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

CORN-LAWS.

Lord CAMPBELL, in the absence of the Marquis of
Breadalbane, presented seven petitions from various
places in Scotland, against any duty in the importation
of Corn ; and two petitions from the Counties of Down
and Londonderry, for a revision of the law relating to
Mixed Marriages.
LAW OF EVIDENCE IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Lord DEN MAN said, he wished to mention the order
of the day for the Law of Evidence Improvement Bill,
and as there was some difference of opinion on the sub-
ject, instead of the Bill being reported to-day, he begged
to move that it be referred to a Select Committee on
Monday.—Agreed to.
The Committee was then appointed, and the House
adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 28.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour.
LICHFIELD ELECTION.

Mr. DIVETT, as Chairman of the Committee, ap-
pointed to try the merits of the petition against the re-
turn for the Borough of Lichfield, reported to the House
that Lord Alfred Paget was duly -electel to serve in the
present Parliament for the said Borough.
BLACKBURN ELECTION.

Sir EDMUND HAYES, as Chairman of the Com-
mittee appointed to try the merits of the petition against
the return for the Borough of Blackburn, reported to the
House that Mr. Hornby was duly elected to serve in the
present Parliament for the said Borough.
LONDON AND BLACKWALL RAILWAY.

On the motion of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, the 351 for
altering and amending the London and Blackwall Rail-
way Bill was read a third time and passed, after the ad-
dition of a clause by way of rider, to compel steamboats
to land their passengers at Brunswick wharf.
PRIVATE BILLS.
The Huish Champflower Inclosure Bill ; the Glasgow
and Redburn Bridge Road Bill ; the Sheffield, Ashton-
under-Lyne, and Manchester Railway Bill ; and the
Great Torrington Market Bill, were severally read a third
time and passed.
The Bromyard Roads Bill ; the Argyll Roads Bill ;
the Wicklow Harbour Bill ; and the Bill for Incorpor-
ating the North American Colonial Association of Ire-
land, were severally read a second time and passed.
THE TARIFF.

Mr. MUNTZ presented a petition from the tanners,
boot • and shoemakers, and persons concerned in the
leather trade of Birmingham, against the reduction of
the duty on foreign manufactured leather.
COLLEGE OF MAYNOOTH.

Mr. PLUMPTRE presented several petitions, signed
by upwards of 4,000 people, and thirty-five petitions
from Wesleyan congregations, against any further grant
to the College of Maynooth.
BETTER OBSERVANCE 01? THE SABBATH.

Mr. NEILL presented a petition praying the House
to pass some legislative enactment for the better observ-
ance of the Sabbath.

NATIONAL EDUCATION (IRELAND).
Colonel ACTON presented several petitions from
places in Ireland, against the present system of National
Education, and approving of the plan proposed by the
Church Education Society.
INCOME-TAX.

Mr. GREENE presented petitions from the attorneys
and solicitors of Lancaster, complaining of the stamp-du-
ties which they had to pay, and praying that in the In-
come-tax Bill provisions may be made suitable to their
peculiar position.
Mr. CHRISTOPHER presented a petition from Port
Philip, in New South Wales, signed by upwards of 1,000
inhabitants, praying for a local Government independent
of the Government of Sydney.
Mr. BLEWITT presented a petition from the rope-
rc akers of the port of London against the proposed altera-
tions in the tariff affecting their trade.
Mr. HOGG presented a petition from the Mechanics'
Institute of Beverley, praying that places employed for
the instruction of adults might be exempted from the
payment of rates and taxes.
CHURCH EDUCATION SOCIETY.

Mr. SHAW presented some petitions from Down and
Antrim, praying for aid for the erection of schools in
connexion with the Church Education Society.
BUDE LIGHT.

Mr. HODGSON HINDE presented a petition from
a gentleman, whose name did not reach the gallery,
stating that he was the inventor of the Bude Light,
and that hearing a Select Committee was about to report
to the House on the remuneration to be given to Mr.
Gurney, for the benefit his Bude-light lamps had done
the House, he (the petitioner) prayed that his petition
might be referred to the same Committee, in order that
he might have an opportunity of establishing his claim.
ATTORNEYS CERTIFICATES 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.
READING 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 :—Mr. C. W. Hogg, Chairman ; Lord Sey-
mour, the Hon. Henry Howard, Mr. Charles Buller,
Mr. W. T. Egerton, Mr. T. W. Bramstone.

