The Sun.
London, England, 1842-02-24 00:00:00

POOR-LAWS.

Capt. PECHELL rose to put a question to the
Right Hon. Baronet rekpecting his Poor-law Bill.—
(Order, order.) If he was out of order he would
wait till the Orders of the Day were disposed of.
He wished to ask the Right Hon. Gentleman whether,
in his proposed measure, which was to repeal a great
number of Acts of Parliament, it was his intention to
include the parishes which were incorporated under
the Gilbert Act ?

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that no subsequent
information which he had received had induced him
to depart from his announced intention, or could
make' him consider it inconsistent with his duty to
introduce the measure alluded to.
MASSACRE IN JAMAICA.
Mr. O'CONNELL begged to ask the Noble Lord
the Secretary for the Colonies, whether he had re-
ceived any information respecting a melancholy—
indeed, a sanguinary—occurrence, which was said to
have taken place at Kingston in Jamaica, on Christ-
mas-day last ?
Lord STANLEY said, that information had been
received by the Government, but he should prefer,
if the Right Honourable Gentleman would have
the goodness to postpone his question, to lay the in-
formation before the House to-morrow.
Mr. O'CONNELL acquiesed.
CORN AND COTTON.

Mr. T. M. GIBSON begged leave to explain a
misapprehension which Hon. Members had fallen into
respecting a statement of his in his speech last night.
It was supposed he had stated that the quantity of
cotton worked up in 1837 and the three years pre-
ceding was greater than the quantity worked up in
the four years ending with 1841. In the newspaper
reports he was represented to have said the very re-
verse, which in fact, would be the correct state-
ment, and what he intended to say,
RETIRING ALLOWANCES (INDIA).

In answer to a question from Mr. E. BULLt.IR,

Sir IL PEEL said he believed that the salaries of
the Governor-General and other officers under the
East India Company were subject to deductions, to
provide for their retiring allowances. He was not
quite certain what was the exact state of the law
on the subject, and he regretted that the Hon. Gentle-
man had not given him notice, in order that he might
be able to give a more satisfactory reply.
IPSWICH ELECTION.

Mr. R. WASON rose, according to notice, to
bring under the consideration of the House, the peti-
tion of W. 11. Ashurst, relative to the Ipswich election.
Parliament had passed a law to enable the Judges to en-
force the attendance and examination of witnesses in
pending suits. If such a; power were necessary inCourts of
Law he apprehended that it was equally necessary in that
llouse. The Courts of Law had always had the power
to postpone a cause where the absence of a witness,
whether wilful or accidental, would be subversive
of the due administration of justice. No such
power was possessed by that House. Their powers
with regard to election petitions) were defined by
statute ; they could not postpone the trial, nor could
they give, either to the petitioner or to the Member
petitioned against, that privilege which he would
have in a Court of Law, when, through the absence of
an important and material witness, the due adminis-
tration of justice was in danger of being injured.
If it were necessary to pass an Act, giving this
power to the Courts of Law, it was qssentially neces-
sary for the due administration cot.' justice that the
House should have this power also. He contended that
this House inherently possessed every power and
privilege which was necessary for the due per-
formance of its duties, either in the House or in Com-
mittees. It was only necessary to act upon that power.
He was sure it would be seen that the utmost
possible courtesy had, been used towards the
Gallant Admiral by the petitioner, who wished
to prevent the case from coming before
this House and was willing to make any arrange-
ment the dallant Admiral would suggest, to have the
evidence brought before the Election Committee.
