The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-30 00:00:00

STATE OF SYRIA.

Dr. BOAVRING, seeing the Right Hon. Baronet,
the First Lord of the Treasury, in his place, would
take that opportunity of putting the question of
which he had given notice, respecting the state
of Syria and the mountain districts. He had
heard that a person was sent out armed
with great authority, who had once been a Christian,
and had recently become a Mussulman. This ap-
pointment had given the greatest offence to the Chris-
tian inhabitants of the mountains, and it was reported
that the irregular Albanians, who had formerly com-
mitted the greatest atrocities upon the coast, were
again let loose.—(Loud cries of " Order, order,"
" Question, question.") The question which he had to
ask was, whether Omar Pacha was likely to be re-
moved from the Government of Lebanon, and whether
there was any hope that the Albanian troops would
be removed from their districts on the coasts ?

Sir R. PEEL said, that the object of eie interference
of this country and its allies in the affairs of the East
was, to restore the dominion of Turkey over that part
of its territory upon the eastern shores of the Levant,
and to place the Ottoman Government in the position
of an independent power. He thought, therefore, that
it would be inconsistent with the duty of a British
Minister to answer questions which, in the very way
in which they were put, implied a disposition to inter-
fere too much in the internal affairs of the Turkish em-
pire. On the part of the British Government he declined
all intention of such interference, at the same time
that it would use all its influence to obtain the execu-
tion of any conditions to which British agents had
been pledged.—(Hear, hear.) He had the satisfac-
tion to say that the Five Powers were entirely agreed
in their views respecting the independence of Turkey,
and they were all of opinion that the best policy
for Turkey herself to adopt was, that the Go-
vernment of Syria should be mildly administered.
He had the satisfaction of stating that the Five
Powers took the same view with respect to our policy,
and that they were at present tendering their advice
to the Turkish Government in the most perfect har-
inony. He remained of the same opinion with re-
spect to that policy, and he did not abandon the hope
that a most satisfactory appointment would be made
to the Governorship of Lebanon. He had
also reason to believe that a general assurance
would be given that the Albanian troops
sent to Syria would be employed on the coast, and
not in the interior. He had reason to believe that
chat assurance would be fulfilled. He thought the
Turkish Government would consult their own inter-
est by removing their troops altogether.—(Hear.)
He trusted and believed that the hopes the English Go-
vernment had entertained would be realised. He had
answered the question of the Hon. Gentleman, but
he entreated the House to bear in mind their general
principle with respect to foreign governments ; but he
could not answer for the acts of other governments.
He must say that the English Government would
do what they could to insure confidence and
to obtain the fulfilment of the engagements ; but
further than this he couldnot answer for the acts done
by the Turkish Government.
JUSTICES' JURISDICTION BILL.

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said the House would re-
member that a Bill was passed, which had come down
from the other House, for the purpose of limiting the
jurisdiction of Magistrates at quarter sessions. With
regard to this Bill, he must tell the House that
it was of the utmost importance that the Com-
mission for giving the Royal assent to it and
other Bills should be signed. This Bill was inserted
in that Commission, and could not be excluded from
it, and probably it would be signed within 48 hours.

Now, it so happened that the courts of quarter ses-
sions were sitting at the present moment throughout
England and Wales. The effect of this Bill receiving
the Royal assent just at this moment would be, that
many trials would probably take place in the different
counties of England and Wales, upon which ques-
tions of law might arise, and a difficulty would
occur as to whether those trials took place
when this law was in operation. This diffi-

