The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-29 00:00:00

XTTORNEYg-CERTICFICATES DUTIES.

Mr. S. WORTLEY presented a petition from some
attorneys in the West Riding of Yorkshire, praying for
the abolition of the duties payable yearly on attorney's
certificates.
READLSTG ELECTION COMMITTEE.

The Members selected to try the merits of the peti-
tion against the late return for this borough, were sworn
in as follows c—Mr. C. W. Hogg, Chairman ; Lori l::_iey-
mour,, the lion. henry Howard, ),Ir. Charles Buller,
Air. W. T. Egerton, Mr. T. W. Bratnstone.
The Co.Amittee will commence their sittings at eleven
o'clock to-morrow.
PIiNRYN ELECTION COMMITTEE.

The followiaff Hon. Gentlemen were called over as the
Members Of this Committee :—Mr. G. T. Brooke, the
Hon. 11. 0; Cave, Mr. C. Wood, Major C. Cumming
Bruce, Mr. J. Hardy; Mr. Scrope, Mr. C.W. Pack.
Major C. Bruce did not answer, and the- swearing was
put off a sherftime •
Captain -PEC HELL presented a petition from twenty
solicitors of Brighton, praying that in case an Income-
tax should be imposed, they might be exempt from the
annual stamp duties ; also a petition. from :Daniel
Phillips, of New Sarum, praying that as the half of the
duty on corn was now taken off, that the other half might
also be taken off.—(Laughter.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition from the in-
cumbent of Kingston, in Gloucestershire, praying the-
Ilouse to amend or repeal the Tithe Commutation Act,
and complaining of the conduct of the Tithe Commis-
sioners in Gloucester.
Mr. W. MILES presented a petition from the At-
torneys of Somersetshire praying to be exempt from the
operation of the Income-tax.
PENRYN AND .FALMOUTH ELECTION.
The Members appointed to try the merits of a peti-
tion complaining of an undue election for the boroughs of
Penryn and Falmouth, were then called up to the table
and sworn; Major Cumming Bruce, who was absent
when the names were first called over, having since
entered tile House.
The Committee. was appointed to meet at one o'clock
to-morrow.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTIOI' COABIITTEE.
Mr. REDINGTON brought up a Report from the
Southampton Election Committee, stating that William
Itous Nabson having disregarded the Speaker's warrant,
ordering him to attend before the Committee appointed
to try the merits of a petition complaining of undue
election for the borough of Southampton, and to bring
with him eertain documents in his possession, he (Mr
Redington) as Chairman of that Committee had com-
mitted the said William Roes Nabson to the custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms, to await the pleasure of the House.
He ' was sorts, on the part of this Committee, to be
obliged to appeal to the Rouse. In the present instance
the party having been ordered, by the Speaker's• war-
rant., to produCe certain documents, which the Com-
mittee considered material, had neither produced
those documents, nor assigned any adequate reason for
not producing them. In consequence, no other course
was left for the Committee than to appeal to the House
to enforce the Speaker's warrant. He, therefore, as
Chairman of the Committee, begged leave to move that
William Bons Nabson be comreitted to the gaol of
Newgate.
Sir V. BLARE Seconded the motion. Mr. •
BUCK, .as a member of the Committee, dissented
from the resolution:come to by it, and protested against
the course now adopted.
Mr. .GODSON did not know whether, before the
House came to a decision on the matter, he was in order
in mentioning what had occurred in the Committee. He
had been informed by the Speaker that no portion of
the evidence could be mentioned, but he was not
aware whether he could not mention the kind of docu-
ment .rospectitig whieli. it Was supposed the Speaker's
summons "bad been diSobeyed.
The SPEAKER said, that the Hon. Member had no
rightto,referto the document, when it was not before
the House.

GODSON said, that as he could not mention the do-
cument, 1)t- the same reason he presumed he could not men-

tion the excuse which the witness made fornot producing it.
as not to be permitted to know that the document
was not of any use at all ; but he was entitled to say,
that, in his opinion, the document was of no value, and
that ifit were not the excuse for not producing it was, as
good as a man could give.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL understood that the
ground upon which the witness was to he committed
was • that he had disobeyd the warrant. Now he
thought it was essentially necessary that the House
should see the warrant, that they should know
grounds
the
n
witness es served with it, and upon what
grounds it
had been disobeyed, le•fore a warrant was issued for the
committal to Newgate. As it was a contempt of
the House itself, and of the a ethority of the Speaker,
they, should 'know `teeter what circumstances the dis-
obcdii u e had tkken place. Be would suggest
therefore, that the witness should he called to the bar of
the House, and interrogated as to toe grounds of his
yyarrant.
disobedience 6, the

fiEDL\TiTON, said he. had no, desire that the
witnois should be treated more Imr&hly, than the forms
of the. House req..t:reci. lie wa,i pet t'ectly willing to
withdraw his motion in favour of the sug!:;estion of the
lion, and Learnt-d. Gentlontan.

The HuN. Mrtnitstzit then wit lei. 4; motion, anal
Clerk. of the Southampton
propcked in its stead that the
Election Committee be called to. the bar to produce the
Speaker's
,warrant requiring the attendance of Wini,m
lions `arson before that Committee.

Shortly afterwards the Clerk of the Committee pro-
duced the Speali^r's warrant for the attendance of Wm.
Rows Alabson al; the Southampton Election Committee.
The warrant having been read by' the Clerk at the
table,

Mr. REDTNGTON then rnored that William Rous
Mabson.shOnfd be hrought to the Lar of the House.
The SOWITOR-GENERAL doubted whether the.

warrant summoning the witness was regular, inasmuch
as it was dated in September 1841.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir G. GREY' said if this objection prevailed it would
relieve the House from the trouble of trying any of the
election petitions.—(Hear.) His Learned Friend must be
aware that all the election petitions were presented in
the short session in the autumn of 1841, and the warrants
of the Speaker were issued at that time.—(Hear, hear.)
He was quite surprised at the objection of his Learned
Friend.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had made no objection
on the grround referred to by the Right Hon. Gentleman;
but he doubted whether the warrant was regular; if it
was not, the party could not be imprisoned. lie was not
aware whether the summons was regular or not.
The SPEAKER said his attention was drawn to the
point at the close of last Session ; he then stated that
it was quite a new; thing, and be tock the best means of
informing himself on the subject, having taken the ad-
vice of the proper law officer appointed by the House to
assist the Speaker, and he had assured him that he con-
sidered the warrant to be a regular warrant, and upon
that opinion he had acted.
The motion was then carried, and the Sergeant ordered
to bring Mr. W. Rous Mabson to the bar of the House.
Having appeared at the bar, the following questions
were put to him :
The SPEAKER-Do you remember on the 13th
day of September last, receiving a %%arrant from
this House, requiring your attendance before
the Committee appointed to try the Southamp-
ton petition, and by which you were required to
produce before that Committee all books, documents,
writisgs, printed papers, bills, receipts, and orders for
the payment of money, referring to the last South-
ampton election ?—I do.
When were those documents last in your possession ?
—I can't say exactly, but within the last three months
Have you brought them before the Committee ?—I
have not.
Why have you not ?—Because I incautiously sent
them to the Chairman of the Election Committee, and it
appears that he does not acknowledge the receipt of them.
Mr. THESIGER—Who was the Chairman, and what
was his name ?—Captain Ward.
Sir G. GREY—How long after you received
the Speaker's warrant did you send these papers
to Captain Ward ?—Three or four months after the
13th of September.
Sir G. GREY—What made you part with them ?—I
did it incautiously, and lost sight of the Speaker's war-
rant altogether.
Sir G. GREY—Did you apply personally or by letter
to enable yotr to comply with the Speaker's warrant ?
No ; I am not prepared with anything of the kind. I
made no application of the kind.
Sir G. GREY—What makes you say that Captain
Ward does not acknowledge the receipt of the papers ?
—I have been told by a friend from Southampton to-day
that Capt. Ward says he knows nothing about them.
An Hox. MEMBER—Who did you send to Capt. Ward
by ?—I sent a messenger, to ask for them, but I don't
know his name.
' Mr. C. -HULLER--What documents did you send ?
A cheque-book, and two or three little bills which I paid
on aecount of the election.
Mr. C. BULLER--,Did you send them by Capt.
Ward's desire ?—No ; it was my own idea.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—How came you pos-
sessed of the papers ?—I paid some hills and remained in
possession of a list of them ; having understood that all
the rest of the papers were sent to Captain Ward, I sent
him these.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Who directed you
to pay these bills ?—The bills were paid from the Con-
servative Association.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL---Had Captain Ward
anything to do with it?—No.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—This was on the
13th of September ; have yousince that day had any par-
ticular note or memorandum of the documents necessary
to be produced before the Committee ?—Not since.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—You were called
before the Committee the other day ; had you any inti-
nation of the particular documents you had to bring ?
Not the least.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--Had you any op-
portunity of inquiring what documents would be neces-
sary ?—None.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Is the House to un-
derstand that since the 13th of September no person
has given you any information as to what papers you
were to bring with you ?—Not the slightest.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—When the papers
were asked for before the Committee, was that the first
intimation you had that you were to produce them ?—lt
was.