Rut this he (Sir Thomas Cochrane) declined. Now, it
became the duty of the petitioner to submit his
case to the House ; and it was to be hoped that the
House would adopt the most convenient course to the
Gallant Admiral which he would propose. One way
was to require the attendance of the Gallant Officer at
the House tolmorrow ; he might then be examined res-
pecting those papers, and might produce them and those,
with his examination taken by a short-hand writer,
. might be brought before the Election Committee on
oath. He did not wish to enter into the constitutional
bearings of this question, but he trusted the House
would see, that unless this case 'was looked into, the
most enormous power might be vested in the hands of a
wicked Minister. He did not mean to insinuate that the
Gallant Officer had obtained the appointment through
any of his public merits, but if a Minister could
send down a number of officers to places to settle
what money should he spent by candidates, and the
number of voters to be bribed, and then if another gen-
tleman were to come down and pay the money, this pro-
ceeding would evidently, if not checked, undoubtedly
become a dangerous precedent in the hands of any Minis-
ter. The warrant served upon Sir T. Cochrane, of
which he held a copy in his hand, required him to pro-
duce certain evidence. It was not necessary to rtad that
warrant, which was purposely not inserted in the
petition, because there was no design on the part of
the petitioner to do any thing more than simply to raise
the question before the House, whether they
could, or • could, not, compel the attendance of a,
witness wifo declared it was his intention, after he
had been' Served with the Speaker's warrant,

to go abroad. There were three points necessary to
be established before the petition could -be consi-
dered valid. First, there should be a case. pend-
ing ; secondly, the witness must have declared
his intention of going abroad; and, thirdly, the ques-
tion upon which he was to have been examined, must
be material to the point at issue. He believed that
each of those points was established in the Ipswich
petition ; first, there could be no doubt but that a
case was pending ; secondly, it was certain
that Sir Thomas Cochrane had declared his
intention of going abroad ; and, lastly, it was
stated by the petitioner that he had been informed
that Sir Thomas Cochrane was in possession of certain
documents which it was material should be produced.
The Hon. and Learned Member then quoted Ar-
chibald's Practice, page 243, to show that such
evidence would be sufficient in a Court of Law
to make a Judge grant a rule nisi under the
circumstances. And if a Court of Law deemed it
unnecessary to show the materiality of the evidence,
surely it could not be necessary in that place, which
was'the grand inquest of the nation, that they should re-
sort to any quibbling to prevent the petitioner having the
relief lie applied for. He wOuld_Alitrefore move that
Sir T. Cochrane be called to the bar of the House, to
answer the allegations in the petition. But if any other
Hon. Member would sugges any other proposition,
which would be less inconvenient to Sir
Thomas 'Cochrane, all the correspondence at the
same time being produced, and no injury resulting
to any party, he (Mr. AVason) would agree to it.
But if the Attorney-General should consider it neces-
sary to show that the correspondence was abso-
lutely material and essential, he was ready to
prove that it was so at that very moment. He would
therefore conclude by moving that Sir J. Cochrane
be called to the barof the House, to answer the elle-

gations contained in the petition.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL assured the
House, that neither the Honourable Gentleman
opposite, nor any other Gentleman, could
feel more deeply than . he did, the necessity of
paying the utmost respect to any mandate, warrant, or
authority which issued from the Speaker in virtue of the
high office which he held, directing the attendance of
witnesses, and that the House should have the privi,
lege of commanding the same--ipecies of evidence
as any other power ; but having made the concession
he was at a loss to .know what was the object of
the Honourable Gentleman opposite in calling
Sir Thomas Cochrane to the bar of the House. The
Courts in Westminster-hall had no doubt the power
Under particular Acts to obtain evidence which might
be afterwards used for the purposes of trial, and it
might be extremely desirable that the House should
possess the power now ; but beyond all doubt,
the House did not possess that power. If the Ho-
nourable Gentleman's object was, that Sir
Thomas Cochrane should appear at the bar
of the House to be examined, and that the
answers he gave were not) ho,--an oath, but that
they wore to be laid hefore the Committee,
substantiated by the' oaths • of, other persons,
it was clear that . the Hon. Gentleman could hardly
be acquainted with any of the rules of evidence or the
use of an oath.—(Hear, -hear.) If a person swearing
that he heard Sir Thomas Cochrane make certain
statements were sufficient, it was contrary to
all rule that the evidence of such a person
should be sufficient to- substantia.te the statements
that should be made on oath by Sir Thomas Coch-
rane himself. It might be quite right that some
means should be hereafter adopted to enable the House
to obtain the testimony of persons who are about
leaving the country, and he (the Attorney-General)
agreed with the Honourable Gentleman opposite,
that undoubtedly the power of compelling such evi-
dence might be exercised with ad-Vantage by that
House. In point of fact, he had inquired and
,at.scertained that Sir Thomas Cochrane had been ap-
pointed to the office which he was about to
fill, and the duties of which he was about to discharge
before he received the Speaker's subpoena; about that
fact there was no doubt whatever ; and he would call
the attention of the Hon. Gentlemen opposite to the
counter-disadvantage under which a party was placed
in consequence of his being appointed to 'an office
.to which rank and gallantry had entitled him.