culty had been felt by the other House of Parliament,
, and they had sent down a Bill for the purpose of pro-
viding that this Bill should not take effect until the
usual time of holding the quarter sessions had expired
He proposed, therefore, that they should on that occa-
sion dispense with the Standing Orders, and that the
Bill should be advanced so many stages as would
enable them in the course of to-morrow to send it up
to the other House of Parliament. He proposed that
the Bill should then be read a first time, and that it
should be advanced one other stage that evening.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he was not at all
satisfied with the statement of the Right Hon. Gentle-
man. It seemed to him that there must be some
extraordinary neglect somewhere, and the House
was aware that there were very severe critisims last
session upon similar neglect on the part of the late
Government.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said he wished the Noble Lord
joy of the opportunity of expressing some of those
feelings with which he had been overpowered since
his retirement from office.—(Laughter.) He did not
claim any exemption from official infirmity, but he
hoped the resentment of the Noble Lord would not
induce him to obstruct the passing of this measure.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he rose for the purpose
of calling,the attention of the House to komething
more important than even the hasty legislation
in question. He had that morning received a letter
containing a notice which had been issued by the
Board of Guardians of the city of Norwich. The
Right Hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer and the Master of the Mint had stated a
few days ago that they doubted whether there was
in fact any scarcity of silver. The notice to which
he had referred, showed not only the existence of
great distress, but also the scarcity of silver. It was
to the following effect—" Notice is hereby given that,
in consequence of the great scarcity of silver
and copper coins, the Guardians of the poor
of this city have been compelled to issue tickets of
ls. and ls. 6d. each in payment of relief granted to
poor persons. Any tradesman or other person ad-
vancing money or goods, or both, upon such
tickets, may receive the full value thereof;
on presenting them at their office in Bridge-street,
in amounts of not less than 10s.--J. Beckwith,
Governor of the Workhouse."—Now what was the
effect of this ? The poor were relieved by one shil-
ling and eighteen-penny tickets issued by the
Guardians, and the Guardians issued a notice
that they would not receive their own tickets
back unless they came before them in amounts of
more than 10s., thus enabling the Guardians, in point
of fact, to give the tradesman a light half-sovereign.
If this practice were to be permitted, the whole coun-
try would be inundated with a small paper currency
at Is. and ls. 6d. He thought that was a matter well
deserving of the attention of her Majesty's Minis-
ters. No one could deny that it proved that
there was a great scarcity of the article of silver.
otwithstanding all this, the poor-rates were
in advance, the City had been mulcted to the
amount of 2,0001. under the denomination of poor-
rates yearly, and, although this had taken place
yearly, distress was upon the increase. He hoped
the Chancellor of the Exchequer would inquire
into the truth of the notice he had read,
and would see that justice was done. He wished to
ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether he was
aware of the scarcity of the silver alluded to, and, if
so, whether her Majesty's Government had taken any
steps upon the subject ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER
could assure the House that he had no infor-
mation of the transaction alluded to, until
the Honourable Member for Finsbury had made
his statement. Though he had received com-
plaints of want of silver from some parts of the coun-
try, he had not done so from the city alluded to by
the Hon. Member. He would certainly make in-
quiries with respect to the notice read by the Hon.
Member for Finsbury, and see that justice was done to
all parties. He could assure the House that every thing
had been done to keep up the amount of silver; the
Mint had been fully employed to do so.
Mr. WALLACE thought the time had arrived
when the people should be called upon to give their
choice as to a silver, or gold currency. It was his in-
tention to put a notice upon the books on
the subject. With respect to the allusion
that had been made as to his notice with respect to
the Bribery Bill, whatever concessions were made in
that measure, he should feel bound to bring his mo-
tion forward.
After a few observations from Col. SIBTHORP,
the Bill was read a first and second tile, and ordered
to be committed to-morrow.
ELECTION PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE.
Mr. ROEBUCK brought up a Report of the Elec-
tion Proceedings Committee. [The Report, which
was read at length by the Clerk at the table, stated
that the Committee, after considering the best mode
of carrying on the inquiry in which they were en-
gaged, had unanimously resolved that it was de-
sirable that no parties should be present, except
the witnesses under examination. The Commit-
tee had determined to call the attention of the

House to that subject, in the hope that the unanimous
resolution they had come to would receive the sanc-
tion of the House.]
The question having been put, that the Report
should be laid on the table,
Mr. ROEBUCK rose and said, that he had a few
remarks to submit to the House upon the subject of
the Report which had just been read. He trusted
that the House, after hearing the reasons which had
actuated the Committee, would, in the language of the
Report, sanction the course they had pursued. In the
first place, there was no intention on the part of the
Committee to dispute the privileges of any Member
of the House. They had now called in question the
right of Members to be present during the examination
ofwitnesses, but they thought they would best discharge
the duty imposed upon them by the House, if, while
they felt that their paramount object was to arrive at
the truth, they should endeavour to obtain it with
the slightest possible pain to individuals. If they
could reconcile those two objects he thought that
they would best discharge the duty entrusted
to their care. The House had delegated powers
to the Committee for purposes of general
inquiry ; but the House could have had no
desire to fix on them an invidious duty. It was no
doubt desirable that proceedings of an improper cha-
racter should be brought to light, so that the House
might be enabled to adopt some legislative measure
which might prevent their repetition ; but he believed
that there was no desire on the part of the House,
while it wished to have the inquiry conducted on the
broadest possible principles, that unnecessary
pain should be given to individuals. They con-
ceived they would be best performing their duty,
if, when a witness was called before them who
was willing to tell what he knew, they received his
evidence in the manner which would be least painful
to him by not permitting it to be printed abroad,
which it would be if it were an open Committee.--
(Hear, hear.) It would appear from day to day in
the newspapers. It might be said, that if Members
were admitted it was not likely they would be
made instruments for conveying what had taken
place before the Committee ; that was very true,
and he (Mr. R.) believed they would not ; but
if they were admitted, there would be no safeguard—
no responsibility resting with any person that their
proceedings would not be made public.—(Hear.)
He would state to the House the circumstmees
which took place, and which induced them to take
such steps. On the first day of their proceedings, the
Hon. Member for Harwich was called before them ;
and he would state what took place.—(Cries of " Or-
der, order.") He would state the substance of it.
—(Cries of " No, no.")
Mr. ESCOTT rose to order. He conceived no
Member had a right to state what took place before
the Committee.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber could not allude to what took place before the
Committee until the Committee had made its Report.
Mr. ROEBUCK hoped there would be nothing in-
terposed between him and a fair statement of the cir-
cumstances ; nothing which would defeat the object of
the inquiry he trusted there would be no fighting
within proper questions, no shrinking back on the part
of those who were so ready to accuse.—(Hear, hear.)
He wanted to know if the House would go so far
back from the Committee it had appointed, and would
not give them fair support in carrying out the
object it delegated to them to inquire into?
Suppose this difficulty arose, that they should, to-
morrow, be obliged to explain to a Meinber the way
in which they had determined to proceed, the Com-
mittee would have to make a statement to that
Member which would involve a breach of the rules
of the House, and with a sense of the duty they
had to perform they were desirous to avoid in
any way infringing en the rules of the House. To
guard against the possibility of such an occurrence,
they implored the House to sanction the course of
proceeding which would be the means of attaining
the object which the House desired. The Committee
were unanimous on every point which came before
them, and on this they felt particularly strongly,
and had directed him to express their feelings
on it to the House. What was the Committee
to do ? They could only state their desire on
the matter to Honourable Members. In every
such case the Member so addressed, declared that he
did not wish to militate ag:ainst the wishes of the
Committee ; but they could not expect that that
course would be always pursued by Members, unless