The ComMittee will commence their sittings at eleven
o'clock to-morrow.
PENRYN ELECTION COMMITTEE.

The following Hon. Gentlemen were called over as the
Members of this Committee :—Mr. G. T. Brooke, the
Hon. R. 0. Cave, Mr. C. Wood, Major C. CuMmiog
Bruce, Mr. J. Hardy, Mr. G. P. Scrope, Mr. C.W. Pack.
Major C. Bruce did not answer, and the swearing was
put off a short time.
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 H. H. INGLIS presented a petition from the in-
cumbent of Kingston, in Gloucestershire, praying the
House 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 the House.

The Committee was appointed to meet at one o'clock
to-morrow.

SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION COMMITTEE.

Mr. REDINGTON brought up a Report from the
::,outhampton-Election Committee, stating that William
Roes 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 certain documents in his possession, he (Mr
Redington) as Chairman of that Committee had com-
mitted the said William Rous Nabson to the custody of
the Sergeant-at. Arms, to await the pleasure of the House.
He was sorry, on the part of this Committee, to be
obliged to appeal to the House. 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 Rous Nabson be committed to the gaol of
Newgate. •
Sir V. BLAKE 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 respecting which it was supposed the Speaker's
summons had been disobeyed.
The SPEAKER said, that the Hon. Member had no
right to refer to the document, when it was not before
the House.

Mr. GODSON said, that as he could not mention the do-
cument, for the same reasoi I he presumed he could not men-
tion the excuse which the witness made for not producingit.
He I)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 if it were not the excuse for not producing it was as
good as a man could give.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL understood that the
ground 'Ten which the witness was to be 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 when the
witness was served with it, and upon what grounds it
had been disobeyed, before a warrant was issued for the
committal to Newgate. As it was a contempt of
the Ilouse itself, and of the authority of the Speaker,
they should know under what circumstances the dis-
obedience had taken place. He would suggest
therefore, that the witness should be called to the bar of
the House, and interrogated as to the grounds of his
disobedience to the warrant.
Mr. REDINGTON said he had no desire that the
witness should be treated more harshly than the forms
of the House required. He was perfectly willing to
withdraw his motion in favour of the suggestion of the
Hon. and Learned Gentleman.

The HON. AIEMBER then withdrew his motion, and
proposed in its stead that the Clerk of the Southampton
Election Committee be called to the bar to produce the
Speaker's warrant requiring the attendance of William
Rous Nabson before that Committee.

Shortly afterwards the Clerk of the Committee pro-
duced the Speaker's warrant for the attendance of Wm.
Rous Mabson at the Southampton Election Committee.
The warrant having been read by the Clerk at the
table,
Mr. REDINGTON then moved that William Rous
Mabson should be brought to the bar of the House.
The SOLICITOR-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 obectiun prevailed it would
relieve the House from the trouble of trying any of the
election petitions.—(Hear.) His Learned Friend must he

aware that all the eieetion petitions were presented in
the short session in the autumn of 1841, and the warrants
of the Speaker were issued at that time.—(l-lear, hear.)
He was quite surprised at the objection of his Learned
Friend.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL had made no objection
on the ground 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. He 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 Ses3ion ; he then stated that
it was quite a new thing, and he to,:k the best means of
informing himself on the subject, having taken the ad-
vice of the proper law office: appointed by the House to
assist the Speaker, and he had assured him that he .con-
sidered the warrant to to a regular warrant, and upon
that opinion he had acted.
The motion was then carried, and the Sergeant ordered
to bring Mr. W. bus Mabion 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 warrant 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,
writings, 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 P—l
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 you 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. di-MY—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 HoN. 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. BULLER—What documents did you send ?
A cheque-book, and two or three little bills which I paid
on account 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 bills 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 you since 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-
mation of the particular docunients you had to bring ?
Not the least.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Had you any op
portunity of inquiring what documents would be neces-
sary P—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 COrnmittee, was that the first
intimation you bad that you were to produce them 7—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 be was then
ordered to withdraw.
A short conversation here ensued between 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.