Mr. O'CONNELL—Have you given up all the
papers ?—Yes.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Then a memorandum specifying
what papers you were to produce would be perfectly
useless.
Mr. GODSON—In the margin of the cheque book
you mention, was there anything more than the date,
sum, and name of the person to whom it was paid
Nothing more. •
Mr. GODSON-,---Was that the same sum as appeared
on the bank-book, when produced before the Committee?
An HON. MEMBER objected to this question as the
witness was incapable of answering it, and he was then
ordered to withdraw.
A short conversation here ensued betvieen Mr. Jarvis
and Mr. Godson, respecting the correspondence between
a cheque and the counterfoil, but as the Hon. Gentlemen
' seemed to have misunderstood each other, we do not
' give the details.
.Sr. Mabson was then ordered to the Bar again.
11r. GODSON-Are you sure that nothing, more than
the date of the sum of money, and the name A. 8.,
which would be in'the body, appeared in the counterfoil ?
—I am certain of it.
An HON. MEMBER —Did the counterfoil correspond
with the body of the cheque ?—Precisely.
Mr. THESIGER—What notice did you receive to
attend the Committee ?—I received a nonce on Monday,
night from Mr. Sharp, the solicitor, of Southhamp-
ton, quite suddenly. I was in London at the time.
Mr.! JACKSON—If you bad been at home when you
received the notice, do you think you would have recol-
lected those papers?—l am certain I should.
Mr. O'CONNELL—Can you procure these decu-
ments?—l cannot say. Do you say that you cannot?—
I don't know. • Then you may?—l may possibly.
By Mr. C. WOOb—To whom did you give these
documents ?—I gave them to some of my people.
To which of them ?—I cannot swear to which of them.
Where ?—ln my own shop. I have some fifteen or
sixteen people in my employment.
Are the same people in your employment now ? No ;
not all of them.

Can you ascertain the names of the people ?--I might
do so by inquiry.
By Mr. WATSON—Have you never spoken to Cap-
tain Ward on the subject of those papers ?—Never.
By Mr. Sergeant JACKSON—You were not
required by the Speaker's warrant at the time
to produce those papers ?—I was not ; if I had been,
I would not have been so incautious as to have given
them away.
What was the amount of the bill ?—I should think
the amount of the bill was between 151. and 161.
By Sir G. GREY—What is the whole amount of the
money which was paid on the cheques cut out of that
cheque-book, the countermoils of which remained in your
possession ?—I think something like 3,0001.
The witness was then questioned by Mr. Watson as to
who was the party to whom a certain cheque was de-
livered. -

Mr. THESIGER objected to the question on the
ground that it was not relevant to the immediate ques-
tion before the House.

Mr. WATSON said that the question seemed to him
to have a close relation to the subject.
Mr. THESIGER said he apprehended the inquiry
was not a proper one, as the object they had in view was
to ascertain if the party had committed a contempt by
not producing certain document'.—(Year.)
Mr. WATSON said that they had been told the-cheque
books were of no importance, and he wished to elicit the
truth of that statement.—(Hear.)
Mr. GODSON—It was only said that the counterfoil
was no evidence.—(Cries of " Oh, oh.")
The SPEAKER asked if the Hon. Member persisted
in putting the question ?
Mr. WATSON said that as it appeared to be the
wish of the House, he would persevere in putting the
question.—(" Oh, oh.")
The SPEAKER then desired the question to be put
in writing.

Mr. C. WOOD said he hoped the Hon. and Learned
Member would withdraw the question.—(Hear.) He
agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite
(Mr. Thesiger) that the question was not relevant ; but
at the same time when a question was put, in consequence
of one which had been asked by the Learned Solicitor-
General for Ireland, as to the amount of the cheques,
the answer had been cheered by the party oppo-
site.—(Hear, hear.) But the question which was put
by his Right Hon. Friend (Sir G. Grey), showed
that ' the thing was not so immaterial as they
seemed to think. Every day's experience showed them
the inconvenience of discussing questions v,hieh
might be better discussed before the Commit-
tee.—(Hear, hear.) The only way by which these
Committees could be made available was to treat them
as legal tribunals, bound by the rules of evidence,
as legal tribunals were. The only di&rence
that existed between them was, that the Committee

had not the same power to commit for contempt that
those tribunals had, but were obliged to come to ask
that House for power to do so. With regard to the
person, it semmed to him that he ought to be discharged
from custody, and left under the Speaker's warrant,
the Committee pursuing the inquiry from the person
to whom the documents were given, or from coo. Ward.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, he admitted
that before they proceeded to set aside a warrant, they
ought to be satisfied that the warrant was irregular, but
he hoped the House would go along with him in consi-
dering that before they committed a person to Newgate,
they ought to be satistied that the warrant was regular.
—(Hear, hear.) lie for one considered that there had
not been such a state of facts laid before the House as
ought to induce them to send the witness to Newgate.
It appeared that he had been served with a warrant

from— the Speaker, dated the 10th of September, re-
quiring him to bring in his custody all letters and
accounts of cash relating to the late election, and all
receipts for money, and all other documents and
papers whatsoever relating to the said election,
therewith to be and appear . before the said Se-
lect Committee at such time and in such manner as
he shall receive notice front the parties signing the
same, or from their agents. Now, according to the
statement of the witness, he had received that
warrant in the month of September, and until
he came before the Committee he bad received
110 intimation as to what papers would be required.
He (the Attorney-General) must remind the House that
such was not the usual course of proceeding with respect
to ordinary eases of common law. A man who was

subpeenaed to attend a Court of Justice, and to
bring with him a variety of documents, lad, accord-
ing to ordinary courtesy, an intimation given to
him of the documents be would be required to bring,
some time before he was called on to attend, and he
thought that this witness, before the parties applied
to the Committee to report his condie t to the House,
ought to have, been informed some short time before that
he would be required to produce such papers. By the
warrant he was called on to produce these papers,
at such time as he should receive a notice from the party
signing the warrant. Unless he received some inti-
mation to produce those documents, he could not be
described as having been guilty of a contempt.
Now he had never been required to produce them
at all.—(Loud cries of " Oh, oh," from the Opposition.)
He repeated the man had been required to attend himself,
but he had never been required to produce the documents
at all:—(Restewed cries of " Oh, oh !") He heard the
noise made on the other side, but he appealed to their
judgment, he appealed to the candid consideration
of the House, whether he had ever so addressed
the House on a legal subject as to induce
them to believe that he had ever given any but what he
conceived to be a just and proper legal opinion ?
Whether he had not always boldly stated that
opinion, or whether he had ever shrunk from
stating anything that he believed to be true
from any motives whatsoever ; and he asked Hon. Gen-
tlemen who were then dealing with him, fairly to hear
and judge for themselves if he ever had received notice
to produce this document at at all. It would be much
the better course to have the papers produced than to
send the man to prison.
Mr. REDINGTON said the Committee had
acted in this matter to the best of their judg-
ment. It appeared to them that the warrant ought to be
obeyed, no matter what might be the courtesy observed in
other Courts. Counsel had shown that those documents
were material, and the witness had stated that he had
given them to another party, whose name he could
not recollect. But the Committee felt that jus-
tice to the parties concerned would not be done,
unless those papers were produced, and that
they were bound to see the authority of the
Speaker's warrant obeyed. He (Mr. R.) wished now to
ask, in what position they were to stand. There
was an order that this . indiVidual should
produce those papers. At the time that order
was served he was in possession of the papers.
Were they not to get them, merely because
he told them that he did not recollect the
name of the person to whom he gave the
documents ? What wcre they to do ? That evening
a summons to Captain Ward bad been signed,
It would be most inconvenient to the business of the
House to allow these papers to escape out of the
witness's possession, and not to interpose the authority of
the House, to prevent such a proceeding. He regretted
that the question had been again raised after the deci-
sion of the Committee. As Chairman, he would have
considered himself guilty of a neglect of duty if he had not
brought the case before the House. Setting aside the
injustice done to the parties, he thought the objection
taken by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman must fall to
the ground. He thought it would be a dangerous pre-
cedent to discharge a man who had been guilty of such
conduct ; and he would therefore move that the prisoner,
William Rous Mabsom, be committed to the custody of
the Sergeant-at-Arms:
Mr. C. BULLER seconded the motion. In his opinion
the best safeguard which they could throw over the ad-
ministration of justice in these Committees was to con-
sider their report on each matter as final. It appeared
to him very uuaise that when a Committee had reported
that a witness had been guilty of disobedience to the
orders of the House, the House should enter into an in-
quiry of such a nature as the one with which
they had been edified that . night. He must
say, that he thought the offence of this man
was a very grave one, and if the House overlooked it
their jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Com-
mittee would be utterly trampled upon and set at
defiance.—Hear.) The man in question had been
ordered to produce certain papers. There had been a
quibble raised about the warrant being issued last ses-
sion ; but he presumed that when the warrant had
been issued in due course, no party would be allowed
to dispute its validity by such an afterthought.
It appeared from the prisoner's own statement that
having received an order from the House to bring up
certain papers relating to the Southampton election, he
gave them all over to a third person without any
precaution, other than giving them to a shop-bov. He
received no acknowledgment from Captain Ward, and as
far as the House knew, Capt. Ward having denied having
received them—he (Mr. Buller) would say on the face of
the thing that he did not believe the prisoner's story. He
did not wish to be harsh upon him, and he did not say
that he disbelieved his story, but he must say that he could
notimagine it true, when the only other party concerned in
it denied what he s'..atcd. The fact simply was, that since
receiving the warrant to bring all these papers before
the House, he gave them to a third party, and did
not know whether that party ever got them.--
(Hear.) -He considered that it would he sacrificing
the honour of the House if they overlooked the conduct
of a man acting in this way. He did say, that to let
him go as a person who had behaved perfectly well,
would be most derogatory to the honour of that House.
He therefore seconded the motion of his Honourable
Friend with, this specific object, namely, that the
prisoner should remain in the custody of the
Sergeint.at-Arms, until the Committee should
have time to examine Captain Ward and any
other necessary witnesses, to know whether his story
was true, or whether he had flagrantly and purposely, in
defiance of the orders of that House, put the papers out
of the way.—(lkar.)
Mr. HODGSON HINDE said that the Hon. Gentle-
man had stated that he had no reason to • suppose that
the witness at the bar had acted under any
mistake after the receipt of the Speaker's
warrant, He (Mr. Hinde) thought that there was
no reason fur believing that the statement of
the prisoner at the bar was not a bona fide statement,
because if the witness bad chosen to screen
himself, he. could easily have denied ever having
had the book at all in his possession. Be
thoaght that the statement of the witness was a bona
fide one, namely, that he did not consider
the documents material.—(Hear, hear.) He (Mr.
Hinde) therefore hoped the House would not censure
the man, or detain him in custody, until Captain
Ward had been examined by the House, and there
was reason to suppose the statement was bona fide.
The prisoner was in that situation of life which
would ensure his being forthcoming when required.
He (Mr. H. Hinde), therefore, hoped that the House
would agree to the adjournment of that debate for a
week, until Capt. Ward could be examined before the
Committee. He, therefore,,moved, that the debate be
then adjourned.
The motion having been seconded,
Mr. JERVIS said, he should certainly oppose the
motion of the Honourable Member. He (Mr. Jervis)
agreed with the Honourable Member for Liskeard,
that this was a case of the greatest importance.
It seemed to him that if they were to act on the prin-
ciple which they had adopted the other night, they would
not take the garbled statements of one witness
as to his own evidence.—(Hear.) The House was
bound to place implicit confidence in the Committee, the
members of which were gentlemen on whose honour and
judgment they could place the fullest reliance,
and who alone were able to form a correct opinion as to
the credit of the witness. If that were not so, the wit-
ness had, to a certain extent, though in a modified form, been
guilty of disrespect to the House. Did he hand over these
papers in the course of his business? If so, why did he retain
them for three months? and if he kept them for his protection,
why did he not keep them now? It seemed to him, therefore,
upon these short grounds, first, that the warrant was good ;
attd, secondly, that there had been a violation of it. He

