The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-27 00:00:00

THE TARIFF.

The Earl of gave notice that .on
Friday he would present a petition, sinned 'by 5;000
fruit-growers and occupiers of land in the eastern part
of the county of Kent, against the reduction of the
duty on foreign fruit, and coMplaining.of other parts of
the tariff.
NATIONAL. COMPLETE. SUFFRAGE UNION.
Lord BROUGHAM postponed, to Friday, two mo-
tions of which 'he had given notice—one the presentation.
of. a petition from the 'National Complete Suffrage
Union, the other for returns relating to Election Com-
mittees.
Their Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS, April 26.
The SPEAKER took his seat at Four o'clock.
SAUNDERSFOOT HARBOUR BILL.

On the motion of Mr. R. PHILIPS, this Bill was read
a third time, and passed.
SOUTH METROPOLITAN GAS BILL.
On the motion of Mr. KEMBLE, this Bill was read a
second time.
BOLTON AND WESTIIOUGIITON ROAD BILL.
This Bill was read a third time, and passed.
BOLTON AND PRESTON RAILWAY BILL.
This Bill was read a third time, and passed.
BOSTON HARBOUR BILL.

On the motion of Mr. GREENE, the Boston Harbour
Bill IN-as withdrawn.
CROYDON RAILWAY BILL.

Sir J. EASTIIOPE presented a petition from an in-
dividual, praying to be heard against the Croydon Rail-
w•ay Bill.
SOUTHWARK IMPROVEMENT BILL.

Mr. R. PALMER moved the adjourned debate on the
Southwark Improvement Bill.
Mr. LAMBTON differed from the Hon. Baronet, the
Member for Oxford, when he stated that this was not
the proper time to discuss the present ques-
tion. The Bill proposed completely to alter the
law with respect to compensation on Church
leases, and it was certain, if some such clause was not
introduced as that proposed by the Hon. Member for
Berkshire, the present Bill would be productive
of the worst consequences: He contended, there-
fore, that the present moment was most op-
portune for discussing the question. Upon all the
discussions that had taken place, the principle of
compensation had been decided upon. The highest
autheritiesiof the law were in favour of the principle. It
had been discussed in the debate on the Farnham Rec-
tory Bill, and this very Bill itself had even passed the
House, but had not been discussed in the House
of Lords at the dissolution. The common sense and
common justice view of the case was this:—They came
on parties by a private Bill, and compelled them to sell
their Church leasehold property. and the holders justly
said, " If you compel us to sell, you should give us
compensation." The Honourable Member cited several
law authorities which bore out his View of the question.
He concluded by moving, as an amendment, the addition
of a clause providing for full compensation to the holders
of Church leases, according to their marketable value.
The SPEAKER said that he could not put the clause
now proposed until after the second reading of the clause
already under discussion.
Captain FIT ZROY had been one of those who in the
Committee opposed the insertion of what was called the
compensation clause; for in the jury clause provision
was made for equitable compensation for all those whose
property would be interfered with by the improvements.
Of course the juries, composed of honest men, would
take into consideration the chances of renewal of the
leases, by which the value of this kind of property was
very much affected. When there was an understanding
that the lease would be renewed, of course it would
have a much higher value in the market, than if it
were supposed that the Bishop did not intend to renew.
The jury would take these circumstances into consi-
deration and give them their full weight.
Mr. TIIESIGER understood from his Gallant
Friend (Captain Fitzroy) that it was the intention of
the Committee to give the holders of such property the
full value of their leases : he could not see, therefore
what objection the Committee could have to the in-
sertion of clause, which only went to provide,
that they should have a compensation of the real value.
Me (Mr. Thesiger) voted fur the clause, because the
parties whom the Bill affected could not obtain justice
without the insertion of the clause.

Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET would prefer the
clause suggested by the Hon. Member for Durham to
the clause before the House, and he thought the ques-
tion was whether that clause could be adopted instead
of the other.
The SPEAKER said the Honourable Member who
had suggested the clause referred to by the Noble Lord
not having given notice ofit, it could not be received, but
if they passed the clause now before the House it
might be so amended as to make it in effect the same as
the clause proposed. If that clause were not adopted, the
clause could, by notice being given, be brought forward
at another period.
Sir R. 11. INGLIS said that they were not content
with leaving the parties to the existing law, but they
were giving them a right which the law never contem-
plated ; and they were forming a precedent which would
be brought down as the establishment of a principle in
reference to a great amount of property in this country.
If the parties had a right, the law would give them a.
remedy ; if they had not, why should the House now
give them a right above the law ? He hoped now that
the House was pretty full that the question would be de-
cided, and that they would not adopt the suggestion of
postponing the further consideration of the Bill. If the
House would comply with its usual custom of not insert.-
ing clauses into private Bills, taking them so far out of
the hands of the promoters, he believed the Bill would
be all but unanimously adopted.
Sir T. WILI)E said the Hon. Baronet had mistaken