That might have been the reason why he was
called upon to appear at the bar 'of the House;
but he (the Attorney-General) did not mean
to say that it was the case in the present instance.
It should be observed that Sir T. Cochrane was not a
candidate at, and had nothing whatever to do with the
last election ; therefore it could net be supposed that he
could give any material, evidence in relation to. it. - He
certainly had been a candidate before, and a successful
one, but he (the Attorney-general) was not aware that
there had been any reflection cast upon him whilst ho
sat in that House. The present motion was. made upon
some grounds which were not disclosed in thepetition,
jealousy.
He which were kept back from a groundless
He thought it would have been much better to state those
grounds. that every Hon. Member might know for what
reason it was that Sir Thomas Cochrane was 'to be
called to the bar. What was the real position in which
the House was placed with respect to this petition ? Sir
Thomas Cochrane was a candidate at a former election ;
the petition did.-not state that lie interfered in any way
whatever with the last election. Now, he would suppose
for a moment that he had written some letter in a news-
paper, intimating that application had been made to him
to become a- " candidate, and that he had declined to
comply. He was utterly at a loss to conceive how that
could be a legitimate ground for calling Sir Thomas
Cochrane to the bar of that House, or for making any
inquiry as to what passed when .the proposal was made
to him. If it was meant as recrimination upon those
who made that proposal, he could say, without fear or
contradiction. that it would not be evidence with respect
to the pending inquiry. But the House was not so en-
tirely without a remedy as the Hon, Member seemed to
suppose. That House had the means of doing. justice,
if any justice were required to be done, They must, on
that occasion, take it for granted' that Sir Thomas
Cochrane was fully impressed with what he owed to that
House, and the necessity of obeying any warrant which
might issue against him. If from an erroneous judg-
ment .as to the value of his testimony, or as to the obe-
dience which he owed to the House, he should go abroad,
not having given that information which was deemed
material to the matter in issue, application could be made to
the Special Commission, who might postpone for 24 hours
their further meeting, and might then come to that
House 'to apply for a further postponement, in order
that justice might be administered. If it should be ima-
gined that Sir Thomas Cochrane had- gone abroad to
avoid giving evidence which might be favourable' to the
petitioners, still it was perfectly competent to that House
to postpone the proceedings until he had returned to this
country.—(A laugh from the Opposition.) What could
the House do ? Could they issue a writ of ne exeat
regno, and prevent Sir Thomas Cochrane from going
abroad in the service of his country ? if Sir
Thomas Cochrane were at the bar of the House,
what use could they make of his answers ? After
giving the subject fulLconsideration, and attending to it
with that gravity and attention which he deemed be-
longed to the question, it appeared to him (the Attorney-
General) that it was impossible for the House to take
any step to restrain Sir T. Cochrane from going abroad.
He (the Attorney-General) would undertake to say that
every Court of Westminster-hall would reply to such an
application, Ist., that the Court could never assume that
a witness was wantonly called on to absent him,,elf from
his duty, and 2d., that they could not assume that any
subject of the realm would deal contemptuously with the
powers of the Court, or would. fail in that respect
to the law which every one owed. The answer
would be that the Court could take no notice
on one side or the other, but would leave the case
to go on till they saw whether the witness had forgotten
his duty or not, and if he should forget his duty he
would be i)pen to judgment. The House could do no
more than Westminster Hall, and all Westminster Hall
could do was to leave the matter where it was. If the
law were defective let it be amended, but at present the
House could not interfere ; and by calling Sir T. Coch-
rane to the bar adopt a course new and unprecedented,
and certainly not very respectful to the very gallant
person concerned, and not very respectful to the framers
of the law. If the Honourable Gentlemen opposite per-
sisted in pressing his motion to a division, he (the At-
torney-General) sould meet it with a direct negative.