therefore, vote for the rZtiOn—of his Non. the
Chairman of the Committee.

Mr. Sergeant JACKSON thought the House ought now to
dispose of this matter. as it had sufficient evidence before it to
do so. No person would go further than he would do to punish
parties guilty of a contempt of the Houie, or who kept
papers from its inspection which ought to have been produced.
He, however, thought that the party it: the present instance
had not been guilty of any contempt. The witness had stated
that until he was in the presence of the Committee, lie was
hot aware that he was bound to produce any documents, as
nothing was said on the subject in the warrant. He should
vote against the motion of the Hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. LABOUCHERE reminded the Howe that the motion
was not to commit Mabson to Newgate as if he had been con-
victed of bribery; all the House was asked to do was not to
dismiss the man, and he (Mr. L.) thought that the courserecom-
mended by the Chairman of the Committee was the best, that was
to leave the man in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms until
the Committee had examined other witnesses relative to the

same point. But from what he (Mr. Labouchere) had just
now heard at the bar from Mabsen himself, his impression was
that the greatest suspicion must attach to what he said. It
was most improbable that such a man, having taken an active
part in the proceedings of an election in a town, did not on re-
eeiving the Speaker's warrant minutely examine that docu-
ment : and after he had done so he sent the documents re-

quired to Captain Ward, well knowing that he (Mai)son) would
be required to produce those papers before the Committee.
Fie should be sorry to find that the witness was at once dis-

charged.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said that it was always
with extreme reluctance that he gave any opinion on matters
connected with Election Committees. He was sure that all

that had passed that evening would convince the House that
they were not the proper tribunal to decide on such questions.
He believed that the usual course which the House pursued
in eases where there was not a contempt of a Committee, but
a breach of the privileges of the House itself, was either to
commit the party offending to the Sergeant-at-Arms or to
Newgate. Suppose that, according to the original motion sub-
mitted by the Hon. Member the Chairman of the Committee,
this person had been committed to Newgate, and that he ap-
plied to the Queen's Bench, what would be the consequence if
the Court of Queen's Bench discharged him ?—( Hear, hear.)
This House and the Court of Queen's Bench would again be
placed in collision. That was a matter of importance, and,
therefore, before they decided that the man should be
sent to Newgate, the House should be satisfied
that the person had disobeyed a legal warrant, and
if he had been ordered to attend the Committee one

session, and was committed another, he had very grave doubts
of the legality of that proceeding. —( Hear, hear.) But if this
were a proper warrant, and if the Committee were of opinion
that these papers were designedly kept back—if that were the
opinion of the House, then he thought he ought to be com-
mitted to custody. It appeared to him, that according to the
ordinary course of Committees, it would be better if the Com-
mittee, in the present instance, had summoned the persons to
whom the papers were given. But if they thought that the
papers were kept hack designedly, he was of opinion that they
ought to be bound by the decision of the Committee. The
Right Honourable Gentleman had said that there was no
power of getting at the truth unless the witness
,produced
the documents; but he had surely forgotten that the Chairman
had the power of issuing a fresh summons—the Speaker had
the power of issuing a fresh warrant, and surely it was better
that such a course should he adopted than that a person
should be committed upon a warrant, the legality of which
might be doubted.
Mr. C. WOOD bad never intended that the man should be
discharged. as if he had done nothing wrong. On the contrary,
he believed the man had done wrong; but neither did heap-
prove of sending him to Newgate. He thought he should
be kept in the custody of the Sergeant-at. Arms, until his con-