the real question. Nothing was asked for above the law.
All that was asked for was, that the possessors of Church
leases might be left as they were. Now, the possessor
of a Church lease coming into the market with it would
get a sum of money for it beyond the value of the present
term, 'on the expectation of a renewal of the term, an
expectation that had never been disappointed. This ad-
ditional value arising from such a probability the House
was now asked to take away. If the House were deter-
mined to promote public improvements, they should take
care that in doing so they did not take away people's
property, giving them by way of compensation, much less
than they would get for it in the market.

Lord J. MANNERS opposed the clause.
Mr. R. PALMER said that the House would only
be doing an act of justice by consenting to the clause.
He (lid not think there was any precedent for the present
Bill. We understood the Hon. Gentleman to oppose the
clause.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said it was with great
reluctance he felt bound on this occasion to differ from
the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford.
The only object of the Bill was to give those whose pro-
perty was taken away the full market value. Ile
was not, however, disposed to vote for the clause
which was printed with the Votes. With regard
to the clause prepared by the Honourable Gen-
tleman, the Member for Durham, with the substantial
part of that clause he agreed. It was competent for his
lion. Friend, the Member for Berkshire, to withdraw
the clause, and adjourn the third reading of the Bill,
and then, in proposing the third reading, he might bring
up a clause embodying the clause of the lion. Member
for Durham.

Mr. PALMER consented to withdraw the clause upon
the suggestion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman.
The clause was then withdrawn, and the further pro-
ceedings upon the Bill postponed to that day week.
BLACK WALL RAILWAY.

Mr. STUART WORTLEY brought in the London
and Blackwall Railway Improvement Bill, which was
read a first, and ordered to be read a second time.

LICHFIELD ELECTION.

Mr. DIVETT wished to call the attention of the
Right Hon. Baronet at the head of her Majesty's Go-
vernment to the provisions of the Controverted Elec-
tions Bill; for the purpose of ascertaining the opinion of
the House and that of the Right Hon. Baronet as to the
course that should be pursued under the circum-
stances which had taken place. A question had
arisen in the Election Committee of which he was the
Chairman, as to the attendance of witnesses who were
in prison. A question had arisen before the Committee
whether it was competent to the Chairman to direct the
attendance of those witnesses ; a consultation had
taken place among the Committee ; some of the
Members of which thought that it was competent
to the Chairman to do so under the 74th section.

He would now move that the Speaker do issue his war-
rant to the keepers of those gaols respectively, command-
ing them to bring up the said witnesses before the
Committee. He (Mr. 1).) thought that the 74th clause
of the Election Committee's Act would justify him, as
Chairman of the Conimittees in issuing a summons to
each of those keepers to the same effect, but as there was
some doubt on the point, he had resorted to
the present motion. At the same time, he would
ask the Bight Honourable Baronet at the head of the
Government, whether the Committee had the power to
issue such a summons under the 74th clause of the Act ?
Sir ROBERT PEEL had great diffidence in answer-
ing the question, without some consideration before-
hand. The best opinion he could now giVe
was, that the Hon. Gentleman had taken the
proper course in asking for the interference of
the Speaker. Committees, it was true, had the power
of committing witnesses to the custody of the Ser-
geant-at-Arms, but the Act had overlooked the
Kobability of the wanting to get. witnesses out of