the House sanctioned the course adopted by the Com-
mittee. It would possibly soften the feelings of Hon.
Members on the subject, when he informed
them that they had nearly got through
the whole of the business delegated to them, and that
they were in a condition to exclude Members who
entered the Committee without being members of it,
by the ordinary rules of the House ; but, lest they
should be supposed to militate against the rules and
privileges of the House, and they were anxious to so-
licit the sanction of the House for their present course
till the Report was laid on the table, and when the
Report was laid on the table they would challenge
the most searching inquiry upon every question on
which they should have decided. If there should be
found any one to complain of any portion of the
inquiry—of any single thing they had done, then
he was ready to say that they ought not to have pur-
-1 sued the course which they had. But, recollecting
that the House had had confidence in the Committee,
and had delegated authority to it, all they desired_
was, that each Member should exhibit forbearance
in his individual capacity upon • this subject.
The motion of the Hon. Member opposite went to
order, not only. that Members should be ad-
mitted, but that all those whom lie was pleased to
denominate accused parties, should be excluded also.
Now all those who were denominated accused parties by
the Hon. Member were each admitted to give his own
account of the transaction. He was informed of all
that had been said respecting himself; and he was
permitted to give his own account of the transaction
in the manner the least painful to himself. He was
sure that the complaints had not come from any Hon.
Member who had undergone an examinatian before
the Committee; he was sure that every Member, who
had been examined, would say that nothing could be
open to the slightest objection in the manner in which
the examination had been conducted. He would ask
the Hon. Member for Oxford, why he was so ex-
tremely desirous now of interrupting the proceedings
of the Committee ? Had it not been for these inter-
ruptions the Committee would have finished its labours
on Saturday. As it was they would not be able to finish
before Wednesday or 'Thursday. He would ask
Hon. Members to wait until the Report should be laid.
on the table, when every word of evidence that had
been taken would appear; and if any one had any
complaint to make, then would be the time.—(Cries
of " Oh, oh," and cheers.) The inquiry would be
crippled if it were gone into publicly. The moment
the public were admitted, every witness would neces-
sarily be required to be subjected to cross-examina-
tion.—(Cheers.) That might be a proceeding very
agreeable to some parties, but the inquiry was not in-
stituted for the sake of crimination. It was de„.
sirable to discover the process by which these
things had been effected, as illustrations of
a fact. If the public were admitted, the proceed-
ings of the Committee would go forth to the public
day by day; every little incident would be noted and
perhaps misrepresented, and individuals would be
held up to public obloquy ; whereas, by not suffering
any of the proceedings to go forth until the Report
should be made, the whole would appear together,
and there would be no individual who could
be singled out for the finger of scorn to be pointed at.
For these reasons, he trusted the House would con-
tinue to repose the same confidence in the Committee
which they had hitherto done.
Major BERESFORD said he had been appealed
to as one of the Members examined before the Com-
mittee. He had already stated that the demeanour
of the Committee had been kind and courteous ; but
he again stated publicly that he appealed against
the very formation and constitution of the Committee.
He did impugn this system of secret examination,
not because he wished to shrink from public inquiry ;
he rather wished, as the accusations against him had
been made publicly, to court a public investigation,
He should have preferred it being brought forward in
an English and constitutional manner, and in accord-
ance with the recorded means and mode of conducting
an English judicial inquiry, when 4he charges might
be made in the face of day. It was a revival of the
Court of Star Chamber, and by a happy coincidence,
it was in the old prison of that Court the Committee
held its sittings—(oh, oh !)—where the light of day
was excluded from their proceedings. In the beginning
of May. he recollected the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bath said—

The SPEAKER called the Hon. Member to order;
he could not refer to the expressions of an Hon,. Mem-
ber in a former debate.