duct had been cleared up. 'Move ail, he thought it was the
duty of the House to support the authority of its Committees.
After a few words from Mr. REDINUTON, which were
inaudible in the gallery,
Sir R. PEEL had more than once said how much he dis-
liked these appeals to the House of Commons from the Com-
mittees. He thought the Committees should decide all these
questions themselves. The appeal, however, had been made,
and it was the duty of Members to decide what course it would
be fitting for them to pursue. It was a most important duty,
and was one 'entirely of a judicial nature. It should be remem-
bered that this was a question affecting the liberty of the sub-
ject - it affected the liberty of the person who was brought up
to their bar; and therefore every other consideration except
those of a purely judicial nature ought to be excluded.— ( Cheers. )
In the first place, he assumed that the Speaker's warrant
was valid. The Committee had acted upon it as
a legal document, and he was therefore bound to consider it
as legal. Such being the case, they were bound to consider
what course they ought to pursue. The Speaker had issued
his summons, and the Committee had reported that he had
disobe,yed that summons. He supposed that the Committee
meant to imply that the witness had wilfully disobeyed the
Speaker's summons for the purpose of defeating the ends of
justice. He (Sir R. Peel) could not be supposed to know
what had passed before the Committee, but the witness had
been examined at the bar, and had given his own account of
the transaction. He (Sir It. Peel) was at liberty to refer to
the evidence which had been given at the bar, and he must
say that the evidence given by the witness at the bar was un-
satisfactory.-_( Loud cheers.) The witness bad the papers for
three or four months in his possession, much about the time
the present Session was about to commence ; and when it
was likely a petition against the election would be
presented.—( Hear, hear.) At that period the witness
sent those documents to another party, the Chairman of the
Election Committee. the impression which the witness made
upon his (Sir R. Peel's) mind was that Captain Ward did not
now admit having received the papers. It appeared to him
that there were some grounds for doubt in the matter, and on
that account he thought it inexpedient to release him altoge-
ther. It was advisable that there should be an opportunity
taken of considering the question. Unless the detention of
the witness could be sustained in point of law a habeas
corpus would be moved for, and the prisoner would be dis-
charged without any remonstrance on their part. From the
nature of the testimony given at the bir, and the doubt
remaining respecting the transaction, he could not re-
concile it to himself to discharge the prisoner. He
thought that they were bound to support the Committee.
They compelled members of it to discharge an obnoxious duty,
and they ought, therefore, to support them in the discharge of
that duty. On that ground he should give his vote for con-
tinuing the witness in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
Mr. O'CONNELL would be far from saying anything
which would appear like presumption on his part, but he cer-
tainly must say, that he differed from the opinion given upon
the matter by the Learned Solicitor-General. Notwithstand-
ing the authority of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, he
(Mr. O'Connell) could not bring himself to proclaim for one
moment that the warrant was not a perfectly legal one.
The present was really a monstrous case, and ought not to be
frittered away. The moment the summons reached the wit-
ness, be was bound to take care of die papers lying in his
custody, for the purpose of producing them.
After a few words in explanation, from Mr. C. BULLER,
which were quite inaudible, '
Mr. CHRISTOPHER said that all proceedings with re-
gard to election petitions, ought to be taken entirely away
froin'this House.—.(Hear, hear.) They had seen enough that
evening to prove that he was right in thinking so. He did
not regret that these proceedings had taken place, for he
thought that very soon, whatever might be the opinion of this
House, the people of England would 'no :longer suffer their
fellow-subjects to be committed to Newgate, or kept in the
custody of any person whatever, when under similar circum-
stances there was no Court of Justice in the country who
would venture to do it.—(Hear, hear, and " divide."
Strangers were ordered to withdraw, and the House di-
vided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment
Against it
Majority
On our return to the gallery we found,
Mr. THESIGE Ft addressing the House. He wished to ex-
plain the grounds upon which he voted in the majority. He
considered that a motion for an adjournment would have the
effect of discharging the prisoner. He should vote for a direct
motion for the discharge of the prisoner. He asked any Ho-
nourable Gentleman whether, if they entertained a doubt of
the validity of this warrant, whether they could avail them-
selves anything by an adjournment? With respect to the pri-
soner's being detained in custody, he could tell the House that
they were not a responsible body. If they inflicted an injury
on the man, he had no redress. If he had keen committed by
an illegal warrant from a Magistrate, he could have an action
for damages ; but under a decree of that House he had no
remedy. Therefore feeling as he (Mr. Thesiger) did, he
should certainly not vote for the prisoner being detained in
custody.
Mr. WARD said, the Honourable and\ Learned Gen-
tleman had cleared up a great doubt, which had
existed during that debate. From what the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman had stated, the House was in a most extraordinary
and anomalous position, which applied to all former election
proceedings. 'The House had committed several persons be-
fore, and this question had been reserved for the Southampton
case, and they sow attempted to throw a shield over this wit-
ness, who, he .must say, had said enough to make him appear
in a very suspicious position.—(Cries of " No, no.") if this
wan had been the most consummate trickster in the world,
the most hardened and determined trickster, he could riot have
acted in a better manner than on the present occasion, and he
had done the best he could to defeat the object of any inquiry.
Believing that this witness had distinctly refused the production
of papers which the Speaker's' warrant required, he (Mr.
Ward) should give his vote for detaining him is, the custody
of the Sergeant-at-Arms until those papers were produced,
leaving it to the Solicitor-General to follow out in any way he
chose the question as to legality which had been raised. The
Learned Solicitor-General had referred to 'cheers which had
followed from the Opposition benebes certain answers which
witness had given. He (Mr. Ward) must remind him that that
had taken place before.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER said that what hail fallen from the
Hon. Member for Sheffield, had only confirmed him in the
opinion he had before expressed. He was convinced from the
spirit in which the. former and the present inquiries were
carried on, that before the termination of the Session, they
would have the same scenes enacted night after n;ght.—
( Hear, hear.) He was convinced that it was neceesary to
try these cases before some tribunal which would be considered
competent, and possess the confidence of the public.—( Hear.
hear.) He was desirous to maintain the privileges of the
House, but he would never give a vote to oppress one of his
fellow countrymen... 4 Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Sir GEORGE GREY wished to observe, in reply to what
had fallen from the Learned Solicitor-General, that the war-
rant, although issued on the 10th of September, was issued
generally for the witness's attendance before the Committee,
without reference to the time when the Committee might sit.
Considering the doubt which had been expressed en the sub-
ject, he thought a short. Bill should be introduced to define
the nature of the S7eaker's summons.
Sir J. TYRRELL said, in his opinion there were grave
legal doubts on the point, and he was surprised at the conduct
of those who had been such great sticklers for the liberty of
the subject. He was surprised to see such conduct connived
at by the Hon. Member for Sheffield, the Hon. Member for
Cork, and the Hon. Member for Finsbury.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said he thought there was a great dis-
tinction between the advocacy of bribery and the utterance of
that species of deception which would make it impossible.—
( Hear, hear.) Did the Hon. Member mean to throw any
doubt upon this summons? It was not upon that ground that
the witness had resisted it at all, but having been employed as
an agent to expend 3,000/.—(No, no.) He stated at the bar
that 3,000/. had passed through his hands in that cheque-
book.-_.( Hear, hear.) Now, why had they not that cheque-
book ? Were Gentlemen to be deluded with the idea that this
was a bona fide case of a man who had forgot whether he had
been summoned or not ? If it had been a nisi prius case he
(Mr. O'Connell) would have asked him when did he forget
it ? Now, what did the witness do with respect to the docu-
ments? Why, he kept them, from three to four months, he
did not give them to any person he could name ; he said that it
was some person that was at some time in his employ, but whe-
ther he was so now be could not tell. Those document.
showed the expenditure of 3,000/., yet they were kept out of
view, and then Gentlemen talked of the liberty of the subject.
—( Hear hear.) Why, was it not a notorious fact that bribery
had taken place to a great extent, and if parties were not
punished it would be carried on with impunity. He believed
that the present case was one of the most monstrous that
had ever come before the House, and it proved
how unfit that House was to investigate such questions. He
thought the present 53 stem worse than the last ; the fist ques-
tion now asked was, who was the Chairman, and the result of
the Committee was always predicted from that circumstance.
Such a state of things was most melancholy. Some Hon.
Gentleman of influence ought to bring in a Bill to have a
salaried Judge—(llpar, hear)—appointed to preside over
those Committees, where, at times, some of the nicest points of
law were raised. He trusted this suggestion would not be
thrown out in vain, but that some one at either side of the
House, would bring in a Bill for that purpose, so that it might
be no longer a matter of reproach to the House that Hon.
Gentlemen could not be trusted on their oaths. Nothing could
be more likely to countenance immorality in the public at large
than the prevalence of such a belief.
Mr. S. WORTLEY wished to suggest that the Right Hon.
Gentleman was wandering wide from the question, though he
(Mr. W.) agreed in what had been expressed by him on the
subject. But the question actually before the House was, whe-
ther they were justified in retaining the person called to the
bar in custody, in consequence of his having disobeyed the
precept contained in the warrant issued by the Speatter, in
the case of the Southampton Election Committee. Ile must,
at the same time, say that, if ever there was a tribunal be

fore which a point of law could be discussed satisfactorily, it
was the House of Commons. He apprehended that, in the
present case, they stood in the position of a court of justice ;
and the Speaker's warrant having, been called in question, the
Speaker, as the proper officer of the House in the matter,
took the proper steps to enable him to come to a decision,
and having pronounced that decision, they were justified in
following it up.
Mr. C. BULLER thought that the House had nothing to
do in the present case but follow up the action of the Com-
mittee in committing the witness to custody. Such was
the intention of the statute respecting Election Committees.
The lion. and Learned Member here read the portion of
the Act applicable to the case, and then went on to say—
Now, the Chairmar. of the Committee, by the direction of
the Committee, hail delivered this man into custody ; he had
then come before the House and reported what had taken
place ; and it appeared to him (Mr. C. Buller) that the course
for the House to pursue was to receive the Report of the
Chairman, to confirm his authority, and continue the impri-
sonment until the evidence should have been given.
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON said, he was at a loss to under-
stand why, if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman were right,
the Committee were called upon to report to the House at all.
—( Hear, hear.) Either the warrant was valid, or it was
valid. If it were valid, the man was bound to produce what
,imariitdt,inginhicinas7
bofutreiffusiatl,
werethe Cinovmaimidi,ttieno
whatwere
position
siitiroenqi:iw'ioree:(lnid the matter stand ? Why, if they continued the
imprisonment of this man until to-morrow, in all probability a
writ of habeas corpus would then be issued.
Mr. ROEBUCK said, it appeared to him to be a great
mistake to suppose, that when the House had once de-
termined to eomniit a person for contempt, the Queen's Bench
would interpose its authority by issuing a writ for his release.
The Queen s Bench would never consider on what ground an
individual had been committed, if the tribunal itself were legal.
Now, desirous as he was to bow to the authority of the Hon.
and Learned Attorney-General, be would suumit to him this
case. Suppose a witness had been hound over to appear, and the
cage was respited. The form of that House was to respite the
case generally.
Mr. THESIGER.--The recognizance! would be respited.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the ordinary form of the House was
to respite the case whether or not, and to adjourn the conside-
ration of the case for a certain time. He would put it to the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman opposite whether, when a case
of this sort was adjourned, they also adjourned, or, in legal
phrase, respited any summons which might have been issued.
The warrant being served it was sufficient warning to the in-
dividual that he was to come before the Committee with certain

documents. He had no excuse on the ground of mor;li;Y:La
(Hear, hear.) And he should like to know what excuse he had
in point of law—a point they never heard of till the present
hoar. .

