The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-26 00:00:00

- -•
tileTll6-7SPFAICE, -theii— the question th at -
t Witness, having expressed his readiness to
~-1184)er any question the House should think
iAlPer• to put, should be discharged from the ens-
N of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and be further ex-
-41,,,,t1101 before the Committee.
.1- ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the wit-
-was willing to submit himself to the decision of
wit-
tie 'Rouse, that he ought to answer the questions
(nether they might criminate him or not. He
Attorney-General) thought it ought to be
'4oHaitted to the Committee to give some directions
Ito whether the question ought to be answered. The
Report of the Committee was simply that the
(Thiess,, refused to answer the question. The
Otion of the Honourable Member the Chairman of
07 'Committee involved in it ' the necessity
tho witness 'being committed for contempt. Now
ha, (the Attorney-General) must say that it occurred
tf (i"
„ uthim that a witness refusing, either before
ommittee. of the -- House of Commons, or
hitnY -other properly constituted Court, to answer any
cliestien tending to criminate himself, was
,iL
guilty of contempt. The Report of the
e'
nrilmittee. was a matter of course. He could
11°t better :'support the doctrine he had expressed
hart „
i„ by reading a passave from a judgment given
ii)elti late Lord Eldon. (The Hon. and Learned Gen-
ii ',La then read a passage from the judgment in qnes-
4, which laid down the rule that not only was
Poo justified in asking a witness a question,
to'criminate himself, but no one could ask him tt•
Inestion that might be a link in a chain of evidence that-
t7l,l,l criminate him.--e-(Hear, hear.) He (the Attorney-
lleral) therefore thought that, if the witness in ques-:
tie
cnt refused to answer the question, that House could not
e4rottlit him•tO Newgate.
after a few words from Mr. REDINGTON, •
Lord HOWICK said, he thought the House ought
tc)it'
Committees.to make itself a tribunal of • appeal from
ieetion Comittees. The House therefore ought not to
a •-
Aquire how far an Election Com mitteee was right or wrong.
s far as he understood the matter, the answer given to the
rr"stion was that he refused to answer it, on the
0141,1 that it tended to criminate himself. . The
e ('lttinittee had come •to the decision that the
law did net apply in this case. The
11.41Mittee on that point must judge without appeal.
C'erefore, as the witness . stated--his readiness to
to the decision of the 'Reuse, he thought it
i•Pedient that the Speaker should
_inform the witness
'at it was true he was not bound to answer a question
that
emight criminate. himself, but that it was for
was Committee to judge whether that excuse
made with propriety •or not.—(Hear, hear.)
The witness had stated that he would bow to the dcci-
t.
Of the House ; and he (Lord Howick) hoped that
he Was made acquainted with the • wishes of the
Quo he would assent to their decision.

;Ir. BERNAL said that there could be no doubt but
ant what his Learned Friend the Attorney General had
down upon the subject was the law. He remem-.
'rsed a vitae which had occurred in an investigation at the Bar
atoe House, into a charge of bribery and corruption, in the
.`"e ()f asCornish borough many years ago. A solicitor, on that
°tee,agion, cleaned to betray, the professional confidence reposed
44'1 by. pleading the privilege allowed before Courts
aw. But he was told that, before the House, ho could not
illithimself of such a privilege ;- and he was accordingly corn-
titted to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. e alue to
4 Case. of . the Tregony Committee. The HousHe wasd nod w,
ever, placed in circumstances of great embarrassment.
try had not the means of pronouncing a decision of the whole
use, and the evidence taken before the Committee was not
a-°,re.them. Whether the Committee had acted justly or un-
Cet% their acts were the acts of the House, and as such must
;)indirte.
P,,!'"rd JOAN RUSSELL agreed with his Honourable
who had just spoken, that, generally speaking,
Ilailliament had maintained, and that House especially
ef reveatedly maintained, that a witness should not
to answer a question because it might critni-
himself.. That, he considered, was part of the parlia-
s'netttary . power of the House. He did not consider that it
ha.B at all necessary to
argue
the matter, because he did not
sittliik.. the , geocral. parliamentary power was the question
a, respect to these Committees ; nor did he think that it was
iquestion immediately at issue. The House had the power,
a„ considered it necessary on some special. occasions, to de.
et public fraud, and; if the question came to be argued, he
4,(1n0t be prepared to surrender it. He thought the Hon.