Major BERESFORD resumed—He claimed the
same privileges as were secured by the constitution to
every criminal who was placed even at the bar of a
criminal court, to hear what the evidence was against
him—what was the crime with which he was charged,
and what was the character of the witnesses who were to
support it. The worst criminal had counsel appointed
to him by the court, to assist him in his defence, and
if he was a foreigner, an interpreter was supplied at
the public expense. Although the course vursued by
the Committee was against any principle of law and jus-
tice recognised in this country, he was hound to ac-
knowledge that it was not their wish to inflict pain upon
any individual, but yet their private inquiry, and their
exclusion of the accused, was worthy only of those times
when the chair, ;which was graced by the present
Speaker, was occupied by a Lenthall, or usurped by
a Charles.

Col. SIBTIIORP had heard with great satisfac-
tion the lion. and Gallant Gentleman who had just sat
down. The Hon. and Learned Member for Bath
said that he did not wish to inflict anything painful
on any person. He (Col. Sibthorp) would ask how
it was that an Hon. Gentleman, who was lately a
Member of that House, was called to the bar of that
House—not a very enviable situation—to be examined
by the House ? He (Col. Sibthorp) was much hurt
that the Right Hon. Baronet, the First Lord of the
Treasury, had, in the fit of a moment, sanctioned
the appointment of that Committee, for he regarded
it as little else than a Committee of secret assassination.
Ile did not shrink from stating everything concerning
his election; but before such a Committee he would
not have answered one word. He should, therefore,
take the sense of the House on the motion of which he
had given notice, that the order for appointing the
Committee on Election Proceedings be forthwith dis-
charged. _ _

Vie motion having been seconded,
Lord JOHN'RU SSELL said, if he understood
the Hon. and Learned Member rightly, he had stated
that the Committee would be enabled to carry on
their proceedings to much better advantage if no
Members, but those belonging to the Committee, were
admitted. Now be (Lord J. Russell) had every dis-
position to give confidence to the Committee, believing
it to be an extremely well selected one; hut if the
Hon. and Learned Member had made the motion of
which he had given notice, that no :Member but those
belonging to the Committee should be admitted, he
could not have assented to that motion, be-
cause he could not interfere with the right
of Members to be present at the examina-
tion before the Committee. 'With respect to the
generality of Members, he was sure no Mem-
ber, from idle curiosity, would attend ; but with respect
to the Members who were concerned in the inquiry,
and although they were not impeached or indicted,
they might feel their characters concerned, and were
desirous to be present, and he (Lord J. Russell) for
one, could not vote for the exclusion of such a Member.
They had been informed that the Committee were
now near the end of their labours, and as the House
had every reason to confide in the manner in
which the inquiry had been conducted, he hoped
that the object the Committee had in view
might be obtained by the general absence of Members
during the proceedings. The Committee was com-
posed of Members of all parties, and he was persuaded
that their only wish was to elicit truth and do
justice to all. But he should at the same time
state, that he could not concur in any positive
vote by which Members interested in the inquiry
would be excluded. With respect to the motion of
the Hon. and Gallant Member opposite (Col. Sib-
therp), he need hardly say that he could not approve
of it. The proper mode of objecting to the
inquiry would have been to divide the House
at the time the motion was made for appoint-
. ing the Committee. 'He did not think it would.
be at all proper that the Committee should be
now dissolved by a vote of the House. He was glad
to hear that their proceedings had been harmoniously
conducted, for, if he had understood Fight,
their resolutions had hitherto been unanimous.
Ile was persuaded that the only way in which any
bentfit could be derived from the investigation must
be by a persuasion on the part of the House and thecountry that the Members of the Committ!e. had dis-
charged their duty with a view to the public interest,
and not for the salte of
viduals.—(Hear, hear.) punishing or exposing indi-
Sir R. PEEL said, that he need scarcel3, say that
it was his intention to offer a decided opposition to the
motion of his Hon. and Gallant Friend. He could
assure the House that he had not given his assent
to the formation of the Committee in a moment of
haste or forgetfulness: and that he did not repent of
the vote he had given in favour of an inquiry
into the allegations made in that House. He
had further to say, that he very much doubted
whether the authority and credit of-the House would
not suffer
if the House had shown a disposition to
resist all inquiry into those matters. He thought that
if such strong objections were felt to the course
that had been pursued, it would have beeu
. better to have stated those objections at the time
the Committee was appointed, rather than
to urge exceptions which were not pressed, at least
to an equal extent, when the original proposition
was made.—(Hear.) He had given his consent .to
the inquiry upon exactly the same grounds on
which the House had appointed similar Committees
on other occasions. In the case of the Yarmouth,

the StaffOrd, and the Liverpool Election Committees,
the House had not thought -that the failure
of the inquiry before those Committees pre-
cluded it from excercising its ge ieral powers cf