Lord STANLEY said he agreed with the Hon. and Learned
Member who had just sat down, .that this House was not a
proper tribunal to decide legal questions.--( Hear.) He would
i himself consider this question without any party feelings, but
with a desire that real and substantial justice should be done to
all partieS, and that the authority of the Ho-ice should be main-
tained.—( Hear, hear.) It appeared to him that, until the
House was perfectly satisfied that the warrant issued by the
Speaker was illegal, the presumption of the House ought to be
that it was a document of legal authority.—(Hear.) He
was the more disposed to form that opinion because, though
the question came by surprise on the House, it did not Caine
upon the Speaker by surprise, because he had taken the
opinion of the professional .adviser of the House on the subject.
And he was disposed to lay greater stress on an opinion given
by a lawyer out of the House than one given by a lawyer in it,
who had not time to consider the question in all its bearings.—
(Hear, bear.) He confessed he did not consider the answers
of the person at all satisfactory, and the Committee having
come to the opinion that it was necessary to ask the sanction
of the House for their proceedings, they wished to have him
remanded. Now he would not give any vote affirmatively or
negatively on the point of law, but he was prepared to give his
vote, if the Committee thought it necessary, for detaining, not
for committing, this individual in the custody of the Sergeant-
at-Arms, until the substantial justice of the case was made out.
But if the Chairman should to-morrow state that the witness
had appeared without farther compulsion, and that he did not
apprehend that the man would abscond, then he (Lord S. )
would support the Chairman if he should move that Mabson be
released ; or he (Lord S.) would support the Chairman if
that Hon. Gentleman should think it his duty to mace that the
man be detained until certain other witnesses had been ex-
amined.—( Hear. )
Sir V. BLAKE was understood to say he considered the
Speaker's warrant an illegal document; but, as the man had
submitted to it, he had better be kept where he was until he
was wanted.
Mr. 11. HINDE reminded the House that, while they were
boasting of supporting the views of the Committee, in reality
they were net doing so. The report of the Committee in.
strutted the Chairman to move the House that Mabson be com-
mitted to Newgate, but this application the House had repu-
diated. —(Hear, hear.) He (Mr. Hinde) thought his motion
for the adjournment of the debate would-have best settled
the question for the present. Now, he must vote against
the motion.
Sir W. FOLLETT said he thought it right to say a few
words on this case now, as an Hon. and Learned Gentleman
had taken a view of the case to which he (Sir W. Follett)
could not assent. The question before the House was, whe-
ther a Speaker's warrant having been issued during the last
Session of Parliament, with reference to an election petition
tried in the present Session, a witness who did not now attend
under it was guilty of contempt? Now when the warrant was
read, he (Sir W. Follett) certainly did not think it was a legal
document.—( Hear, hear.) He was not then aware that all
previous Speakers' warrants were liable to the same objection,
but now he understood they were.--( Hear, hear.) His opi-
nion was, that the warrant had expired last Session, and that
it should have been renewed during the present Session.
This was his feeling, but he was unwilling to speak in a more
determined tone on the question, since he had just heard that
the Speaker and the lion. Gentlemen opposite had submitted
the subject to counsel under whose deliberation it was now.
He should not think, however, that he would be justified in
voting now that the prisoner should be discharged on the
ground that the warrant was illegal—(Hear, hear)—but he
thought that the matter as to the illegality of the warrant ought
to be set at rest.—(Hear, hear.) It was a question whether
the whole machinery as to the issue of these warrants did not
require amendment. —( Hear. ) It was proposed to commit the
prisoner for contempt, whereas the Committee had reported
that he had disobeyed the Speaker's warrant, which was an of.,
fence of a peculiar character, and different from mere contempt.
In fact, the Report of the Committee did not fully inform the
House what it had to decide on.--( Hear.) He would admit
tiler, party feeling was shown on such occasions as much on one
side as the other, and he'considered it a very unfit tribunal to
try those questions.—( Hear, hear.) He did not think
that any purpose would be served by committing this
man to prison. But he thought means ought to be taken to
ascertain whether the prisoner bad really transmitted the
papers to Mr. Ward or not. If it shout I be found that he
had done so, surely the House would feel some regret if,
after having committed him, it were found that the man had
not offended at all, He thought the ends of justice would be
satisfied by ordering the witness to attend the Committee,
without keeping him in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms
all night. Th,t he thought to be the most fitting course to
pursue, unless there were reasonito apprehend that the witness
might abscond. If he were ordered to attend before the Elec-
tion Committee to-morrow the matter would be freely gone
into, and, in the meantime, the question respecting the legality
of the warrant would be investigated and be put at rest, at
least as far at legal opinions would go to the deciding of such
a question.
Mr. C. WOOD complained of the conduct of the Hon. and
Learned Member for Woodstock in reviving the debate
after every person in the House had thought it had
been concluded. The Hon. Chairman of the Committee had
left the Committee under the impression that the witness was
to be committed to the cueody of the Sergeant-at-Arms for
the night. The Learned Solicitor-General himself had, in the
early part of the evening, recommended the adoption of that
course, and the First Lord of the Treasury, who took so honest
and straightforward a course upon all questions respecting the
trial of election petitions, had declared that he considered the
conduct of the witness unsatisfactory, and had given it as his
opinion that he ought to be detained in custody. In fact, with
the exception of the Member for Newcastle, no one had spoken
who had not agreed that it would be proper to retain the wit-
ness in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. In no debate
on questions arising out of any proceedings before Election
Committees had he (Mr. C. Wood) ever been actuated by
party feeling. He had always, to the utmost of his power,
supported the authority of that tribunal which the House had
chosen for the trial of these questions, and lie was sorry to see
so many Gentlemen coming forward, principally, he must say,
from the other side, for the purpose of questioning the autho-
rity of those tribunals. He regretted to see Honourable
Gentlemen, Members of that Committee, coming forward
to express opinions adverse to the decisions of the majority of
that Committee, and he was also sorry to hear what bad fallen
from the Learned Solicitor-General on the subject, ignorant
as the Hon. and Learned Gentleman must have been of what
had been the conduct of the witness before the Committee.
The witness had never questioned the legality of the warrant;
he had appeared to it, arid he staled, as a justification for his
not bringing the papers, that he had incautiously parted with.
them. He had parted with possession of those papers under'
circumstances that th:ew suspicion on his conduct, and he
( Mr. C. Wood) agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury
in thinking that it would Not be right that this man should be
set at liberty to defeat the ends of justice.
Mr. GODSON said, the Hon. Gentleman who had just
sat down, and the lion. and Learned Gentleman who had pre-
ceded him, seemed to him (Mr. Godson) to adopt a strange
notion. They told them that that tribunal, if it numbered a
majority of one, which, therefore, became the act of one man,
could commit one of her Majesty's subjects to Newgate.—
(No, no.) This was the extent of the argument urged on the
other of the House. The Committee had not sent that per-
son there for refusing to answer questions, but for non-pro-
duction of two classes of papers. Either these papers were of
value, or they were not. He (Mr. Godson) was prepared to
argue either way. ( Laughter.) There were twoclassesof papers.
One was documents being mere counterfoils, and not drawn
except in one instance by the witness. These counterfoils
merely contained the names and the date. Well, what was the
other? Why, merely three tradesmens' bills—in all, fifteen
bills. If these papers bad been lost, the Counsel might have
inquired into their contents. These tradesmens' bilis were
seat to the Chairman of the Election Committee, arid after-
wards eost. Ile (Mr. Godson) should vote against the wit-
ness continuing in custody, as there had been already three
inquiries before the House of a similar nature. He believed
the application hal been made in that instance by the Counsel
for the petitioner, in order to act on the nerves of the rest of
the w itnesses. —( Laugh t er. )
Mr. HUTT would not reply to the argument used by the
Hon. and Learned Gentlemen who had just sat down. He was
sure they were sufficiently replied to by the good feeling of the
House.—(Hear.) With that remark he would leave the obser-
vations of the Hon. Gentleman, and he (Mr. Hutt) felt ex-
tremely sorry to be compelled to take part in that debate, be-
cause he believed that it would be more decorous in Hon. Gen-
tlemen to abstain from taking part in that discussion.—( Hear. )
The Hon. Gentlemen on his side of the House had fully believed
that the discussion was a' an entL—(No, no.) He stated what
was the impression of Hon. Gentlemen on his side the House.
He found himself compelled to address the House in conse-
quence of the observations of the Hon. and Learsied Gentle-
man. He could assure the Hon. and Learned Gentleman that
he (Mr. Hutt) was by no means exempt from the censure
the Honourable and Learned Gentleman had been pleased to
throw on the Honourable Members on his (Mr. Hutt's)
side of the House. He (Mr. Hutt) when he was at the head
of a Committee, found himself in extreme difficulty. He
was called upon to exercise judicial functions of the highest na-
ture, at the same time having no knowledge whatever of the
case. With regard to this particular case, he would state to
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman and the House the motives
under which he acted, and the reason why he could nor agree
with the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General. He was con-
vinced, from what had taken place in that House, that the wit-
ness had wilfully disobeyed the summons of the Speaker. He
was likewise convinced, both by the circumstances charged be-
fore the Committee, and what he had heard in that House, that
the witness had been actively engaged in diverting the course
of justice. Under these circumstances, be felt it imperative on
him to agree in the motion,' that the witness should not be
permitted to go at -large without some degree of punishment.
.He did not entertain this feeling from any party motive what-
ever ; but because he believed that the witness had been
guilty of a dereliction of duty ; because he believed he had
endeavoured to defeat the ends of justice, in disobeying the
Speaker's warrant. He (Mr. Hutt) therefore considered he
ought not to escape without punishment.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL explained. He could assure
the Hon. Member that he never had had the slightest idea of
imputing any thing but the purest of motives to the Committee.
Lord HOWICK said, he understood the expression used by
the Hon. and Learned Member to be, if he remembered
rightly, "that he thought the Committee had acted preci-
pitately."
Several Hon. Members,—No, no, " prematurely."
Lord HOWICK then must have been mistaken ; and if the
Hon. and Learned Member said so, he (Lord Howick) must
bow; but certainly that was the word understood by him
(Lord Howiek.) Well, then, the Hon. and Learned Member
had said, that the Committee had acted prematurely. Now
he (Lord Howick) thoUght that, in a case of that kind, such
an opinion, and., coming from him, involved a censure on
the Committee.—( Hear.) That censure he (Lord Howiek)
must take the liberty of saying, in his opinion was not
quite proper for the Hon, anti Learned Gentleman to give,
unless upon the strongest grounds, which he (Lord Howick)
did not think existed in the present case. He (Lord Howick)
looked at this case as it appeared upon the Report. Looking
at the case as it appeared on the face of that Report, he con-
sidered the Committee acted with perfect propriety.—(Hear.)
It was alleged that at the late election for Southampton there
were paper s used which were required by the Committee. For
the purpose of obtaining these, a Speaker's warrant was served
on the party holding them, to produce these papers to the
Committee. Now it was perfectly notorious to Honour-
able Gentlemen who had attended those tribunals, that
it was of the very greatest importance that that order
should be served upon the witness as speedily as pos
sible after the election, to prevent the person holding
the papers from making away with them. Many Hon. Gentle.
men opposite sneered at the Reformed Parliament, and talked
of bribery being more prevalent now than before. He (Lord
Howick) had heard sneers of that sort, but lie thought it
would best become Hon. Gentlemen who desired to put
a stop to a system of bribery, to co-operate with those who
were endeavouring in every case to bring it completely to light.
Now he thought that of all the proceedings of this sort that had
come before the Committee, this was that one which required
investigation. 'The witeess had been summoned to the bar,
and his defence to the charge of not producing the papers was
that he had forgotten to take care of the documents. Now he
( Lord Howiek) asked whether a statement of that kind could
be true coming from an old electioneerer, one calculated to
kaow what was of importance and what was not, arid knowing
that proceedings of this kind were likely to take place,
whether he would be likely to forget documents of
this description. He could not believe he would.
Even if no warrant had been served, if the witness wilfully
kept out of the way in!orrnation required by the Committee ;
even if a Speaker's warrant had not been served, he was guilty
of the offence of contempt, as it was called. He refused to
produce these papers, which were essential to the ends 0 jug-