Mr. Mabson was then ordered to the Bar again.
Mr. 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 notice on Monday
night from Mr. Sharp, the solicitor, of Southhamp-
ton, quite suddenly. I was in London at the time.
Mr. JACKSON—If you had 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. WOOD—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 ;
nut 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 15/. 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 counterfoils of which remained in your
possession ?—I think something like 3,000/.
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. TIIESIGER 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 documents..—(flear.)
Mr. WA'I'SON said that they had been told the cheque
books were of no importance, and he wished to elicit the
truth of that statement.—(tlear.)
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. WA'I'SON said that as it appeared to be the
wish of the Ilouse,• lie 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 th,t 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 Irdand, 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 Bight lion. 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 which
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 difference
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 seemed 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 Capt. 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
ho hoped the house would go along with him in consi-
dering that before they committed a person to Newgate,
they ought to be satisfied that the warrant was regular.
____(llear, hear.) He 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 from 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 had received
no 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 Mali who was

aubpc2naed to attend a Court ef Justice, and to
i .bring with him a variety of documents, had, accord- .
ing, to ordinary courtesy, an intimation given to
him of the documents he 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 conduct to the House,
ought to have been informed" some aloft time before that
he would be required to produce such papers. By the
' warrant he • was called on to produce these pal)"
at such time as he should receive a notice from the part
fsigning the warrant. Unless he received ome- 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 dries 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.—(Renewed 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 bo 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 lie 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. REI)INGTON 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 documeuts
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 were they to do ? That evening
a summons to Captain Ward had 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 regrette.d.
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 O.
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 unwise 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 thin mnit
was a very grave one, and if the House overlooked it
their jurisdiction and the jurisdiction of the Core-
mittee 'would be utterly trampled upon and set at
defiance.—(Hear.) The man in question had bees
ordered to produce certain papers. There had been $
quibble raised about the warrant being issued last seg;
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 11P
certain papers relating to the Southampton election, h°
I gave them all over to a third person without
precaution, other than giving them to a shop-boy. -1148
received no acknowledgment from Captain Ward, and el
far as the House knew, Captain Ward denied having,
received them—he (Mr. Buller) would say on the face °f
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 io.
it denied what he stated. 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 be sacrificing
the honour of the House if they overlooked the condos!,
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 11005,_
He therefore seconded the motion of his Honourable
Friend with this specific object, namely, that
the
prisoner should remain in the custody of thz
Sergeant-at-Arms, until the Committee shuttle'
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, is
defiance of the orders of that House, put the papers out
of the way.—(Hear.)
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 ant
mistake after the receipt of the Speaker!
warrant. He (Mr. Hinde) thought • that there ifs;
no reason for believing that the statement T.
the prisoner at the bar was not a bona fide stateruee:
because if the witness had chosen to scre,
himself, he could easily have denied ever
Ie
had the book at all in his possession.
thou ht that the statement 'of the witness was a b°l3o.
fide one, namely, that he did not consider
the documents material.—(Hear, hear.) lie ,
Hinde) therefore hoped the House would not censure
the man, or detain him in custody, until CAPtaln
Ward had been examined by the House, and Ltd;
was reason to suppose the statement was bons
The prisoner was 'in that situation of life w11,,A,
would ensure his being forthcoming when regrrittio
He (Mr. H. Hinde), therefore, hoped that the IV,
would agree to the adjournment of that debate f 0 he
week, until Capt. Ward could be examined before be
Committee. .He, therefore, moved, that the debate