inquisition, for the purpose of preventing bribery
or corruption. At the same time, he stated it would
not be fair to select individuals concerned in compro-
mises for the purpose of holding them up to public
odium.—(Hear.) The object of the inquiry was not
a personal one. It was for the purpose of laying such
filets before the House as would enable them to legis-
late on the subject; and he thought the Committee
had acted fairly in directing the investigation to that
end. With regard to the particular proposition
before the House, he did not know, after the reading
the Report, what motion could be practically made
upon it.—(Hear, hear.) He did not see any alter-
native between leaving the Committee, constituted as
it was, with its present powers, and making it a
secret Committee.—(Hear, hear.) If the Committee
were left as it was originally constituted, Members
would have the right of being present, and it was a
matter of individual discretion whether they would be
present or not. He would, as far as he was concerned
himself, waive his individual right to be present.—
(Hear, hear.) He was of opinion the Committee
should be left with its present powers, or that it
should be made a secret Committee, for there was no
alternative.

Sir R. INGLIS would not view the question in the
light of individual Members having a right to be
present. He thought that the accused party
had always a right to be present in the court
when they were accused, and he looked upon
the Committee in the light of a court of justice.
According to the common principles of the law of
England, the persons accused before this Committee
were entitled to know who their accusers were, and
who were the witnesses; they were also entitled to be
present at the examination. Now, he would go
further and say that they had a right to be
assisted by prpfessional advice. This ought not to be
a tribunal where alone, of all the tribunals of the
kingdom, the person, whose innocence was to be
proved, should be deprifbd of the means of proving it.
Mr. O'CONNELL thought that the Zion. Gentle-
man ought to have jrxempted the Belfast Committee
from his censure, bedause the Membitiss of that Com-
mittee had unanimously agreed that the inquiry should
be an open one.
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said that, although the
Committee of which the Right Hon. Gentleman was
Chairman, had opened the doors of their Committee-
room to the public, yet they might if they
chose to-morrow adopt a very different course
Hu objected on principle to the course which had been
adopted. .

gr. F. SHAW considered that they were in substance
discussing whether the House would sanction the Com-
mittee in keeping their proceedingS secret. So long as
the Committee had chosen to exercise their own discre-
tion on the subje:!t. he (Mr. F. Shaw) did not feel himself
called upon to interfere; but if he were called upon to
give the sanction of the House to their proceedings, and
if silence were supposed to give consent, he must say that
he for • one protested against anything like secret in-
quiries.—(Cheers.) It was contrary to all our notions
of English jurisprudence. Every British subject, who was
accused of any crime, had a right to be confronted with
his accuser—to be brought face to face with him—to
know who brought the accusation, how he brought it, and
to subject his accuser to cross- examination. —(Loud
cheers.) Publicity was the best guardian of justice ;
publicity might sometimes be attended with inconveni-
ence, but it was necessary for the efficient administra-
tion of justice that it should be open and public.
Mr.. S. CRAWFORD rose, amidst loud cries of
" Divide." He was understood to say that he should
not sanction the proposition of the Hon. Member for
Bath.

The gallery was then ordered to be cleared, but
Mr. M. MILNES rose, amidst much confuSion and
efies of" Divide " He explained his reasons for voting
against the amendment of the Gallant Colonel. He had
opposed the appointment of the Committe at first, as
injurious, but- nevertheless he should now vote for the
motion.

Strangers were again ordered to withdraw, but no
division took place, and on our return we found
Mr. STAFFORD O'BRIEN trusting that the Hon.
Gentleman would demand admittance to the Committee
as a Member, and thus, according to the pledge he had
given, bring the question fairly- before the House.
Mr. ROEBUCK: said, after the opinion given by the
Noble Lord, and the expressed opinion of the Right
Hon. Baronet, and after the general feeling of the House,
expressed as it was, he was perfectly willing not to press
the question.—(Cheers.) The good taste and feeling of
Members would teach them that they would best dis-
charge their duty to the House in the present state of
the question.—(The latter part of the sentence was lost
in the cheering which followed.)

Mr. EsTCOUR'r rose amidst loud cries of " Di-
vide, divide." He wished to know if the Hon. and
Learned Member could point out to him any tribunal
in which English justice was administered, where the
party accused was refused admission when the witnesses
were being examined against hint. Was he to be
told that the Hon. Gentleman, the late Member
for Nottingham, Sir G. De Larpent, who was a candi-
date for Nottingham, the Hon. Member for Bridport,
amt.
whom he would not run through--(Roars of laughter)—
he would ask if the lion. Member considered it justice
to them? It was stated that this Committee would
prove to the House that there had been something wrong
—something corrupt. Was not that an accusa-
tion ? He would not refer to the debate in
which the Honourable and Learned Member had
spoken on this subject. He would refer to the
Oedwr of the House appointing that Committee. On
that occasion it was stated that corrupt compromises had
been entered into. Vas not that an accusation? And
how could the inquiry be conducted, unless the party
accused were allowed to hear the charge ? As the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman knew, at the beginning
of the proceedings he (Mr. Estcourt) was ready to vote
for the Committee. His objection was not to the Com-
mittee, but to the manner in which the proceedings were
commenced when the Committee began to sit, contrary
to the, principle of law and justice. For these reasons
he should vote against further inquiry.