tire. He (Lord Howiek) could not agree to that person being
relieved from custody, and he should, there ore, support the
motion for his detention.
Mr. BORTH WICK said, he would detain the Howe but
a very short time. He thought. that darkness had been pro-
duced by an excess of light. If the question had rested on the
recommendation from the Committee, to be acted upon, a.)e
or no, his voice would have been aye. But t;te Noble Lord
was not in that position, but had departed from the recom-
mendation of the Committee—viz., to commit the witness to
Newgate ; but the effect of the Noble Lord's argument
was a certain amount of censure on the Committee,
This was not a question of precedent. The question was
simply, what were the grounds on which he ought to say aye
or no to the motion of his Hon. Friend. Those ground, were,
whether the prisoner at the bar had given a bona fide answer
to the questions put to him. He (Mr. Burthwick) was of
opinion, atter fully considering the matter, that he had not
done so; and upon that ground he should vote that the pri-
soner continue in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms.
(Loud cries of " Divide.")
Mr. MUNTZ said it was not a question with him whether
the warrant which had been issued was a legal one or not. It
was sufficient for him that the pri,oner had attended to it.
The question was, under what circumstances he had come
to that bar ; and judging from what he had himself said, it ap-
peared that three months alter having received the warrant
from the Speaker, he gave these papers over to some person
who denied ever having received them. Tnis House might Le
credulous, but they must be credulous indeed if they believed
all that. mats had said. Believing that he had done all he
could to deceive that House, lie (Mr. Muntz ) should certainly
give his vote foe detaining him in tustody.—( Divide. )
Mr. FLEMING said that he bad had extensive dealings
with Mr. Mabson—(Loud ironical eneeis)—as an ironmonger
—(Cheers)—and he had always found hint a twist honourable
and respectable man in all his proceedings ; and if he could be
guarantee for him he would gladly:be so.---( Hear, hear. )
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the House
divided, when there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
_ _

34
117

Majority against the motion
EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.
This Bill was read a second time.
SCOTCH JUDGES.
Mr. WALLACE said, that in rising to bring be-
fore the House the subject of which he had given notice he was
desirous of impressing upon the Right Hon. Baronet that he did
so with an earnest desire of improving the administration of jus-
tice in Scotland. He was quite aware how unwilling the House was
to hear so dry a subject as this, and he should, therefore, feel
it his duty to proceed as quickly as he possibly could, and rather
to refrain from expressing the opinions which he himsellenter-
tained, that he might bring before the House the opinions on
the subject expressed by others. The Bill he proposed to bring
in was absolutely necessary, if the Courts to which he alluded
were to he improved at all ; because it was quite evident, from
the Report which he held in his hand, that the improvement of
the Scotch Courts could not be effected without the inter-
ference of Parliament. He had found, in the course of the evi-
dence taken before the Committee; that no measure could be
effectual without legislative interference. Another object he
had in view, when he moved for the Committee from which
the Report to which he had referred emanated, was to see
whether or no the number of Judges could not be reduced ; and
he must say, circumstances had since then lei him to believe that
there would have been no occasion to fill up the vacancy which
had since taken place. His best course would, perhaps be to read
from the Report those parts which he thought bore most conclu-
sively upon the points which he wished to present to the House.
He believed that Report was drawn up either by his Learned
Friend the late Lord Advocate for Scotland, or by the Chair-
man of the Committee; for though he (11r. Wallace)
moved for that Committee, and gained it too,
he was riot permitted to be the Chairman. That great ques-
tion was too important, as they called it, for any Member not
connected with the Government to preside ; consequently, the
late Under-Secretary was elected Chairman, and he ( Mr.
Wallace) sat as one of the Committee. In the course of read-
ing the evidence, he wished to say decidedly to the Right Hon.
Baronet and the present Government, that he did feel he was
strongly pressed by those who had other views, to abstain from
reading that evidence. There were certain views entertained
by the Right Hon. Baronet. and the Chairman, which went
towards a very small improvement, viz., that the Judges
should be required to listen more patiently to the arguments of
Counsel. It had been very well observed in that House, that
it was a hard case that the Judges of a Court of such high re-
spectability as the Court of Session should be ac-
eused of not giving that due and fair attention
to the arguments of Counsel which they deserved.
He had found that really the Judges were more 0: less liable
to that censure, and that they had since found it necessary to
pay more respect to the arguments of Counsel than they had
hitherto done. Though it had been alleged by the Hon.
Member fur Stamford that he (Mr. Wallace) had never
done any good at all in bringing these questions before the
House, he was sure that his Hon. Friend would ceneur
with him that a great deal of gond had already resul.ed.
Now, with regard to the Report, he thought the best course
he could pursue would be to read at once to the House the most
important points which it contained. He should first say,
however, that he looked upon the Report as being considerably
one-sided, inasmuch as the Gentlemen opposed to him on tile
Committee were almost all members of the legal profession ;
and he had not found them at all anxious to improve
those Courts in which they themselves practiced. He did
not mean in making that statement to impute any parti-
cular blame to those Gentlemen ; he believed that no class
were impartial where their own interests were concerned. It
was so with the East India monopoly and all other monopolies
He had no hesitation in saying that the Supreme Court of Scot-
land was now the worst constituted Court in the world. The
English Court of Chancery formerly deserved that character ;
but since the reforms in that Court, the Supreme Court of
Scotland stood forward pre-eminently as the most expenSive,
'the most dilatory, and, he might add, the least satisfactory, in
which the law was promulgated in any country in the world.
Those were stromg expressions, but he used them advisedly.
He believed that lie would hereafter be aisle to prove his asser-
tions ; if, as he hoped, he should be allowed the means of in-
stituting an inquiry into the subject. He would real to the
House a passage from the Report to which he had isiluded,
which would confirm, to a certain extent, at least, the opinions
he had expressed. The Hon. Gentlemen then read the fol-
lowing passage from the Report of the Select Com-
mittee on Supreme Courts in Scotland, dated May 28, 1840:
.. It would appear that complaints exist as to certain parts
of the procedure before the Lords Ortbnary in preparing the
record. This matter was brought before your colon ittee in
so far only as it affected the time and labour bestowed by the
Judges; and while your Committee see no reason to wi: horaw
the preparation of the case from the superintendence of the
Judge, they have no doubt that, preserving that superintend-
ence for all useful purposeS, the system might in many respects
be imprneed, so as not only to save a great deal • f judicial
time, but what is much more important for the suitor, pre-
vent delay and expense in the progress of the cause. It does
not belong to your Committee to suggest any particular mea-
sures as proper to be adopted with this view, the improve-
ment generally of the form of precise not being before them.
But they think it proper to remark, that many of the evils
complained of, and for which a remedy is meat required, have
arisen from this, that the form of process introduced by the
statute of 1825 was not equally well adapted to all forms of suit
or subjects er litigation, on the one hand; and that the Court,
on the other, was so tied down by the express terms of the sta-
tute, as to prevent them from introducing, by acts of sederunr,
or rules •of Court, such modifications eee would be not only
advantageous, but necessary, in several important classes
of cases. It will be seen by a return laid before Par-
liament, that the time daily cccupiol by either division
of the Court does not extend, on on average, much
beyond two hours a day,. and of that time some part is
always occupied in disposing of orders arid motions of no great
importance. Some of the witnesses have stated that on the
s.verage, this•part of the business occupies at least one• third of
the time during which the Court sits, reducing to less than
one hour and a half, if their statement be correct, the daily
sittings of the Courts. There arc circumstances which strongly
mark the present existence of former complaint; but, without
going through the evidence in detail, your Committee are com-
pelled to state that, in their opinion, the system introduced
in 1825 has not been fully carried out in the proceedings of the
Inner House, and that dissatisfaction justly prevails as to the
administration of this part of the judicial system. It is very
much in consequence of this, and of the sittings of the Court in
public not being extended under a system, intended to sub
stitute, as far as possible, oral for written argument, that an
opit.ion has arisen in many quarters, and apparently with
reason, that the number of Judges in the Court of Session is
too great for the businesi it has to discharge, and that by
abridging the vacations of the Court, and prolonging the periods
of its daily sittings, the whole business might be done by a re-
duced number of Judges. Dissatisfaction Las been the con•
sequence, and it may be that this has been among the causes
which have recently occasioned the diminution of the business of
the Court of Session. It appears, too, it has produced, indi-
rectly, very considerable results, by influencing, id some degree,
the form of making up the Records, and introducing a fdrm
different from that intended. An opinion has been
expressed that hearing of causes has become more
more full and satisfactory than formerly; but, on the other
hand, the small amount of time given in public to the perform-
ance of judicial duty appears by Parliamentary returns, and
the evidence, not to have been augmented. Your Committee
are, therefore, not justified in concluding that the dissatisfac-
tion which has so long prevailed has materially diminished.
arious propositions were made by witnesses as to relieving
the Courts from motions of course, and from difficulties con-
nected with the attendance of the bar in different Courts. It
is clear that motions of form occupy small portion of time in
the Inner House, though no doubt a considerable portion of the
time during which either division actually sits at present.
Much the more important suggestions relate to the extended
sittings of the Court—to the necessity of their sitting during
a much longer time—every day—to their sitting on Monday,
and to their availing themselves, if necessary, of the power to
prolong the Session. If it should appear dial a greater por-
tion of time than can be given during the present terms is re-
quired for fuller discussion and a proper dispatch of bushes, it
ought to be obtained by curtailing the vacations, whether as re-
gards the Outer or Inner Houses. The Court of Justicary
frequently sits on Monday; but they do not see that that circum-
stance necessarilly interferes with arrangements by which that
day might be gained for one or both divisions of the
Court. A great deal might be accomplished by the divi-
sions sitting on alternate days, or at all events by
using the Wednesday occupied in the business of the
Teind Court, which, though important, is not extensive. If it
were necessary, it might be proper to enable the Court of Justi_
ciary to sit at Edinburgh, with two Jedges, or with a single
Judge, as on Circuit. Without altering the days on which the
Court met, a great deal of time might be saved, and usefully
employed, by holding the meetings of the Judges upon those
occasions when the whole Court is called upon to advise re-

