The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-11 00:00:00

. .
had taken place to avoid the inquiry into bribery, then h;sFrl
was the cause, and it was expressly stated that no ceore'rnill!
sideration was ill health, and he (Slr R. Peel) couldundefetra;,,
it. But his Hon. Friend said, at the same time, that here,: ,
_'
to that consideration of ill-health, yet he did not atta_•beoir_.
portance to it, and he did not say that was the case ; tho.
,re
(Sir R. Peel) put that consideration altogether out
.fos7;
question. An Hon. Gentleman said that there was een"eree:
proof, as he understood him,'that either a bond had heel? Pee
or a sum . f money advanced for the purpose of ensuring LP °I
icturn of another candidate for Nottingham, of opinions %e; P
site to the opinions of the sittindMember. The Hou.sel4.l
appointed a Committee to inquire. The question then erase
the Writhe issued, andunderthese circumstances he ( Sir R. re7et
thought the writ ought not to be issued, because if the se:,,ul
'.J.0001. or; ,000/. had been advanced to return a Member
__..l vici
io sii:, opinions, and opposite to the majority of the constitlie
he thou
thought the
-.ht the circumstances might to be inquired into
.4
rights of the constituents themselves were
,70
prejudiced by bee inquiry, or by the suspension of thewepe'j
the sitting Member immediately on being declared dulnl.,c,,'
relinquished his seat, and made application for the Cl:ll_ewt:f
a the le'
Hundreds. Coupled with this was the
money had. been advanced tot- the purpose of procuring
this
tutu of a gentleman of &Irene
A sentiments. He
~„.
allegation that e'"
thought inquiry should be had. `li,' should vote aereordoe'4,,,
Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD eeensidt red that the nbp
bad no just cause for the further suspeneionof the writ for.
election for Nottingham. He admitted diet inquiry was l
°_>9
s4ey, but no progress had yet been made in it, and he sa.
a; i,
reason for keepiug the rights of the electors. of Nottiteg'boo-
abeyance, pending that inquiry. The issue of the writ, ioue
ever, would rot prevent inquiry; if he imagines that ote.t it i.
of the writ Would prevent inquiry, he would not vote ly
bur he felt sat i- fied that no such effect would follow. ,ef
Mr. C. WYNN said; that it was perfectly in order lee
Hon. Member, to bring forward any motion, without g_.. 0
previous notice, If an Hon. Alember chose to get tip 2soo
place, and, without haeir g given any previous notice, t° ael
for leave to bring in a Bill for the repeal of the Union, el
would be nothing irregular in his. so doing. The present Pet
stood in precisely the same position as when it was last beeue'd
before the House, and there could be no difficulty ire indo c'
the House to adhere to its former derision.
Captain ROLL ESTON, as one of the electors of the borT'sols
felt it was due to himself, and those whom he knew to be ' or
pable of cenduct such as that described by the non' nee.
' Learned Gentleman, to express a hope that the Hon. Gl,O
man
.had not brought forward his motion without suelo,
grounds. It hail been asserted that, at the two last elect
no no less than 4,000 electors of the town of Nottingham had te
ceived bribes. lie believed that that statement was corree;es
(Hear, hear.) In the position which he occupied, /IWO
he would not
,feel .justified in voting either one way er
other,--( Hear, hear.)
elli
Sir R. INGLIS wished to explain, with respect te,te
had fallen from his Eight Hun. Friend (Sir R. Peel) 1e',,,,
did net attribute the conduct of Ins Hon. Friend, .Sir. G. 'I,
pent,.to ill-health; but what_ he desired to state wad, eit i
health had been such for five weeks before, and also eiat'
proceeding of that House with respect to _ the Noteingtb
.
election petition, that he could not have attended in his r
to meet the arguments of the Hon. and Learned Gentle"
He thought the argument of his Right Ikon. -Friend refs
e
much more to the case of the candidate than'
to that otet
petitioners, who stated that they were no parties to the
tract.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. and Learned Mere! ,
Bath said that he was no party to the proceedings with s'
to Nottingham. He did not indeed kill the dog, but-be
first raised the cry against himee—(Laughter.) The Ho;
L, arned Member had addressed the whole of that side 9'
House in language which he (Sir R. Inglis) ventured,to.
the conduct of some of them at least did not entitle him ",
and he was sure his Right Hon. Friend, the leader 0'
Majesty's Government, would be the first to disown the ''ei
von, Is the-Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had
eel le pleased to attribute to him —( Hear. hear.) He begg
to tell the Hart. and-Learned Member for Bath thst :
....ere many in that House as little disposed to call his
Hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) their master as he himself 5-
(Hear, hear.) No man had a keener sense of the tr. ' '
merits of his Right Hon Friend than he had, but he
to say that he did not call him or any other person ia
House his master.—( Hear, Iter, and laughter' )
Sir R. PEEL raid that rut had stated be thought that id
very peculiar case. An allegation was made that a get• ,
agreeing with a majority of the constituency, had lOdgeds
of money in promoting the return of a party opposed Pie
constituency in political opinions. That he thought._
very important allegation ; and it was desirable that ins -
be-sifted. it was for the interest or' the constituents t'
selves that 4h ev should be enabled threw w hly to iderstae°
.
nature of the transaction.