After a few words from Mr: O'BRIEN the House
divided. when there appeared—

For the original motion....
For chi.. amendment

MAjority for the motion

On nur admission into the gallery we found

-132

.11r. ROEBUCK moving that Mr. Cochrane should
attend the Committee and give evidence on Monday next.
Mr, COCHRANE was sorry to be again called upon
to add :es the House, and when he begged to apologise for
trespassing on its time, he must be permitted to say tLat
the fault aid not rest with him, because, had not the
House and the Right Hon. Baronet acceeded to the mo-
tion of the lion. Member for Bath, the Committee woUld
never have been appointed. Charges had been made
against hint (Mr. C.), and those charges had been rebut-
ted by him by a full and fair statement in a public news-
paper, and those statements he would now again repeat.
He had roquested that the Committee should be ap-
pointed, and at the time he did so, he did not expect that
he should be called before it—( a laugh)—his reason for
requesting that the Committee might be appointed was,
that Mr. Wnrburrton might have a full opportunity of
nicking clear any charge that might be thought to
have been- brought against him. He-had no wish to be
examined before the Committee, or turn informer against
the borough of B:idport. The particular reason why
be did not accede to the reqlkst to attend the Commit-
tee was one which he was certain the House would pay
attention to. and think reasonable, as it was one personal
to himself. There had been indictments pend-
ing against him in the county of Dorset ever since
he had been returned for the borough, and those
indictments had not yet been disposed of. Now, he
would ask any Honourable Member, whether it would
be fair to compel him to appear before the Committee,
and to make statements which might inculpate himself
tinder the circumstances in which he was placed ? Any
Member of the Committee would have it in his power to
prove, in Dorsetshire, the statements which he (Mr. B.
Cochrane) might make, and they would would thus mili-
tate agaiiisc himself. He did not wish to cast any re-
fiwtioni on the Committee generally, but he should say
tharthe Hon. and Learned Member for Bath had not,
as he thought, acted impartially towards him. What
was the object of the Committee ? It was, as
far as reearded him, that certain statements of Mr.
Warbuton's should be inquired into ; but the Ho-
nourable and Learned Member for Bath seemed
determined on keeping Mr. Warburton's examination to
the last, so that he (Mr. B. Cochrane) would have no
opportunity of refuting charges which Mr. Warburton
-might bring against him.—(Hear. hear.) He and his
1-lon. Colleague (Mr. Mitchell) had been ordered to at-
tend that day, while Mr. Warburton would not be
called upon to give his evidence till some future period.
Be would ask the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath
if that were not the case ?—[Mr. Roebuck was under-
stood to say that it was.] Now he (Mr. B. Coch-
rane) did not think that that was a fair
mode of proceeding.—(Hear.) But the parti-
cular ground upon which he objected to appear
before the Committee was, that there were indictments
against him,iiptd under those circumstances he did not
-wish to give illy evidence which might convict himself.
There were also certain public grounds, although he
should not have thought them sufficient in themselves,
which induced him not to attend. The proceedings of
the Committee were unparalleled in history. They
were secret proceedings ; parties had no opportunity of
confronting their accusers, and the judges were not res-
onsikle. Ha was certainly surprised to fines, that the
Noble Lord, the Member for London, should ba a party
to such proceedings. He had lately been reading a
work of the Noble Lord's, relatiw to civil liberty. He
believed it was written many years ago—(A laugh)—
in which the Noble Lord, when enumerating the advan-
tages of the British Constitution concluded as follows :
" We must never forget, however, that there is yet an-
other security which is,:prerhalr,sn, ore valuable than any
other, that the trials lic, that th-i accused is
brought face to face with cir
was he
before the coun-
try."—
(Hear, hear.) How to know what Mr.
Warburton stated when he went before the Committee ?
or that he would not be convicting himself in every word
he stated ? Having said this, would leave it to the
House to decide whether he should attend the Committee,
.should he ould bow to that decision,
sacrificing
he
was perfectly aware that in doing so he was
great principle, he was conscious that he cwrolueldingbea
sacrificing a still greater one in not performing what he
considered his duty to the House.—(Hear.) But he would
say this openly, and in the face of the House
and in pite of any consequences that might resnit---h
would a, there firmly to it, that he would produce no do-
cuments and would not answer a single question that
might in the very shadow of a degree compromise, or
even castes, slur on the character of any one person in the.
borough hie lotd hand to represent.—(Conservative

cheerE.) Though he might bow to the authority of the
House in attending before the Committee, he considered
there was no command superior to a point of honour in
a man's own breast.—(Cheers.) And no human autho-
rity whatever which could sanction the violation of the
confidence reposed in him.—(Cheers.)
lir. ROEBUCK was understood to say that the Com-
mittee made it a rule that the Members of that House
shonld be examined first; but if the Hon. Member ob-
jected to that, Mr. Warburton might be examined, not
before the Hon. Gentleman in point of time, but before
his face. .