gularly, exclusively upon Mondays, or the Wednesdays appro-
priated to the sittings of the Teind Court. These, however,
are matters of detail, upon which your Committee thought it
unnecessary to enter at length, being satisfied th a even without
Legislative interference, and under the existingpowers of the
Court, there can ba little difficulty to adopt such arrangements
as would give great additional time. Arrangements, however,
,n, t
that
nt
yl itzs,ah
voce
e
may be necessary beyond the power of the Court, in which ease
recourse must be had to the intervention of Parliament." Now,
it appeared that the Court sat only two hours a day, and that
for a limited number of drys. He would put it o English
Irish Gentlemen how unsatisfactory must he the proeeedings of
such a Court? lie should observe, in addai,
witnesses were not, examined before the Court. In
criminal matters alone witnesses were heard; while
in civil eases, every thing was drone throu4th .long
printed documents. That was their Judge matte law, and he
could conceive nothing so much opposed to the spirit of a free
t h
a itn
e Scotlandoaritry most
people. He should inform she House that the labours of the •
Scottish Judges at Assizes were of the most trifling descrip-
tion. The proceedings at Assizes
in
were
excellentreduced
all but the gravest offences.
Those tribunals were presided over by sheriffs, who were men
ltooc a
al mere
tribunals, i'aree hey
which tried
well acquainted with the law. The labours before the Judges
of Assize were thus rendered so light, that the provincial papers
were in the habit of describing them as mere trips of plea-
sure, during which they paid convenient visits to their friends
in the diflerent towns. He would next advert to the informa-
tion he had received from three gentlemen of the highest know-
ledge and respectability, whose names he would not then
mention, but which he would readily, communicate to any
Hon. Gentleman in private. The first letter he would read
contained a description of the state of the Court at the present
pes iod. The Right Hon. Gentleman read the letter, which
was addressed to himself, as follows :

" Edinburgh, March 30, 1842.
• - To Robert Wallace, Esq., from Esq.
The Court was divided into two-Chambers in 1803,.. M
that (line the ):umber of causes brought into Court in a year
was abuut 2,600.—( See Parliamentary Return, No. 241.
1824.) The number now (1641) brought into a Court in
year is on'y 1 500.—(See Returns.) This shows a falling Off
of 2-sths. But this does not show the vit ole decrease in real
business, fer in addition there is to be noticed the increase ill
decrees in absence, which occupy almost no time. 10
these cases there is only one enrolment, and at the -first
calling, the whole matter is disposed of in a quarter
of a minute. It is only the decrees in
,foro that
can give an idea of the real business. Now the decrees infbio.
in 1808, wisen the two Chambers were instituted, were it
number about 1,500. At present they are only about 600. So
that while the total business has been steadily decreasing, the
real business has been still more decreasing by the increase to
decrees in absence. It is, therefore, no exaggeration to say
that business has decreased one half. If, therefore, two Cham-
bers coul.l do tae business in 1808, one Chamber could do in
now when it is so reduced. It is well known that the two
Chambers when they had cleared off the arrears which had ac-
cumulated, but not sooner, began to sit only for about two
hours a day for 113 days in the year, and even now, under the
influence of the lash, applied by the late Parliamentary inquiry,
they don't usually sit above three .hours a day. There is no
good reason wily the Court should not sit at least thirty
days more, and two hours snore each day if neces,ary. But it
is believed that the business would not require such long sittings.
even with only one Chamber. This can be made plain by
figures. The present prolonged sittings at three hours a days
for 113 days, give 339 hours for each Court yearly—say, for
loth, 678 hours in the whole year. Before the late Parlia-
mentary inquiry, the sittings were only two hours a day, or 452
hours yearly . If the sittings were prolonged 30 days—that is, to
143 days in the year, and to five hours a day, we should have
715 hours from one Chamber, being 37 hours more than the
present prolonged sittings of the two Chambers. Can it-be
seriously maintained that sitting for 143 days at five hours a cler
would be too much labour? Let the sittings of the English Judges
answer the question. There would still remain an ample portion
of each day fur reading papers. &c., besides more than half
the year for vacations. If the excess of 37 hours by sae
Chamber sitting 143 days for five hours be deducted from the
assumed daily sittings of that time, it would not much exceed
4i hours. his, with the constant decrease of business,llll.
shown by the returns for many years back, demonstrates that.
the time has now arrived when one Court of Review may
safely be abolished, and thereby the delays and consequent es-,'
pence arising from the present faulty system, and from the
want of senior counsel both in the Inner and Oster Houses, be
removed, or be greatly lessened, and the still more grievous
and unseemly evil of conflicting decisions emanating from dm/
two co-ordinate Courts of Review be put an end to." '
The next letter he would read to the House was as follows

" Edinburgh, March 30, 1842-
" Sir—There can be no doubt that your Committee dot
much good, and that the Bar, and particularly the Whig
clique, although slow to acknowledge this, cannot deny it.
Their horror at reduction is rational enough, and we must not
be too severe upon them. As you have obtained for them
great increase of courtesy from the Bench and enlarged pa-
tience in hearings, they in return should have the courtesy to
at knowledge your services frankly. But this improvement in
patience of course lengthens the hearings, and thereby aggro•
vases one of the crying evils of our Courts, viz., the difficulty
of getting rminent counsel to debate a a:se in the Outer House,
without interruption, by being called away to the Inner Houses,
or indeed to get the leading Counsel at all, after the
advisings begin in the Inner House. This great evil can only
be remedied in two ways, either by restricting counsel to one
division of the Court, or, what would be far more effectual and
better everyway, by having only one Inner Chamber. I see
the same evil much complained of in England, and the abrupt
way in which Lord Denman terminated the sittings last tens
must have made even counsel themselves feel the inconvenience,
of their practising in so many different Courts I !
*