then adjourned.
The motion having been seconded, JO
Mr. JERVIS said, he should certainly tpPose ids)
motion of the Honourable Member. He (Mr. Jerd,
agreed with the Honourable Member for Lisice'ee,
that this was a case of the greatest import Via'
It seemed to him that if they were to act on the P,O
ciple which they had adopted the other night, they 's:less
w
not take the garbled statements of one "1..15
as to his own evidence.—(Hear.) The House the
bound to place implicit confidence in the Committee' entl
members of which were gentlemen on whoseholleuTricet
judgment they could place the fullest relutss to
and who alone were able to form a correct opinion wit'
the credit of the witness. If that were not so, the beet'
ness had, to a certain extent, though in a modified fain' diet°
guilty of disrespect to the House. Did he hand overetaio
papers in the course of his business? If so, why did lie_letion,
them for three months? and if he kept them for his pr°'` we,
why did he not keep them now? It seemed to him, ther;oocl'
upon these short grounds, first, that the warrant was ' He
and, secondly, that there had been a violation of it'd the
should, therefore, vote for the motion of his Hon. Fri"
Chairman of the Committee. _co to
Mr. Sergeant JACKSON thought the House ought ' it to
dispose of this matter. as it had sufficient evidence beh'reueiss
do so. No person would go further than he would ii" t°h,P, kel4
parties guilty of a contempt of the House, or oroatieglt
papers from its inspection which ought to have been P iotalltd/
He, however, thought that the party iv. the present a ,tai
had not been guilty of any contempt. The witness ha be Oa,
that until he was in the presence of the Comrnittee'inoots, titi
not aware that he was bound to produce any Ellie $lO
nothing was said on the subject in the warrant.
~•t:'e, , 0
vote against the motion of the Hon. Gentleman °l'p' runt'
reott°
Mr. LABOUCHERE reminded the Hou.e that Ten cow
was not to commit Mabson to Newgate as if he bad ~, not
..,t°
victed of bribery; all the House was asked to do w-reeree°l";
dismiss the man, and he (Mr. L.) thought that the Nu , that ,".,
mended by the Chairman of the Committee was the be..sit
ro unto
to leave the man in the custody of the Sergeantlt tive t`' •test
the Committee had examined other witnesses re 'l,l had J,,,0
same point. But from what he (Mr. Labouelie“-rcoien '•it
now heard at the bar from Mabs‘n himself, his infd said' tive
that the greatest suspicion must attach to what,,e, an af n re.
was most improbable that such a man, having '.5,,, not 0
"),„..
part in the proceedings of an election in a tosc",.„, that re.
eciving the Speaker's warrant minutely e%aillideetinae,":ould
that
imilhoen
aeen:
rntrn:ehethhet
idecoa:
utdut
ieanrl
dndepcddwabasaietptsofhett
senor
Election
tllylvvelieca
produceta had adfid,
ntwhddeohltsnlheeka
papers
so
antphweeihrnes:
that he
h:te:
ret(sh:ol
a, btcs
000 trin?tclei et ..
geexdt.reme
tti
withc h ar alwaY°
it N'''''oo
reluctanceoSOLlClTOß-GENERALn that
Committees..he gave
v saide
any
in thatye
oyip ian,
hi
7,,
ri.
Joe on
tit pratiso. t.
t,
hi►lt,
r,vince t.• . _uestio-- ,
evening would co _
.001 q awed
they were not the proper tribunal to decide 0i,.. How p but
He believed that the usual course which thau,-.oattnitte, r to
in cases where there was not a contempt of ,L;, was either
to
a breach or the privileges of the House llse,l_lo,
Arm' °sub-
commit the party offending to the Serg"in final nwtivnittee,
Newgate. Suppose that, according to the gibe Coma'
__„.
milted by the Hen. Member the Chairman ofd that h:Fif
this person had been committed to Nevi the consequebnear.
plied to the Queen's Bench, what vronid ?—( Hear,•., be
the Court of Queen's Bench dischargoleuncb would again
and'
This House and the Court of Queen's , r of importance,
_e
placed in collision. That was a matte the man sloualt4s-ept
therefore, before they decided that
should be s• i :cc,'
sent to Newgate, the House 2""
' le gal warrant,
„Lie,
that the person had disnbeyet, a . committee el
if he had been ordered to attend tne
But 1. ion
Hear, hear.)
session, and was committed another, b
of the legality of that proceeding. —(
nitee were of opinion
were a proper warrant, and if the Com
ark_
if that .
weleom-
that these papers were designedly kept h
that_hgt to be
~_
opinion of the House,_ then he thought .
according Corn'
mitted to custody. It appeared to him,
be better if the
9.0.
ordinary course of Committees, it would
noned the person ,te.
mittce, in the present instance, had summoned ht that tn
But if they thong ,_ t they'
whom the papers were given. , as et opinion tna ~,be
papers were kept back designedly, n
eowf the Committee. 0
ought to be bound by the decision
said that there was
.11,1
had very
Right Honourable Gentleman hadl
power of getting at the truth
summons—the better
had the power of issuing a fresh
and surely it was
erson
the power of issuing a fresh warrant,
1 dth that al' .
a, opte an , _hie
the documents; but he had surelyufnoregotten that thBepeCahkeirrtll,,3ad
that such a course should be
n should be
Mr. C. WOOD had never intended that th
On athe contrary,
might
td
bbeednenombtmedit.ted upon a warra
discharged, as if he had done nothing wrong. .
s the witnessgr preodd'oulut,tbhetni:
he believed the man had done wrong; but nei,
thought he shoutct
nt, the letghalritydiodl
hwe
s.
prove of sending him to Newgate.
be kept in the custody of the Sergeant-all:Arms, until lila e""