Mr. O'CONNELL hoped not.—(Hear, hear, and
laughter.) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who had just sat down, had exhibitectthat consummate
skill in his profession for which -ph. O'Connell) so
much respected him. But he thought that the Right
Hon. and Learned Gentleman had relied upon merely
technical difficulties. There were .facts which it was
alleged Sir T. Cochrane had in his possession. The
evidence was not of a personal nature, but consisted of
documents and letters. It had been alleged that those
documents and letters were of very material consequence
to tha proper hearing of the case. It had been also
alleged that Sir T. Cochrane had been served with the
Speaker's order, as he was about to leave the country
before the case could be heard. Now was it fitting that
that House should allow of that state of things, and
agree, upon the mere prospect of the 'present Members
being permitted to retain their seats, that the
Committee should be adjourned until the Gallant
Officer returned from the service upon which he was about
to go? and as he (Sir T. Cochrance) would, no doubt, act
with the same gallantry as he had displayed upon former
occasions, it was not quite so certain that he would
come back.—(Laughter.) That being 'the state of the
case, that part of the Attorney-General's argument, in
which he ridiculed the idea of taking down the evidence.
of Sir Thomas Cochrane, and offerin,g it as evidence
to' the Committee, was perfectly right. It would be
taken in evidence; but if Sir T Cochrane stated at the bar
that he had in his possession the documentS, and that he was
about to go out of the country before the Committee sat,
should not the House have the power to prevent the
Gallant Admiral ? He (Mr. O.'C.) by no means meant
to impugn the conduct of Sir 'rhos.' Cochrane. The
Attorney-General did not tell them that the Gallant
Officer had not those documents in his possession ; but
it was not denied that the Gallant Officer did possess
them. It was not to be supposed that the Government
sent him out of the way in the present instance, but
they ought to see that they did 'not now lay down a
principle which some other Government might use for
purposes which perhaps could not be justified. All they
wanted the Gallant Admiral to tell them was,
whether or not he had those documents in his possession.
If he had, let him produce them ; if not, there would be
no inconvenience to him from tbe__matter, but much
loss might arise to the petitioners by the non-production
of the papers. He (Mr. O'Connell) admitted that the

.
hGallant
thAe Admiral ir a l
recollect
be at an end before he came back, and the next •P. ils
bthoautntdhetopraPeSpeenart Pb"arrlirame that
IMl:tigurf*-Fo.:1-1
snluepltocseoualduanaont,seinrytehdatmciatshe,.apusnuibsplicleiniam.byßtuhte letcotiotrh.teeol.
Queen's Bench, and he declared that he would not M:
an attachuient would be issued against him for thlttncf.
claration, and" e (Mr. O'Connell) bad no hesitation is
saying the Court would consider his conduct iii therlie,4
of contempt? and would 'put Min_ into custody what .°_,
,
would be sure to be kept to be fortncoming en in !. t!,_lYe,
of triaL He (Mr. O'Connell) thought then that all :a.
justice of the case consisted in complying with the pr.-e_
sent motion. No inconvenience could, as he said, a2:07.
to the Gallant Officer from the course pointed out, bet
great inconvenience might arise front the absence ooll_alte
documents. They could not possibly refuse the mortf:
without probably doing great injury to the cause ' • .'
petitioners.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was not preparec.°
accede to the motion of the Hon. Member opposite, .toj
Gentle-
the proposition of the Right Hon. and Learned.o.
man the Member for Cork. What were the facts
et ;berm°
case ? Why that the solicitor to the sitting 3lnl
Or
had asserted that Sir Thomas Cochrane had written crt:
taro letters in the newspapers, and those letters. he'rs- cliv;
lieved were important. That Sir Thomag. C°,eivit hF
was going abroad ; and, therefore, it was asked rt. 7 'to
should be ordered to attend at the bar, in ordei46.l, ,
what those letters were. Now, as far as he could,tin ...1..