" The two divisions sit about one hour longer daily since
your Committee—that is all—and they have had lesl
work to do last year than in any former one. I have net
yet seen returns for the year ended in July, but from the
printed Rolls I have no doubt of this fact. One .division
could 'now overtake the whole work with perfect ease.
the bankruptcy business being almost all done now in the
Sheriffs' Courts, has greatly thinned the Rolls, and decrees la
absence, which occupy little or no time, are still increasing
The adju,trent of issues before the Jury clerks does not.nolf
occupy so much time as formerly, as they are better acquainted
with their duties, and very few causes are tried, showing ti
continued unpopularity of the institution, as at present consti,
toted and conducted in Scotland. As to leading Counsel, we
have very few. Mr. M'Neil is clearly at the head ; then ideaso•
Rutherford, Anderson, Wood, and Robertson—five in ally
a poor array certainly from which to supply a bench of 13 Judges'
I am more and more convinced, that one Inner House is sun'
dent for all the business, and this is the effectual remedy for the
difficulty in getting counsel to plead cases continuously in the
Outer House. Hail it not been for the Church cases, the
Inner House would have been quite out of work this winter, so
that the Kirk's squabbles have been a godsend to our Court',
for without work, the job of keeping them up, would be too bsci
even for Peel's majority. I remain your faithful servant."
The next letter he would read, was also addressed to him bls
,
professsional gentleman of the highest respectability, and ""
as follows :

" Edinburgh, Bth April, 1842„
,tit's 4,
" The number of well employed Counsel at the Scotch s',2"
does not exceed twenty ; and the leading Counsel are five, i
Mr. Rutherford, Mr. Solicitor. General M'Neil, Mr. Dean.°`
Faculty Wood, Mr. Adam Anderson, and Mr. Patrick Bo'
bertsou. The first two are, and have long been decided
leaders; Mr. Wood and Mr.. Anderson only lately; that is
since your Select Committee sat. At the most you will see
there are only five. Whilst such is the number of leading
Counsel, and the well-employed Junior Counsel are not
above fifteen, but say twenty, in order to be within the mark,
the Judges are thirteen in number, and subdivided into
two Courts of Review, of four Judges in each, and
five Lords Ordinary; who sit separately, and four of
them daily. Thus, there are daily six , Courts - sitting,
at precisely the same time, besides which there are issue clerks
sitting for the adjustment of issues to be tried by Juries, who
require to be attended by Counsel, and the leading
Counsel are also chiefly employed for this purpose; therefore,
it may be said, truly, that there are seven tribunals sitting
daily. There are a number of English Counsel in the House
of Commons who can well under stand the bearing of these facts,
anti I think you might place the matter before them in a
forcible light, by putting to them-1. Whether they can
think thirteen Judges can be,required to despatch the business
prepared for their eecisions by a Bar, which, reckoning
the well employed Counsel, does not count twice their
own number? I should think that English Counsel,
accustomed to see what is accomplished in the English
Courts, will be satisfied that the Scotch Judges must b°
greatly underworked, or that assuredly there i 3 something
very far wrong in our system.-2. Whether it is possible for 1
liar, reckoning no greater number of well-employed Counsel
titan I have mentioned, can efficiently supply seven tribunals
sitting at the same moment. They will be able to answer this
from their own observation; but the actual results, the ow
fusion, the delays, inconvenience, and obstructions which sr°
thereby occasioned, are given in evidence to prove the fact.
3. Whether it be reasonable to expect that such a liar can
supply a Bench, consist'ng of thirteen Judges, with lawyers°
real ernineuce ? In point of fact, it is the great bane of ln°
Scotch system and the Scotch Courts, that we get so many tae-
ferior men placed on the Bench, where first rate men °lll ',.
should sit. These are the simple views of the case which such
to myself; and I think you may give effect to them in 'Le.
a way as to come home to the understandings even of men "
acquainted practically with our profession."
He would row read them an extract from a letter in corrntr'
tion of these facts, from his Learned Ft lend the late Lord Ado
vocate. He had other letters, which he should not detain ji,
House with then, but if they were at all necessary in replYtieu
should go into them particularly. The Hon. Member
read the following extract from a letter from the Lord Ado,
cite, Lord Rutherford, to Mr. Cranstoun, dated L'in el
August 10, 1839 :—" No one who knows the low esteleo,
which, from many causes, our judicial institutions are
aid
could doubt that if such a Bills had been introduced, it ', jets
not have been carried, but must have led to defeat, no"luc:,
unpleasant to you than the Government. There was art it,"
tance in supporting us, even where you might least exile
_.pc 0 to
He then read an extract from a letter from Lord J. ftn'''"rna-
Mr. Cranstoun, dated 14th December, 1839 :—.. The alteb.n.
tive for the Government to consider, therefore, was the
as r9donment of the clause, or the loss of the Bill. So fafsli'l
own personal opinions were concerned, the loss of the 8i11,.t„ 0
have been the preferable event. I had some don" sea
to the increase of salary to the Scotch Judger", 'thos°
it was only in deference to the sentiments .0; did not
‘,..
better acquainted with the subject than myself, that 1,4 part 0
snake a reduction of the number of Judges an indispentmber), ~'
of the measure." This extract (continued the Hon. 0 Lora
he consideral a very strong authori'y. The Noble be
bo
said, it was only in deference to the opinion of other's tnef the
gave up his own in favour of a diminution of the numbesi:ut beg
Judges; and whose opinions did he refer to? Let tought
the attention of the House to this, that the witnesses wants of i
by the Noble Lord to give evidence, were all exPe,cijudge! '' '
office, with on or two exceptions. Two had been tna‘,,leon, JO •
singe, and he had understood at the time that his "„ high,
Learned Frieni was himself on the threshold of a ve'n'te had
appointmeet. If that was not true, then public not°;.'d dither
misled him ; he was in nobody's secrets; no one cong v_r have
to him.—( Hear, hear.) If they did he would never
fool
ls, pt them a moment, and therefore he never got soliTe ware
either side of the House. He got secrets in t n and
proportion as he did favours—he never asked for „°hers, he.
therefore never got any; if he got the secrets d °,'
one nor '
should never keep them, and therefore he neither had.s_re had ,
the other.—( Hear, hear.) But he could show that tbencen ecar .
been juggling among parties who ought not to baseni,itaohboite°,l;,..
i.,i;
cerned in such matters ; they had been kept from
tn.hace vote" : ,
he was considered a decided party man, who nailo uhispurer,
on a party question, merely because it suited afiarucnot a per,
to catry a particular object. But this. was Member/ menabenithe
objets.—(hear, hear.) That was legitimate wittlere were.keni
Parliament, but this was not a party object. Id place
,Tere
printed doeumen's ; he had the NISS. and %cunt sessioon 'were
it, the hands of any Hon. Member. During that ; to-
was
were only four Judges doing the duty of eiff then 3 nnt
incapacitated f..4nn bad health ; one ;reakness -- I__
declared to be in such a state of ouod min( . e
but t hem iwnads,
in forsuch
ahneextwrtagns
extremely weak
wepaekrfeetly ; health that Ile a
could not do the duty of the SummerstaStees:i°n'Zir
Winter Session only for one or two days. The test by Oiseo f
he had in view was to follow up „whoose adT)at asc e
the most distinguished men ever ii,xander --alti; -,,
sident of the Supreme Court, Sir
A reducing .. _ ,
bell, In his lull of 1835, for „_ thought its
7
Lord Jeffery, in the Edinburg
number of the Judges from fifteen to till' then authority
ithen
very
) moved, ho ns
rational proposal. and was supported _ had before
t. . _
a list of the amendments he (Mr. Wa them ; ' to
would net detain the licu,e with
h Review.llaceu h merety
wished to show the necessity of e I. itself. and m 10,_,'
readniating the Court to
do that, which it could not do 6Be therefore a
,itovenu .
and he ha Ht. had
a series et' amendments, eleven in
question• c ;
andhn
non the
was alleged to he absolutely necessarLber,
what evidence had been brought 01l
h ect he i" vi'f%thd public
now stated, in general terms, the 0.-J-e,
the opinion o
be suarned
the
C,
t:
might tell them, with great confidence,
dteeisions, and they
same
dispatch of business, or more wisecourts
sitting at theou
tile
twhaasunri,tt
wmoreas favourabler Theywii
deniedtl reens Itii er ce ti
entirely
a thl 1, ea
plained most bitterly of having
two
t tire, trying cluic
sadictory
time on questions of the same nature,
two (jourts cuntr
eaut
same day, and having from the 1
of t,,,,t, ace( a
decisions. They complained.
Courts having four Judges, as there.
House could deny hat
al
' • No one in the s dans ot dense
tradictory decisions. four JU r,
•onse-
that was the fact. Where there e
ff were
inreopinion,
sithueatrnwolstliat: Cbeocoutultret.sr.
powers, they would be sure to, i dvvsl,o)Uld
dill, rences of opinion. With regard
re,
~,,..,h the other
2..
had little or nothing to do as enfil.pa . a It
Weed which was to gts
(pence was that tirir Judges
glad to have a Bill Irmo, ,
r for their I've.
He should be
months in the ye a , , nine
them at once three or four in luuge, to ,
lion ; this would reduce the numberur
inont.,, ;
t they now toot
and they might require fuTi
y took first three weekt
or ten,
In the Scotch Courts bust-
vd''li
ee
toihnseui
taJtl:l
nii:z Navin.r Jude.hgeru njslede.t,:beesy.
Persee was not taken was t4cre
produced in Court, oral eviden.
any cross •examination
it ihe sevene,ri i
wizt w;
despatched
sohpnoat how did
I ei a'
dln tdlbi)et, tpean take
fo ui tr
. ?
did this, they should
______
of witne,ses by Counsel. If. thbeuyti,,:,
not requireTlieye d i df, five
eot hjauv4egens•in, c so, s,

A Bill for the increase of salary,

I see
abrupt
st terra
uiences

yr sines
d lest
ve Dot
nn the
Livision