, prison. He believed similar difficulties luM already
occurred to Committees, and they applied to the;.,:peaker
of the House to issue his warrant to bring up The re-
quired witnesses out of custody. On these grounds, he
(Sir R. Peel) tliought the Hon. Member for Exeter was
now taking the proper course.
After a few words from Mr. C. WOOD,
Mr. ROEBUCK said it seemed an important point to
ascertain whether the House could interfere with persons
in custody under process from the Queen, and bring
them up without a luzbeas corpus.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the question
was how they • could compel the appearance of
persons now in custody ; he believed that the summons
of the Chairman would be of no effect, but he appre-
hended that an order of the HouSe would compel their
appearance. The order would be addressed to the
gaoler, who would be bound to bring them up according
to it, and would be liable to punishment for a contempt
of that House if he did •not. The gaoler also would be
examined, as his evidence - would be material.
The motion that the Speaker do issue his order was
then agreed' to. „ •
SAUNDERSFOOT RAILWAY.
On the motion for the further consideration of the
Report of this Bill,
Mr. GREENE rose with the view of obtaining the
opinion of the House whether it be not inexpedient to
allow the introduction •of similar provisions into Rail-
way Bills, to call the attention of the house to the
clauses relating to taking temporary possession of
land durit's • the. construction of the Railway,
and especially to the following clause (96)
And be it enacted, That.' subject to the pro-
visions herein contained, it shall be lawful fin. the Com-
pany at any time befol-e the expiration of the period by
this Actlimited'for' the completion of the railway, with-
out making any previous payment,' tender, or deposit, to
enter upon and use any existing private roads nut being
more titan live hninked'yards distant from the centre of
.the railway, and also to enter upon any lands not being
more than two hundred and fifty yards distant from the
centre of the railway,and not being a garden, orchard,parks
• plantation, planted walk, avenue, or ground planted and
set apart as a nursery for trees, and not being nearer
than five hundred yards to the mansion house of the
owner of any such lands, and to occupy the said lands
during the construction or repair of the railway, and to
use the same for any of the following purposes (that is
to say), for the purpose of taking earth or soil, by, sick;
cuttings therefrom; for the purposeOf obtaining materials
therefrom for the formation of the railway ; or for the
purpose of forming roads thereon to or from the railway.
And, in exercise of the powers aforesaid, it shall be law- .
till for the Company to deposit, and also to manufacture
and work upon such lands materials of every kind toed
in constructing the railway ; and also to dig and take
from out of any such lands, any clay, stone, gravel, sand,
or other things that may be found therein useful or pro-
per for constructing the railway, or any such roads as
aforesaid. He proposed to have the Words " two hundred
and fifty" struck out of the clause, and to insert instead
the words " one hundred."
After a few words from Mr. LABOUCHERE sug-
gesting (as we understood) that the question• should be
postponed for the present.—The amendment was with-
drawn.
The Report was then received, and the Bill was or-
dered to be engrossed.
REFUSAL OF A MEMBER TO GIVE EVI-
DENCE BEFORE A COMMITTEE.

Mr. IZEDINGTON appeared at the bar, and ,said
that he was directed by the Southampton Committee to
inform the house that John Fleming, Esq., a Member
of the House, refused to answer a question put to him
by the Committee, on the ground that it would be
a betrayal of confidence improper on his part, and de-
grading to him as a gentleman, and although the Com-
mittee insisted upon receiving an answer he persisted in
his refusal.—(Hear, hear, and laughter.)
On the question that the Report be brought up being
carried.

Mr. REDINGTON laid the Report on the table,
and said that the Committee had done in this case what
the Act required, but they had not authority to deal
►►ith it as with that which they yesterday brought before
the House.—(Hear, hear.) They could not: order a
Member of the House to be committed; and he had
now to ask the House to interpose, and that, as
they had yesterday compelled a witness to answer
they would not now allow any other to refuse.—(Cries of
" Move, more.") He then moved that John Fleming,
Esq., a Member of that House, be required to appear
before the Southampton Election Committee, and answer
such questions as ►►ere put to him by that Committee.
The SPEAKER made some suggestion to the lion.
Member, who ultimately moved that John Fleming,
Esq., a Member of that House, be asked by the Speaker
whether he persists in refusing to give evidence.
The question was put in that form, and was carried by
a large majority of "Ayes " to two " Noes," the latter
causing great laughter.
The SPEAKER—Is the Hon. Member in his place ?
Mr FLEMING—Yes.
The lion. Member was about to answer the question,
when—