\teutleman opposite was mistaken in supposing that when
true
posed that indemnity should be given to wit-
at'es-i:,under those circumstances he the admitted that
aa,Pwsver was questionable. That stood upon quite anotoer,
-cud. : The power of Committees rested upon a special
of Parliament. They :were a judicial tribunal selected
the House ; but they were no less a tribunal
14.-7:1 they werei uvested with the power of trying elections
la the Judge the Queen's Bench 'and a jury of twelve
Then it would be said that a tribunal so constituted
.14. t guide themselves by the rules established in Courts of
4te'lee But then came the question that the Learned
Vtney-General had put, that where a witness refused to
4 14r a question which had a tendency to criminate himself,
tlej,!% protected in the refusal ; but that if he endeavoured to
4:r-himself under that plea when it did not properly app'y,
liaas.not to be protected. The Hon. Chairman had told
that -the ground upon which the question was argued
tkiathat the question would rut in fact criminate the witness,
l 'shine must. take the majority in this instance to have the same
Rev of deciding the question as a Court of Justice.
da,watt impossible to go into the merits of the question,
11,a,'41-Ise in order to do so, he would be obliged
at'kaiot only what the question itself was, but also what the
thivinus questions were, and what the circumstances under
til.'ll it was desirous to ask that question. The only mode in
1,,h he could trace it to any satisfactory conclusion was his com-
t:tN with the authority of the Committee. He' had heard
ta',!lug to induce him to believe that that ought not to be taken
a:Qe-ground of their decision. Tnere might be cases where
tiO' weight feel distrust, but such cases would be special and
able casen Ile had some doubt whether his Hon. Friend's
,;')rt would answer the purpose. He thought the proper
'c,e for the House to pursue„ would be to inform the witness
lie must go before the Committee and answer the question.
tt,i,r• Hume,•Mr. I.?Conne!l, and several ether Members here
yiL together to address the House, Mr. Hume, however,
hj't out Mr. Speaker, in a loud voice, and was greatly
eered from all parts. The other Honourable Members gave
and
r. HUME then addressed the House. He thought the
10te that ought to be pursued perfectly plain; the House
tht committed its power to the Committee, and he thought,
siatetsre, the right course would be for the House to have the
lia'ecs called to the bar, and informed that he must go before
-keenamittee and answer the question.
AC' O'CONNELL did not doubt that the law laid down by
qttorney- General was correct. But he thought the' wit-
ili,havit4 told part, ought to go on and tell the entire. A.
k4e' ad at one period passed this House on the subject, but
in 03rougham struck out the most important clauses
k'sZ House of Lords. He never did anything more
• -"ttV one; it was a time when he could get the House
Otis to concur with him. Would it not become
bti:vernment, strong in the House of Lords, to
in a-similar Bill which they Would, carry? Ho
kieeeetided that they had nothing to do with the Com-
, kee, as its decisions were without appeal.
,4,ljt• PEEL said ht. ngreed with the Noble Lord, the
Lttt,,,.'er for London, that there was a very great distinction
44 the extreme powers possessed by the House of Com-
tar al the great inquest of the nation, by an inquiry at the
4.4 d the powers possessed by a certain portion of the
'-'e as a tribunal under a special Act of Parliament. It did
4t all necessarily follow, that the powers and privileges of
Vtdiuual heitsg defended by statute, were joined with an
ill'eat right to exercise all the powers aossessed by the
kteia,e of Commons itself. Upon the whole, he thought it the
14i Course for the House to pursue was to remit the witness
tte,,,u4 Committee. 'fhey ought not to interfere with the
triers of the Committee. He thought it would be dangerous
tf flainine the witness at the bar of the House, with the view
14 Curing an opinion as to his answers. He was afraid that
witness might form .an erroneous opinion of the decision of
+tttiorriouse. He had said that he would submit to the
kLiti itY of the House-4 Hear, hear)—that if the House
that he was bound to answer, without reference
'44 Sequences he was ready to submit. He (Sir R. Peel)
I,,Zet think that their answer ought to he given on any such
Nes: He was not prepared to sao are bound to answer,
the answer should criminatey , yyouru self. He had gone as
tadaq one in defending the rights of that House, and he
Zt'iaacto so again, but he was not prepared to say witnesses
batuound to answer before a Committee any question
,laittttt ler. They might establish a precedent which might be
the
to their own inquisitorial power. He inferred,
'44 `,4e Committee did not claim for itself a power to -compel
the hotness to answer, but they did claim a rower of deciding
"Sloeer the witness was acting bona fide, on the ground of
I'llllMing himself, or whether he was using it merely for the
‘,4y OP of withholding evidence. lrappeared a nice question for
k‘ta,:metinal to determine, when it compelled a witness to answer
N,i'len, whether the answer would criminate the witness or not.
