. C.
Wood having been put in succession,
Mr. HU.tiE said that it appeared to him they were about
to interfere with the potrers of the Committee. Either the
Committee bad power or they had not. in his opinion the
moment they discharged the individual the power of the Com-
mittee ceased. If they chose to take upon themselves to inter-
fere in the present instance, they might interiere in any other
matter which might come before the Committee.—( Hear,
hear.) If they interfered in this case, they would not know
where the matter might end.—( Hear, hear.) As, however,
the individual had stated his determination to bow to the deci-
sion of the House, there would perhaps be no harm in the
Speaker's intimating that the Committee had the powers of
the House delegated to it. •
The amendment of the Solicitor-General was then put and
negatived.

The a:nendment of Mr. Wood having next bean put,
Sir It. H. INGLIS repeated that. all the powers of the
House in the case were delegated, by an Act of the whole Le-
gislature, to the Committee, who alone 'should deal with the
matter. He did not think, therefore, it would be advisable
that the House should interfere with the proceedings of the
Committee.

Sir R. PEEL said that two questions arase upon the proposal
made by his Right Hon. Friend. The first was whether the
summons originally issued by the Committee had been vitiated
or not by the subsequent proceeding. ff it had not, if the
original summons, notwithstanding the discharge of the wit-
ness by the authority of the House, remained in force, then
clearly it was not necessary to interpose any authority on the
part of the House; and such interposition, because unneces-
sary, ought to be avoided. But the point taken was that the
Chairman of the Committee had a power to renew the sum-
mons by act of his own. That he doubted , and therefore
supposing it rested upon the single authority of the Chairman,
he doubted whether it was not necessary fiir - the House
to interfere.—( Hear, hear.) The words of the Act were,
That every such Select Committee she)] have power to send
for persons, papers, and records." Under all ordinary circum-
stances, the Chairman of the Committee was supposed to be
their representative, kit when the Committee were not sitting,
it could not be said that he could by his own authority detain a
witness. Therefore he thought the sle question was. did the
original summons now remain in force. If it did, the House
ought not to interfere. if the original summons were vitiated,
the Chairman ought not, in his individual capacity, to assume
an authority which belonged to him only as the organ of the
Committee.

Mr. MURPHY said he would put this analogy to the
'Learned Attorney-General. He would assume that a witness in
a Court of law was asked a question vihich hal a tendency to
criminate himself. The question would then be resolved into a
question of bona fides. If it should appear to the Judge that
the question was not bona fide, and he was coinmitted for con-
tempt, the question would then arise whether he was willing to
withdraw his refusal and comply with the request mado to him
by the Court. Was it not quite plain that the original sub-
pcena would still be valid? He begged co submit that ease for
the consideration of the Learned Attorney• General.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought the adoption of
the course proposed would not form a bad precedent. He
hoped the Hon. Gentleman would withdraw his opposition.
'The SPEAKER then put the question, which, being
carried, the witness, John Reno, was ordered to be called to
the Bar.

Ou the witness being replaced at the Bar,
The SPEAKER said—John Renn, in answer to my ques-
tion, you answered that you were willing to bow to the decision
of this House. If the House decided that you should answer
the question put to you by the Southampton Committee, are
you willing to do so?
Renn—l am, Sir.

The SPEAKER—Now, I am directed to tell you, that the
Southampton Electioc Committee is a tribunal constituted by
law, and you are bound to answer any questions put to you.
You have, indeed, the right to state your objection
to any question, leaving it to the Committee to say
whether your objection is well founded. Upon their com•
mend, it is your bounden duty to answer. lam now to in-
form you, that you are to attend the Committee to-morrow.
You may now withdraw.
[ Several Members said, "discharged, dischargid ;" but the
Speaker remained silent, and Renn withdrew in custody of
the Sergeant.]
EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN.
Mr. BROTHERTON begged to ask, whether the Com-
mission appointed to inquire respecting the children employed
in coal mines, had made their Report ; and if so, when it would
be laid on the table?
Sir J. GRAHAM sa.d, that he had rtrieived a Report on
Friday or Saturday, but he had not yet had time to look into
it ; and, therefore, he was not at once prepared to answer the
latter part of the question.
REVENUE.—REDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE.
Mr. HUME having understood that a Commission had been
appointed to make inquiries respecting the revenue, and the
means of effecting reductions in the civil exprzuLture of the
country, wished to know if there was any objection to lay
on the table a copy of the Commission, that the House might
be able to see what the peck° object of the Commission was.
Sir R. PEEL had net the least objection to lay the Commis-
sion before the House. The object of the Commisiion was to
inquire respecting the revenue.
PETITION OF MR. Immo'''.
Mr. MUNDAY moved that the petition of H. Sacheverell
Wilmot., of Cheddesden, in the county of Derby, presented
on the 2d of April, be printed with the Votes. He gave
notice that, on the 3d al May, he should call the attention
of the House to the subject matter of the itetli ion.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. IN IRELAND.
Sir V. BLAKE asked the Solicitor. General for Ireland
whether a practice did not prevail of parties accused of crimi-
nal charges being obliged to pay for a license to he defended by
Queen's Counsel.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said that there had beets such a
practice.
Mr. O'CONNELL said he believed the charge had been
much reduced. _ _

INCOME TAX BILL.
On the order of the day for the House resolving itself ihtc
Cormadahee on the Income Tax BM being read,