stand the subjeet, such a proceeding was ccditZels
to every principle of Parliament. Election petitioi)4:oo.
tried by an Act of the Legislature, and not by the "
attend
Before that Committee-witnesses were bound to t;
they were there examined upon oath, and were boutfluthe
produce every paper or document they had. 1 ' the
proposition of the Hon. Member was that, becansiCie to
sitting Member was afraid he should not be ai,oo
have the witness before the Committee he was pax
for
.
that the House should interfere. The Hon. gemberwer
Cork had asked whether the House had not the pc' te
to prevent a witness from leaving this country ; all soP
could say was, that if it had, it had a power - whi7 si
Court of Justice in the country had hitherto exerls,„
He entirely disagreed with the Right Hon. Member :7.,
Cork, that if a person stated that he believed a Wit° 10
would not attend at the trial, that he might be placed iat
custody, in ordeitthat his attendance might be ensure
the trial. Such a course would be against all law, bet
a witness when served with a subpcena was boalej
obey it, and he was, liable to be attached and rounts,_,,ig
if he did not ; but he denied that the Court of Q11,r7"
Bench, or any other Court, had the power, to in3Pl7.
any individual, in order to ensure his appearance tai
trial. The Hon. Gentleman proposed that Sir T1n.717,
Cochrane should be brought to the bar and asked 1„,,
had the papers referred to. Why could not that 570711
question be asked him in the Committee ? He de d,
that the House had the power to place -him in the c It,
tody of the. Sergeant-at-Arms till the petition came
ti°o
Such a proceeding was against all authority. Ile lila to
be summoned as a witness, and if he did not attea t.,
made 'himself liable for the_ consequences. Upon w!';-_, t
grounds .was this application made ? He did not ,'!'n,
to enter into the merits of this ease-; but .here-the situp
Member was petitioned
for
for_-matters conacetie
with the last election for Ipiwich; _find the Hon. Gr!r",h-
man himself had admitted that Sir 'Thomas Lu'do
rane knew nothing of the last eleetion, had nothing °at
with it.—(No, no.) He bad -certainly understood toll,
the documents stated to be in his possession wer,Cioot
correspondence relating to a former election. It nui air
appear in the statement of the Hon. Gentleman that
re,
Thomas Cochrane knew anything whatever of the 1,;i0
sent election. If it was necessary that the House Au-to
possess an additional power of summoning witnesses
o
be examined before it—if this House, and. the
_....„°h' 0
House of Parliament, should give them the same ISO
that had recently been given to the Court oft 11,';ir•
Bench, it must be only by an Act of the Leg,ist!„',./,
that it could be given. Nor was that power computs,"o,
as the Hon. Gentleman supposed; but only _went t° `
that where a witness would not be able to attend
trial, either from ill health, or from being ah';':'„,t to
leave the country, the Court was empowered to direct nt";,,ii
be examined and. cross-examined on oath before i Masterrt
to produce any documents he might possess, that they end h#
afterwards be produced upon the trial. If the Hon. IVle,:s,
thought that the machinery of the House was not stl 6
P,1,0
the proper course was not for the House to interfere, but ,110
to propose an improvement of the Grenville Act, so aqii§
the House, or its Committee, the same power as that
the Court of Queen's Bench, of examining or cross-ora
witnesses upon oath. If Sir Thotnas Cochrane w
pcenaed as a witness by the Court of Queen's
..4,- le
that Court had the power by the recent A"' „ro,
examine him before a Master. and to order him tes 'oa,
duce any papers he might have; but the House had no stielfzit
chinery to carry this into effect. If it was a defect, it tvacalit 01
in the law itself; and he thought the Hon. Gentleman ',slew" ate
refi!ction hardly wish to see this power exercised in this.,,ds
as it would be required in every other. Supposing th,.,eretbe..
witness who was keeping out of the way, what weed hl 'o .
consequence? Why, that this House would be 1214,!;411
arena for the trial, and the party would have to be bra: to
here instead of before the Committee. He would pet '1141.1
the Hon. Gentleman whether this House was the plu--e,', if
the question could be entertained. If there was a diffien-'OO
the existing law, and it was necessary to give the 110'7„'igt
same power as the Court of Queen's Bench, it must be °J4,1,q1
Act of Legislature, by an act for the improvement of the
~`,/e
of election petitions, and not by the interference of the P'-
Itself.
