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

II Thursday move for a COPY of the prqt,Yollon by bre-
°et, with all te exper...ses• to tt`w, country incurred
thereby ; and also for. n Cl:tmimittee to inquire into
proceedingn of ti_kt V.:ommissioners of the Natiuna
ebt, appoin wafer the 9th Geo. IV., for the invest-
aZlL e>f ruonirs in the Savings' Banks, and the purchase
IIE public O sale of tsccurities, connected with the exigencies of
service ; and their communications tAith the
'e4alicenoia of the Exchequer since 1815.--(Hear.)

TURKISII TREATY.
Dr. BOWRING gave notice that he would, to-
c',,orrovv, move for a copy of the correspondence relating
-J!;tlhe Turkish treaty.
wfir. O'CONNELL gave notice that he would move
itcopy of the evidence bet:.ffe the Longford Com-
.

TEXAS.
;:r he HON. "‘.iltunEa also gave notice that he would, to-
prrow, pc .c a question to the Right lion. Baronet at the
of j.ier Majesty's Government, touching Texas, in
eonseq.rmee of the alleged conduct of the British Mi-
/lister qiere.

VOTE BY BALLOT.
Orr, -SHIEL crave notice that he would, after the
itsuntide holidays, move that the votes of persons to
tect Members to serve in Parliament, be taken by bal-
t•-•,-(Cheers.)