Mr. MITCHELL said that he had just now given his
vote for the continance of the Committee, but in
doing so he wished to be understood that he by no
means considered that vote would bar him in any shape
from attending as a Member of the House from being
present when the evidence with regard to Bridport
came before the Committee. At the same time it was
his intention to go before the Committee and state every
thing which he knew, except that which might affect
criminally or morally any other person.
Mr. LIDDELL said that it was possible the Hon.
Member for Bridport would be called on to`give evidence
which would damage his own character, and that he
(Mr. Liddell) did not consider just.. He thought that
the Hon. Gentleman ought to be called on to give evi-
dence before the Committee as long as the indictments
were pending. He (Mr. Liddell) could not consent to
any lion. Member in the position in which the Hon.
Member for Bridport, was to be called on to give evi-
dence which might criminate himself, and might pre-
judice the settlement of the indictments.
Sir R. PEEL said he must have misunderstood the
speech of the Hon. Member for Bridport on a former
occasion, because he understood him to be exceedingly
anxious to have an opportunity for fully investigating
the matter. When the Hon. Member• had expressed a
hope that the Bridport case should be referred to the
Committee, he (Sir R. Peel) had certainly thought that
he had done so with a view of having the investigation
in this case on the same principle as that of the
others. He (Sir Robert Peel) could not help
thinking that, considering the very, natural wish
which gentlemen, conscious of their innocence, had
to have the Committee appointed, if he (Sir R. Peel)
i had thrown any obstacles n the way of it, he should be
justly blamed. He had not understood the Hon. Mem-
ber to say that Mr. Warburton alone should be exa-
mined. He understood the object of the Hon. Gentle-
man was merely to ask for an inquiry. He (Sir R.
Peel) thought that the objection to the examination, on
account of the suits pending, should be stated before
the Committee,. as in the case of Mr. Fleming. There
was another point to which he wished to call
the attention of the House, because of the in-
convenience of establishing any new precedent on
this subject, without mature deliberation. On a
question so important, and in which a constitu-
tional right was involved, he thought they ought to
look at the instances in which the House had compelled
the attendance of Members at Committees. He was
not sure that there was any precedent of that kind.
He believed there were cases in which application had
been made from Committees far the attendance of Mem-
bers, but then it gas doubtful whether, in those cases,
the consent of the Members themselves was not pro-
cured. In the first instance, he should wish to appeal
to the high authority of the Speaker, to state what ap-
peared to be the usage of the House with respect to or-
dering Members of the House to attend before Com-
mittees.

The SPEAKER said he had examined the Journals
of the House, and he found no case upon them of an
order inade by the House upon any Member to attend
a Committee. He found cases in which Members
had refused to attend Committees and be examined,
and the House resolved that when this occurred, the
Committee should report the name of that Member to
the House. On an inquiry relating to the abolition of
the Slave Trade, the Committee supposed that Sir G.
Brooke, a Member of the House, could give important
information, and the House then resolved that it be an
instruction to the Committee, that he be called before it
and examined, if he should think fit to do so. In 1782,
Mr. Barlow, a Member, was called before a Committee, and
he refused to answer certain questions, and the Com-
mittee reported the fact to the House, and Mr. Barlow
being in his place consented to go before the Committee;
but lie had been able to find no case in which the House
had made an order on a Member to attend before any
Committee.

Sir ROBERT PEEL said, that this authority must, he
thought, be decisive ; but it appeared to him that sonic
such proceeding as a Committee to search for prece-
dents would be desirable before they adopted any other
course, particularly after the manifestation of opinion
made by the Hon. Member.
Mr. COCHRANE explained.
Mr. ROEBUCK thought that after all that had passed
it would be extremely desirable that the Committee
should be relieved from the further prosecution of the
inquiry, as far as it related to the borough of Bridport.
That inquiry had been forced upon the Committee by
the House, and if it was desired that the inquiry should
be pursued by the Committee, the House ought to afford
them the means of doing so.
Lord JOHN MANNERS thought it would be exceed-
ingly advisable that all further proceedings relating to
the Bridport Election should be dropped. The prece-
dent in the case of Sir George Brooke, was decidedly
against the granting the ;motion of the Hon. Member
•

Mr. O'CONNELLsaid that there was no precedent, it
appeared, for compeiiing the attendance of a Member
before a Committee, but on theother hand there was no
precedent such as that they would be making, if they
were to negative the present motion. They ought to
adopt some middle course, so as to avoid establishing a
precedent either way.
After a few words from Mr. SMYTHE,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said it would be a matter of
serious consequence to have it supposed that the House
had not. the power to order the attendance of Members
before the Committee. He was inclined to propose that
the debate should be adjourned until to-morrow or Fri-
day.