Strangers were then ordered to withdrew, and the 11
divided, when there appeared— ,
For issuing the writ 4l •
Against it 4..- ai
Majority azainst issuing the writ
' WITNESSES INDEMNITY BILL e
„e
ws cis, i
:i:lndemnity
p r e s
eßnitl 1
Billh a v i
snege
mb eeedn
troe a
bd
e,
The Order of the Day for the third reading of the "'
Mr. ROEBUCK begged leave to state the frog''''
necessary. fhe :
if to he might call it, was not one of a solitary naturi;:4 -
crime of bribery could not be committed without tweo'
what were the consequences of revealing the transaction t';
present state of the mot ality of the world? The erinte
one marked- out and branded by society, but one 'whie",
tolerated, and therefore it was necessary to have a law t°o
demnity the parties giving evidence. It was not an inelaai
inflict punishment, but one on which to found lege;
_enactments. It was said this was a novel proceeding, 111
-Wished to know where was the danger? He hoped the fie
-would grant him this power by granting the Committee, •
. feared, if they denied it, that the inquiry would be hare ,
• - On the question that the Bill be read a third time,
. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, from the eete'p
which the present Bill went, he thought it was frati4i
considerable danger. He would draw the attentions
..ee,
House to the second clause, which empowered the earn/.
at, its discretion, to report to the Howe, certifying teal'
witness who shall be examined, shall be held harmless ";iti
proceedings, and shall be indemnified from all actions,Pe'd
ttehoarti in
mightthe b
have
raovuh
eg
ktehnatomacieghhtefboerethtehesupbajesacithgof
otlfietheie',lo,
and prosecutions, for matters relating to bribery or int'V
t;
No Act of Indemnity had hitherto gone beyond"f
hide' ,e
. the witness himself for the matters concerning Vill're V,
Might be examined. This proposition gave an initivills7
demnity for every act of bribery, intimidation, and carref 0
of which he might have been guilty prior to the passing °se.
Act. He otjectedeo. that portion of the Bill, let, bee'
, carried the indemnity to the whnesses beyond what
cesssry ; and secondly, because it indemnified all d
whose names might be mentioned in the report; Oeseif
without becoming witnesses at .l; were to be indemow
every transaction in which they might ever have been el i
He considered these Bills of Indemnity as more
make witnesses than to elicit truth—(Cheerl)—but he ris
not go the length of opposing the Bill, -but only those llete
it which went beyond established precedents:—(Hear. y,
• Few Bills of this nature had been actually pa-sed. The 6r, 1):e
' in 1605, in Lord Melville 's ease; the next was in P 319,9 ",fe
Barnstaple case; then came the Grampound case in It 'td
the Penryn case in 1829 or 1830. Lastly came the SUS". p'l
He cousieered his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Menril'A',
was Bath, was going beyond established precedent, and '' Fo
clueing a somewhat perilous experiment. The Honed
Learned ..ientleman should not go beyond precedent. l'ils
would comeel no man to criminate himself. IF' tf
and Learned Friend wshed to remove that inipedirnee ets
so far he (the Attorney-General) did not object to the ':
but his Hon. and Learned Friend went further; li-ei
evidence might be withheld, from a dedre not to crire"-J!
friend, and therefore he would indemnify the man's frile,.
well-as himself. Now, to that he (the e ttorney-Geier'lise
jested.. The lave justified a man in protecting himself', tr
protecting his friend , therefore he would say,-let the l'e tie; course. Remove the impediment as respected the m'u
s's
self, self, hat leave him to the law as respected his friend. It '-ell
to be the removal of an impediment, but it was in the P yt
of a bribe. He, therefore, proposed to strike out clael
ff
2, which was the point of difference between himself 00)",
Hon. and. Learned Friend. He should therefde move, ofs
the Bill was read a third time, that this clause should be',
out. He hoped that, on these grounds, the Hon.' Gat
would show that clause to be struck out.
he IP
Sir R. INGLIS said the oljection he had ageinit t'osit';
was an- illustration of the hasty legislation of the Hole✓,
Member for Bath en the subject. The Bill which et!'
leave to bring in, was not the Bill which he now brollPjell
The Bill of the Honourable Gentleman would not lee,'
demnity witnesses, but would indemnify parties..—(Heaft et'd
He would not follow the Attorney-General in his e.,_rgusl7/
but he would say, that if the present Bill passed, 11, • p
which the House had in view would be dearly purchase D fli
Mr. HARDY had great objections to the Bill• pee
monstrous to give indemnity not only to the witness,bo_so,,e
party respecting whom he might give evidence.