Mr. O'CONNELL rose to explain. He was reallysurPci°ll4
to find that the Soliamr-General should have so entirell_L'ils
taken him as. to attribute to him a statement that a O.IWI
would be issued against a witness, and that having, been -se,p
with it, on an allegation being made in the Court that hermit
about to withdraw, then that the Court would attach him. lf,a
was only a part of what he said. What he said was, tbat,'y
person were served with a subpoena, and he declared the tis
would not obey, then a writ in that case would issue fronirbs
Queen's Bench to attach him for contempt of court•
.:00
Solicitor-General also said that he (Mr. O'Connell) irbar i
that they could examine Sir Thomas Cochrane at teo
what he said was that they could know wkether Sir 1"1,41
Cochrane had those documents, and was about to g°A teat •
without producing them ; and he (Mr. O'Connell) sa'" 'file
his examination could not be given in evidence before:ibe
Committee, but that his papers could, and that se 1:1C- ,
"
‘', ,
5-1,
House might go. ' .0
Mr. AGLIONBY said the question before the al%
a
whether a witness being within the jurisdiction the i,...9
and being about to go out of it, was by an analogy :,,,50;er
Courts of Law amenable to the jurisdiction of the P.:tet
and whether they had power to get the papers they sy,,'",. to [
He apprehended the analogy was completely sills",a," tiro t
those cases in which the Courts of Law examined 0.
witness upon interrogatory points ; and it would be ',, to
strous if the House had not, by analogy, Pee'ialli
bring the Gallant Officer to the bar, where or-eiliff
the evidence be could give was admitted on the Off
side to -be of the most material importance. :ja I,
ought, therefore, to send for the witnesses. What 4
vtololol
the effect of refusing the present motion ? Why the ''„.l
Officer could go abroad, and the purposes of justice *lb' I
defeated. Any party possessing documents in cases 4
same kind need only place them in the possession of an
0
leaving the country, and.they might thus be removed ?Lea'
the jurisdiction of the House. It was, in his opinions7isft
tial to the purposes of justice and the dignity of the 11;‘,1
that they should examine into cases of this kind,. it.e,f' ,
allow justice to be defeated by contrivances of such a nat,_*-h-to
Mr. THOMAS DUNCOMBE said that though hobo' ,
•seconded the motion of his Hon. Friend, he thought it l',Voriq r
state, after what he had heard from such* high legal an' ''o
as the Attorney-General and Solicitor-General, ahat h,,,,,e c„ipst
not say a sufficient case had been made out to call Sir ."-,311/
Cochrane to the bar of the House. But he thought it egiliog
clear that the House ought to have the pOwer -of cerePe Ile
parties to give evidence in cases to be tried before them;l.oo4
thought they had a right tee require the Ministers of the v , be
to give an assurance that Sir Thomas Cochrane would at°l he
sent out of the country in the service of the Crown aa, tbe,
had produced the documents in question in obedience to
warrant of the Speaker. The Learned Attorney-General ~e el'
the Learned Solicitor. General had both stated that t" Vie.