Mr. ATTWOOD said there was no precedent for
alopting the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Bath.
Lord POLLLNGTON said he did not think a Member
of that House should be placed in a different situation to
a Mcniber of the other House of Parliament, with respect
to his examination before a Committee.

Mr, DARBY did not object to the inquiry, but he did
to the mode which had been adopted for conducting it.
Mr. E. YORKE was ready to identify himself with
every proceeding of the Hon. Member for Bath—for he
was hound to say that he had never seen any gentleman
act a more honourable or delicate part to every indi-
vidual t.lan the Hon. Member.

The debate was then adjourned to Monday.
Sir R. PEEL would now move, with the permission of
the House, for a Committee to search for precedents
as to the usage of the Hcuse to order the attendance of
Members on Committees. The Right Hon. Baronet
then proceeded to name the Committee as follows :
Lord J. Russell, Mr. Goulburn, Sir George Grey, Sir
George Clerk, Sir Robert Inglis, Mr. Charles Wood,
Sir Thomas Acland, Mr. Bernal and Mr. Greene.—
Agreed to.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
Mr. MACKINNON gave notice that he should post-
pone his motion for a new writ for the town of South-
ampton, as he was aware that the understanding was
when the question had been last before the House, that
no further proceeding should be taken in the case until
the Report of the Committee was made public. As soon
as the Report was laid on the table, he should move the
issuing of the writ.
Mr. ESCOTT wished to say a few words before the
motion was withdrawn. The writ for the election of
Members for the borough of Southampton was now de-
tained for six weeks, and during the whole of that time,
those persons who were not guilty of, bribery at the late
election, had a right to be represented in that House.
The parties who were guilty of bribery were known, and
mirb t be prosecuted.
Mr. HUME rose to order. He believed the Hon.
Member was speaking after the motion had been post-
poned.
The SPEAKER said the question was not put.
Mr. ESCOTT was not surprised at the interruption
of the Hon. Gentleman. He always saw a desire on the
other side of the House to suppress the rights of the sub-
ject.—(lronical cheers from the Opposition.) He did
not see why those who were innocent, and were not
guilty of corrupt practices should be punished, because
there were some electors who received bribes. He could
not understand on what principle the writ was suspended,
and he protested against it.

Mr. I.IITME was sorry the lion. Member should stand
up and accuse them of infringing the liberty of the sub-
ject. He did not consider that either himself or any one
else on that side of the House had been guilty of such
conduct.

Mr. ESCOTT explained.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP the
matter dropped.

SUDBURY DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL.

On the Order of the Day for the third reading of
the Sudbury Disfranchisement Bill being read,
Mr. BLACKSTONE moved the following amendment
and clause :—" In line 14, after the words •passing of
this Act,' be held and considered as comprising within
its limits the hundred of Babergh, in the county of Suf-
folk, and the hamlet of Ballingdon cum Brandon, in the
county of Essex, and that the right of voting for any
burgess or burgesses to serve in Parliament for the said
borough of Sudbury be hereafter vested in those per-
sons residing within the said hundred of Babergh and
the said hamlet of Ballingdon cum Brundon. having the
qualification required as electors for cities and boroughs
under the Act 2 Will. 4, c. 45." And be it further en-
acted, that from and:after the passing of this Act, the
folimving persons whose names are hereinafter inserted,
be disqualified from voting at all future elections for the
borough of Sudbury, riz.: John Francis Sykes Gorday,
William Warner, Thomas Goody, James Bell Johnson,
Francis Making, James Bro Am, Thomas Brown, Charles
King, Richard Steed, WilliaM Jolladay, Samuel Shel-
ler, and Joseph Wheeler, junior."
The Hos. MEMBER was proceeding with his argument
-when he was interrupted by an Hort. MEMBER on the
Ministerial benches observing that there were not forty
Members present.
The House therefore adjourned at Eight o'Clock.

-
Thursday afternoon Mr. Higgs held an inquest at
the George the Fourth, Gilbert's-passage, Clare-market, on
the body of James Serjeant, aged 38, an attorney's clerk.
From the evidence of cleaned's wife, it appeared that en Sun-
day morning last, between four and five o'clock, he was seised,
whilst in bed, with a fit of couching. He arose, and brims-
diately afterwards blood, at first liquid, but afterwards clot-
ted, gushed from his month to the extent of a wash-hand
basin full. A surgeon was sent for, bet in the meantime
deceased expired. He was subject to asthma. Mr. John
Phillipps, assistant to Mr. G. A. Walker, surgeon, Drury-
lane, attended directly he was called. He found him dead,
and believed that death was the result of rupture of the pul.
monary artery. Verdiet—'. Natural death, through the rup-
ture of a blood venel."