The SPEAKER said that he would put the question
formally.
The SI'EAKER then put the question.—Do you still
persist in refusing to answer before the Committee ?
Mr. FLEMINb—In answer to that question, I feel, as
a man of honour and as a gentleman, that I cannot an-
swer.—(Loud cheers.)
The SPEAKER—The Hon. Gentleman haviug an-
swered the question, will feel it his duty to withdraw.
Mr. FLEMING—May I not be allowed to explain ?
The SPEAKER—If the Hon.- Member has anything
to offer in explanation he may do so.
Mr. FLEMING then said, that it was extremely
painful to him to have it thought that he could do
any action which would render it necessary that he
should be reported to the house. It Was nect'ssan; for
him to state that in the conduct which was
complained of he did not intend any disrespect
to the Chairman or Members of the Com-
mittee.—(Cries of Hear, hear.) With respect to the
question put to him, if he could be . so unworthy as to
solicit subscriptions to carry on those corrupt acts im-
puted by -the petitioners before the Committee, he
should not attempt to refuse an answer. But the
position in which he stood was this :—After the termi-
nation of the Southampton election, he went
with his family to Ireland, and on h s re-
turn he heard from his friends in Southampton
that they were endeavouring to defray the legal expenses
of the agents who conducted the election.—(Hear, hear.
and laughter.) He begged to assure Honourable
Members that such was the fact. The object for which
funds were required, being strictly legitimate, he
did, under the circumstances, say that he would repre-
sent the case to many of his private and intimate friends,
and he received subscriptions from them, which he paid
into the bank on account of the election. That was
six weeks after the election had taken place,
so that it could not be for the purpose of corruption.
(Hear, hear.) He felt that he was not doing anything
wrong in endeavouring to get his friends to assist
ltint for the purpose he had stated.—(llear, hear.)
Ile was satisfied that the question was put from `mo-
tives of curiosity, in order that they might have several
honourable names to peck at. Under these circumstances
he would put it to the House whether Hon. Members
were to betray the confidence reposed in them by their
friends, when that betrayal would answer no
beneficial end ? He thought if he was to pursue such, a
course he should not be worthy of a seat in that House.
He would not say more, but would retire from the House.
(The lion. Member left the House amid loud cheers from
the Ministerial side.) _

Mr. REDINGToN trusted that, as Chairman of
the Southampton Election Committee, the House
would do him the justice to think that, in the course
he had pursued, he was only doing that which he
considered to be his ditty.—(Hear, hear.) He had no
personal fieling against the Honourable Member,
and all that he had done he considered he was
bound to do in the discharge of his duty. He could
not go into the matter which arose before the Com-
mittee, but he might state that a question was put
by counsel to the Honourable Member, which he
refused to answer. The Committee then consulted as to
whether the Honourable Member was holm(' to an-
swer the question, and they determined that he was.
Such being the case, he had now to ask the
House, as they last night decided that Election Com-
mittees were the parties to judge whether a -witness
should answer a question, to pursue the same
course now. He could not move that the
Honourable Gentleman should be called to the bar,
but he believed the proper course would be for
the Speaker to ask the Honourable Member
in his place if he still persevered in refusing
to answer the question, and if he did, that he should ho
informed by the Speaker that he was bound to answer it.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said, there could
be no doubt that whatever the private opinion of
the Honourable . Member might be with regard to
the obligations of honour and confidence in
pri-
vate, that all those considerations vanished for the
demand of justice, if the individual was called on
to give evidence. This principle was placed on so
firm a basis, that. he need scarcely dwell on it ; but he
would juct mention the ease of Lord Langton, who was
called on, in the trial of the Duchess of Kingston, to
state if he had ever learned whether or not she, was
ever married to Mr. Harvey. He had at first
refitted to answer the question, on the ground that in
doing so he should violate the honourable confidence of
the private intercourse of society. The House of
Lords adjourned and consulted,- and decided that
he must answer the question. He therefore prepared
the best answer he could from the conversation which
had taken place twenty years previously. He had no
drnrbt that the Committee was par-
question if they thought
rilgvillitatienverputht:nag
the
it matcr!al, and the witness was bound to answer
the question so put. Every person, whether a Member
of the House or not, appeared before the Committee as
before a Court of Justice, and if that Committee had the
power to commit a witness, it had also the power of report-
ing a refusal to answer a question to the House. Be (the
Attorney-General) then cited several clauses of the Act
'bearin7, on the point, and proceeded to say be thought the
Committee had exercise a sound discretion, and had
acted with every respect to that House in not
having committed a Member of it to custody. But Igen
tbe Hon. Member was apprised of the opinion of • the
House, and what must he the opinion of every legal
authority, that because, under :4' legni obligation to an-
,z,wea he would take a different ►hey of the circumstances,
gifivae answer, it reremain‘v gtrestiou put to a itlless' avid he refused to
to be seen to what
extent he would be justified in that refusal. It, was
not because a Learned Counsel had put a question
that the Committee were bound to enforce it—O.lear.)
He was sure that the manner in which the Committee
had acted would induce the House to repose confi-
dence in their decision, even if they had not the au-
thority of the law on their side. But the question was one
solely of discretion ; the House could repose confidence
in a discretion which had been so soundly exercised.