DUTY ON 1.-!IITGAR.
'a Xi.. LABOUCHERE gave notice of a motion respect-
' ,the alterations of the dirty on sugar.
'' -• COURTS OF SESSION (SCOTLAND).
Mr. WALLACE moved for a return, showing, in
El-Anions, the number of causes which were standing en,-
Vicd . for debate before each Lord Ordinary, ir the
li)urt of Session in Scotland, on the first at. June,
1 akeA.. 0; and which had not been debated at
at date ; a similar return of flail causes en-
%txl for debate before such Lord Callinary, between
541 p, said first day of June, 1840, ;and the present time,
Kivhich are still unclebated, allowing the date of the
cartilment, the date when debated, PA that of the deci-
-4A of each of the said causes before each Lord Ordi-
..,,ci ; and also those causes which had been debated
''l4al remained undecided up to this dates—Agreed to.
SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION.
'Mr. REDDINGTO.N informed the House, as Chair-
lita of the Suuthanapton Election Committee, that he
- d given John Rann into the custody of the Sergeant-at-
las, for refir;ing to give evidence before the Committee.
is',,l' he 110-.4. 'MEMBER then moved that John Renn be
.t.'"tkd ..o the bar of the House, to know if he still perse-
ered in refusing to give evidence,
The motion having been put,
Mr. BUCK said, that its a Member of the Committee
Itho voted against the committal of the individual in
luestion, he thought it his duty to apply to the
ause that the evidence given before the Committee
IT produced before! the House ; and he thought that the
'loose would be satisfied that the individual, if he had
itiaitted any offence, had been sufficiently punished in
7tg given into the hands of the Sergeant-at-
'Ares. He would not have been placed in his present
1111aation were it not for a misconception of
It resolution Of the Committee, and so strongly
/Pere the Committee of that opinion that they
/1114,_ e-, to . a division as to whether his evidence
should bo erased. He believed the person was guilty of
;:c offence, because a person' was not bound to give evi-
line which would criminate himself.
''.111.. GODSON said that ho, as a Member of that
11,1511Thaittee, was of opinion that Renn should not have
Zen eau-emitted at all ; the law was that a man
,_3 ' not bound, to criminate himself', and if the
'4"'.l would Criminate himself by answering the
nurse
the Committee were not justified in the
nurse they had adopted. If he could do nothing else, he
40uld give a direct negative to the proposition, in order
tat the time might run out, and then the witness would
can of custody. The House, if it allowed this course,
‘,7'lle 'adopted would be establishing a most dangerous
r ectedent.
.•;-fir T. WILDE apprehended that the proper course
ltould be to ascertain whether the witness made any
ttelt objection. He thought the House was not at pre-
nt in a condition to decide the question.
-,..,'`'one SOLICITOR-GENERAL apprehended that the
rot per course would be to have the witnesses called to
4le bar.
The witness, John Renn, was then called to the bar
d examined by the Speaker as follows—
'LlVere you examined as a witness before the South-
'4 pton Election Committee ?—I was.
•''`All:' the course of the examination were there any
ItitiLions put to you which you refused to answer ?
, . ere were.
itWhy ?—Because I thought it would criminate myself
altlgnswered it, and would no me great injury hereafter.
Fill you still persist in not answering that question ?
if amwilling to bow to the decision of the House, and
We. House decide that I am to answer that question, I
7. Willing to do so.—(Hear, hear.)
'llr REDINGTON could assure the House that he
It : himself placed in a most delicate position. Then
ittee had been selected by the blouse to try the
~'crits of the election. They had been sworn at the
;nl6 to act conscientiously, and they were de-
nnained to do so. The Committee were of
Anion
that, the excuse given by the witness
„Wan excuse that was not justifiable, and that Corn-
‘ittee came to the resolution that he must answer that
ttli estion, which he refused to do.
'Mr. THESIGER thought that the witness ought to be
tied back to the bar, in order that he might inform the
tise what the question was which he refused to ansa er.
'Mir THOMAS WILDE said he thought the witness
t'.d conducted himself wfth perfect propriety (as we
lclerstood). He had professed himself willing
k. answer, if it were decided by the House that
j 5 must• do so. He (Sir Thomas Wilde) • moved
411,t the witness be further examined, and then to be
t%charged from the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms,
much as the House could not learn the facts
'Pon which alone the case could be disposed
tr The House was placed in some difficulty, and
la (Sir T. Wilde) submitted, that us die witness had
ZAhifested a disposition to answer the questions, the
ZIY way the House could be relieved from that diffiAilty
.I'4, by the witness being further examined.
it THESIGER said he apprehended that it was
zee scary fur the House to inquire under what
Zcunistanees the supposed contempt arose. He
ierefore submitted that the regular course was not
tot6nd the witness back before the Committee, in order
CliS being further examined, but that the House ought
decide, and he therefore thought the House ought
'`her to examine the witness.
The SPEAKER then put the question that
ike witness, having expressed his readiness to
ititWer any question the House should think
•Ipar to put, should be discharged from the cus-
Vth of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and be further ex-
a.ed before the Committee.
he ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that as the wit-
was wiling to submit himself to the decision of
.
House, 'that he ought to answer the questions
Acfler they might criminate him, or not. He
Fibi.e: Attorney-General) thought it ought to be
Cvniitted to the Committee to give some directions
1710 whether the question ought to be answered. The
Zport of • the Committee was simply that the
tMess refused to answer the question. The
on of the Honourable Member the Chairman of
. Committee involved in it the necessity
the witness being committed for contempt. Now
i(the Attorney-General) must say that it occurred
him that a witness refusing, either before
Committee of the House of Commons, or
other properly constituted Court, to answer any
t,tion, tending to criminate himself, was
' thrttialteYorfnecourßseeP. Report
tHeof could
~:.better support the doctrine he had expressed
,
1 ;11- by reading a passage from a judgment given
wasof aconotelomtptetr.
the late Lord Eldon. (The Hon. and Learned Gen-
t
i an an then read a passage from the judgment in pies-
! TPI, mhich laid down the rule that not only was
1 05,1)6. justified in asking a witness a question,
111,a; to criminate himself, but no one could ask him a
~,esticisi that might be a link in a chain of evidence that
IN criminate him.—(Hear, hear.) He (the Attorney-
t
7t6ral) therefore thought that, if the witness in ques-
i ti, t refused to answer the question, that House could not
'i'lltnit him to Nevvgate.
,''After a few words from Mr. REDINGTON,
itkiorel HOWICK said, he thought the House ought
1 to make itself a tribunal of appeal from
,
....,:Lion Committees. The House therefore ought not to
ire how far an ElectionCommitteee was right or wrong.
f-tir as he understood the matter, the answer given to the
h"eStion 'was that he refused to answer it, on the
-04nd that it tended to criminate himself. The
‘7tilittee had come to the decision that the
intil law did not apply in this case. The
tstcolittee on that point must judge without appeal.
Icerefore, as the witness stated his readiness to
si..W to the decision of the Hr'use, he thought it
ktl6dient that the Speaker should inform the witness
%It! it was true he was not bound to answer a question
V might criminate himself', but that it was for
',''. Committee to judge whether that excuse
11,• made with propriety or not.—(Hear, hear.)
00 1 .Witness had stated that he would bow to the deci-
of the blouse ; and he (Lord Howick) hoped that
C'')l he was made acquainted with the wishes of the
as se he would assent to their decision.
,
LaaraBERNAL said that there could be no doubt but
IV What his Learned Friend the Attorney General had
spil down .upon the subject was the law. lie remem-
ed a case which had occurred in an investigation at the Bar
lize. -.H.., into a charge of bribery and corruption, in the
NiF uf a Cornish borough many years ago. A solicitor, on that
14,t.tion, declined to betray the professional confidence reposed
Vby a client, pleading the privilege allowed before Courts
.-4;%a But he was told that, before the House, ho could not
.airnself of such a privilege ; and he was accordingly com-
N'Eaf to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. He alluded to
ets° of the Tregony Committee. The House was now
L ,
).
kver, placed is circumstances of great embarrassment.
k11;1 not the means of pronouncing a decision of the %hole
and the evidence taken before the Committee was not
-I,itt.
kw* them. Whether the Committee had acted justly or un-
e'stlieir acts were the acts of the House, and as such must
rid' ing.
I'd JOHN RUSSELL agreed with his Honourable
WM, .who had just spoken, that, generally speaking,
Vanient had maintained, and that House especially
14,,,ePeatedly maintained, that a witness should not
kv, 'to answer a question because it might crimi-
Ornaelf. That, he considered, was part of the parlia-
bietitary power of the House. He did not consider that it
Zat all necessary to argue the matter, because he did not
Itiri -the general parliamentary power was the question
k.
respect to these Committees ; nor did he think that it was
i4slion immediately at issue. The House had the power,
~.idered it necessary on some special occasions, to de.
Its.. iblici fraud, and, if the question came to be argued, he
Ridanot be preparedto surrender it. He thought the Hon.
k;Tean opposite was mistaken in supposing that when
Nizebosed Abe ' indemnity should be given to wit-
under those circumstances he thereby admitted that
1/4nWcr was questionable. That stood upon quite aroGier
r,.,.• - -The power of Committees rested upon a special
•, '''' Parliament. They were a judicial tribunal selected
'''''''l,o House; lout they were no less a tribuniii