➢ 1,-‘' not think that a witness was to be allowed to. entertain
:err kg 'le opinion as to what would criminate himself.—(Hear,
'4tlst. But, on the other hand, it was difficult to determine
ltt ror no the answer to any given question would crimi-
k)7tre'Utnself. That was a discretion which must-rest. with
tribunal ; and he was sure that the tribunal appointed in
• jaunt.case would act with due consideration and justice.
liglQf hear. ) The course which was to be pursued must
t to the discretion of that. tribunal, and it was to deter-
Itt,lthet her an answer ought to be given or not.—( Hear )
;kkt,ll' WAKLEY pegged to refer the House to what had
ttOlace within the last two years, on the trial of a Peer be-
L't4t%i.s'Houso of Lords. Dare a witness refuse to answer the.
err'os which were put to him, on the ground that the an-
would criminate himself?--( Hear, hear.) That occurred
bt4:`, the last two years, before the highest authority
;`s was
and had excited great public attention, but the
;ks Put an end to, in consequence of the refusal of a wit-
kt 1,1" answer questions that might criminate himself. He
nth °t required to state the answer in order that the Judge
hdeteernine whether the answer would criminate himself or
V°aed was
4t he allowed to exercise his own judgment. He
Sortie of the Learned persons engaged in the trial,
State the circumstances of the ease to the House, as he
pq think it could be that this House and the other House
0114:liatnent should be at issue on so important a subject.
64ty „.3041CITOR-GENERAL said, he apprehended the
tribunal to be this—whether the individual refused to
under a bona fide conviction that the answer would
itlat. • •
it e himself, or whether it was only for the
ti:6, of evading justice, he refused to .do so.
th-liele of law that obtained before an Election Committee
Os Same as that observed in every other tribunal. No
alisa,' was bound to answer any question which would tend to
L:ate himself. It appea-ed to him (Sir W. Follett) that
)its,l4l. course was to send back tins man before the Corn-
'ftte` to exercise their judgment as to whether he persisted in
Oa:, to answer a bona fide question.
ti'kteea C. WOOD sail he was 'sure the Committee
no authority which might not be
,claimed by
j,,,e,,p• (''her legal tribunal. All that the House knew of the
wes.that the witness had refused to answer a certain ques-
tk.Y liteh they thought he ought to answer. If, however,
aa4t4taerely sent back the witness before the Coin-
tr)%eif the result would possibly be that the present
llio tY would again arise, and they would again have
ilt,e,ver the subject to-morrow. He apprehended that
°iiiCourse would be that a general intimation should be
th'ont the Chair, that it was the opinion of the House,
Eiehe witness should only refuse to answer any question
idE might criminate himself, and that the Committee should
Whether such a question had been put. The Corn-
aßli 'lad proceeded in the usual way, and he therefore
414 tthat they had a right to presume that the Committee
iaExercise" that power which was vested in them.
OD SON said, that this discussion would have one gond
,He ad learned, with some surrise, the oinion of the
and lion. A ttorney- General on this subject,vpiz., that the
to I,".'eight refuse to answer any question tending to crimi-
-0 41)self* This was certainly the practice in the Courts of
llN't:Ne lawyer would deny that a: Court of Law had the
'tta `0 decide whether the witness was dealing honestly with
What was the demeanour of the witness before the