dente of Sir Thomas Cochrane was not material to the too
Now, he hardly thought it was fair in his Hon. Friend t°,,ter
round upon him with that assertion, after having :e bit
fered to prevent him from explaining, to the 14°g; eel, •
views as to the materiality of Sir 'Thomas Cochrane iolio"
dente. But when he looked at the Speaker's warrant', ire
did he find there stated?—" You, Sir Thomas Cochrini let'
to bring with you all papers and letters, and all copies °or,
ters or correspondence, between yotirself and othet:, y
Pbio
on the subject of a sum of money required to be ps'ne Ifs;
previous to receiving the support of the Tory partlen-hri°:
with as a candidate at the late electiou; and you ar!"-,,eisi°",
with you all letters, or. copies .of letters, in your fes'iteeti'
on the same subject." Now, that did relate to tne coelei
election, and not to the election at which Sir Thetna'robe
rune had been a emendate; and he (Mr. T. odes Dan
would say, that if Sir Thomas Cochrane had. been Dune
of 1,
in any manner in a negotiation for the payment o the'
sum of money to the Tory party at Ipswich to secuiecrio,°'
support to him as a candidate at the 4,4
wood be ell
it would be disgraceful to the Tory party—it won! rstref`la
graceful to the servants of the Crown—it would be d''g go t
to her Majesty's Government, if lie were allowedrowe'ior
China before he had satisfied the requirements of the a colt,
(Cheers.) He did not think a case had been made Let
calling Sir Thomas Cochrane to the bar of the House,, WO'
thought the House had a right to expect that the RI,, : 39°f;
Baronet at the head of the Government should give l'-ou-t,t'l,
once that Sir. Thomas Cochrane should not leave this ~alter
on the service of the Crown until he had obeyed the 4-
warrant. ago
Sir ROBERT PEEL said that the Hon. Gentleci'Swor';
had given notice ef the motion, had, in bringing it
~-pets°,t
felt so doubtful as to its success, that he had said if arkito API,
could suggest any other
'course he would be ready ,
°Lob t
it. And after a debate of half an hour the I°. thl
Gentleman who had seconded it, had
in his opinion, this motion could not ba 4,hing.,,,
It was agreed on all hands 'that it would be est% the l,
most dangerous precedent to call this Gentleman '_',d shrie4
and one from which he believed every Member would e 0,?,,,
In the first place, it was doubtful if evidence so talon an
be rendered available. He apprehended it could
,Tron, Sts,
power of Courts of Justice in such cases was t erive" t it '',,,,
tote, and the House could have no such power ea e 1)... any 1.,
given it by Statute. The House could not exa.nlin,,,, por„
dividual on oath at the bar, and it could net exercise ";_n„tiOvi
its lu jiceo
sought to be exercised from any analogy between , an a ..0
add' state
,
and those of Courts of Justice. The Hon. Genlcer 411 v
the Government to give an assurance that u
thiso .etion °aril
be detained until he had appeared before the ,,equiri,,
mittee. That was quite a new proposal, and one '„iveo,y,
great deliberation before an answer could bse
_,01,', cel.'..
(Hear, hear.) It would require the most .1-. gif 7,1
sideration before such an assurance could or
t eta 1
He would admit the object to be bona fide, and tohlaiterthial, big
believed the evidence of Sir T. Cochrane was
__,•ed
_A
that there was nothing in the case but what ape`
e'Aeo,tti!re
observe, other parties may make use of it as a Pr( war.) t. of
allege what they did not feel to be the case.
,as a .„,,rte_et,
conceived the issuing of the Speaker's warranttawring .
thaVynt
course, and that any person going to hnn and s .
a_a ~,,
fain person's evidence was necessary, would ?bt.!7l, as ty's,
from the Speaker, and he would not make any n ul ~.,
~
officer might be essential to the public service._
~,
_woo, ,or
materiality of such evidence. The immediate Id3ptahretu;),o_ titoYl
and if he might be retained not by the House L,m„„ry ~.,
by an individual alleging that his evidence v:in If; ,ightl.,
certain election purposes, the services of such nwntion 1,-
lost to the country, or at least suspended fill the etc,
..,,
tion was tried, which might not be till June.. u
~it..;. ~
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—it will come out i
.a?.' :fie thile,
Sir R. PEEL—But that was nut ma eirt I
d Learned cm_,,,
he had said enough to convince the Hon. at,ie
to earn''
man—since it was evident his mind was_ctit
nn__( ta,ight2er
because he had already abandoned his nai,it
from the service of the country, not becauseindividual stated
that he should be very cautious how heelPht
ehllaeokuoandStif;
Mani interfered, but because a privates