-11's ye
were the witnesses to be compelled to give evidence' es'
Bill would prove abortive for the purposes for whiel'
framed, and he should therefore oppose it. con
Mr. O'CONNELL;couId not see that any answeLeefee
be given to the objections raised by. the Attorney- Os'
-against the second clause. He (Mr. O'Connell) OOP e
clause ought to be removed from the Bill. 9
11
Mr. NV YNN concurred in the opinion that witnesse i,
ought to he indemnified.
of' e
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Bill had been drawl!, etl)ti
two of the highest legal authorities, who had been I,"`' rill
cellors of England, and he thought that he was thcrefore
well sanctioned its presenting the Bill to the House ;f r,i,e
es}
mons. If the Hoene would allow him, he would vrithtt et re
clause,, since the general sense of the House was againsl,4) P
Mr. LAW thought that professional men ought to. 00s.ee
tested from giving evidence of privileged communiestltes Pie
Mr. C. BULLER said that unless they acceded t 0
,0 to,/,
,e
visions of this Bill they would be doing an injusl,e‘teiel'it„..
witness, s who were now being examined before the (1,,t Pio'
lately appointed on the motion of the Hon. and Leari.'reetisnlj
I ;
ber ler. Bath. They ought to throw the mantle. of ''te teed
over those witnesses, inasmuch as they were obligedeee o.°
di,clesures which, under ordinary circumstances, tu ' as
not have to do. . ore t0
, c n
.fir. ieeeis LI ar saidi,:that if the But of the INohl
~fferel et
Member for London (Lord J. Russell) had been $
sro °
pass, it would have effected, in a general way, tsb'', "
d .
sought to be obtained in au invidious manner. oil re'
After a few words from Mr. WATSON, the Nl' e..
third time.
On the question being put that the Bill do poet t,erbie
Mr. C. BULLER rose to propose an arnendolez.loot_w?
did not expect would meet with the slightest° Vol .?.ai
to insert " Bridport " in the preamble of the Bill.
,to 007;
Mr. LAW was of opinion that the Bill was VI : e'slie
enough in its operations. e 134" ' - "
The amendment was agreed to without a disoOr sAt
Bill then pasted.
iese
CUSTOMS ACTS.
res,
On the motion that the House do go into nee.' tit tOl. e..e
;
Customs Acts, ftio'
, ..,

Ar. HUME- said he wished to call the attention -
Hon. Baronet to the votes which the House easne,t°„ol,sti)
in his absence, relative to the duty on cotton. an4,ffir.
were both raw materials. It appeared to hire (
that those votes were directly against the princiPles.°:3, tb
Hon. Earoo,:t, and lie wished before the P3s',„`' the IW",
house would consider well what must result I r°:ihis.
to inanitfacturers occasioned by such proceedings 3'f voiee,,,trati
Sir It. PEEL, who spoke in a very low tone
tioeteritailiew
understood to say, that he was aware of the e had` 116
which the Howe came to last night ; but, a:. rev O.
obliged to resort to the Income-tax to raise tI thett(
could not now afford to lose 6110,000/., which was , ;,2e
duceThde House by the d
they ut u
resolved itself into Coincat, pon cottn and wool. ~t e e gt,,,Ptstvico
n
in the caair. iqielell7.
Clause 13 consisting of glass, earthenware,
. • =1;
agreed to without dison.
Clause 14, consist icung o ssif
silk and manufactures s- ate
posed, and the items up to " Thrown silk ,
agreed to without opposdion. On " TI."" etiett
d -PP". the
being proposed, orePalle
Mr. GRIMSDITCiI rose to oppose Le 10 Kete*TA'
of the duty. for which be could see no idausib ,pf-y> °el
contrary, he was of opinion, that if the Pr,ur,h4t.lAlll,,-.lh
ont a, great loss would i(',7rLue:t 'beticat_„; he
the 'silk' tnanu!actureis without tile s'ig"et cirean'sfarir: i"
poorer or lab,urinz clas-es. Linder the,c
•sn;
r ropasrti redu.etion in retecos
Pl,t% ! the posent tiuty:•proent pr
r 30.00
(Hear hear)—and lie did so, Riga'
because th gon.