The Sun.
London, England, 1842-06-29 00:00:00

a jury, against no one of whom they could make an ob-
jection ;,at all events not to be tried before a Committee,
the leading Members of which had pronounced an opinion
decidedly unfavourable to him. He could conceive no
situation more painful then that of a judge, situated
like the H m. Member for Bath, and for the lion. Mem-
ber's own sake, as much as for that of Mr. Wal-
ter, he would deprecate the Hon. Geutleman's
continuance as Chairman of that Committee. In
any other tribunal, but a Committee of the House of
Commons, the Judge would shrink from presiding under
such circumstances. Mr. Walter having submitted to
the order of the House, he did not feel himself justified
in making any motion for the purpose of preventing the
Order of the House fr, an taking effect.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he cordially agreed with all
that had fallen from the Hon. Member for Oxford. He
knew not whether more to admire the able speech of
the lion. Member for Oxford, or the straightforward
and respectful conduct of the gentleman who appeared
at the bar. He gloried in the conduct' of that gentle-
man, and if it should be the pleasure of the House,
to visit him with its pains and penalties, he would be the
first to pay him a visit.—(Loud laughter`:) A more un-
constitutional and arbitrary system had never emanated
from the British House of Commons.--(Hear, hear.)
Sir GEORGE GREY thought the House ought not to
be satisfied with merely adopting the motion, but that
something should be done to enforce the authority of
the Committee. He could make every allowance for the
feelings of a gentleman who had been attacked in the
House, and therefore he had no wish that any harsh steps
should be taken ; but if he rightly understood the speech
which had been made at the bar, the gentleman who
made it had demurred to the authority. of the in-
ferior tribunal, though he bowed to the authority
of the House; and he thought it most important they
should not sanction any such distinction. He would
therefore suggest that the motion should be followed up
by an admonition from the Speaker.
Sir R. PEEL said he was quite prepared to support
the authority of the tribunal which had been regularly
appointed by the House. The authority rested
in fact not with the Committee but the House ;
but it would be impossible for the Committee to carry
out their powers unless they were supported by the
House. Considering that Mr. Walter had expressed his
readiness to submit to any order of the House, he (Sir R.
Peel) on the whole thought the best and most dignified
course to pursue would be to signify to Mr. Walter that
it was his bounden duty to attend the Committee
and give evidence. That he thought was the
best course, which had also been adopted in the
case of. Mr. Fleming, who had refused to give evidence
which he deemed inconsistent with his character as a
man of honour. The order of the HouSe, on that
occasion, 'was, that Mr. Speaker should inform
Mr. Fleming that he was bound to attend the Committee
and give evidence, and also that, whatever objections he
had to advance should be submitted to. the Committee
for their decision.
Sir G. GREY said that in the case of Mr. Fleming,
there was no positive order of the House. Mr. Fleming
was merely told that the Committee was the proper tri-
bunal to decide the matter.
Sir R. H. INGLIS said the motion was that Mr.
Walter should attend and give evidence before the Corn
mi ttee.
The SPEAKER then put the question formally that
Mr. Walter do attend and give evidence before the
Select Committee on election proceedings to-morrow, at
eleven o'clock, and was about to declare the " Ayes " to
have it, when several Hon. Members exclaimed " No."
Lord HOWICK made an observation across the table
which did not reach us.
Sir R. PEEL had not said that the course pursued by
Mr. Walter was in conformity with the course taken by
Mr. Fleming, for Mr. Fleming had attended before
the Committee, and stated the reasons why he would not
give evidence. Mr. Walter had declined attending.
Lord HOWICK entirely agreed with the Right Hon.
Baronet, that the vote they were about to come to,
was not to desire the Speaker to state that it was theeduty
of Mr. Walter to obey the eummons of the Committee, but the
vote they were ab.mt to come to was to give Mr. Walter a
new order on the part of the House, and not an order to
attend the Committee ; that was the distinction drawn by the
Right Hon. Member for Davenport (Sir G. Grey). That
appeared to him (Lord Hcvick) a distinction of very consi-
derable importance. Therefore he thought that the motion,
instead of being in this form--" That Mr. Walter do attend
the Committee to-morrow," should he—" That Mr. Speaker
do inform Mr. Walter that it is his duty to obey the summons
of the Committee, and answer questions."
Sir R. PEEL said that what the Hon. Gentleman pro•
posed was something in the nature of a censure on Mr.
Walter, 'which was not called fir. Wh he ( Sir R. Peel)
understood Mr. Walter to wish for was, a notification of the
will of the House upon the matter.
Sir R. INGLIS wished to ask the Speaker if the question
had not been put.
The SPEAKER said that his impression was that the
question had been put, when the Noble Lord the Member for
Sunderland rose, and no person had a right to rise after the
question had been put.
Sir G. GREY rose, but being met by loud cries of
" Order, order," " Chair, chair," the Right Hon. Gentleman
sat down.
Lord J. RUSSELL also rose, amidst loud cries of " Order,
order," " Chair, chair," " Spoke, spoke," and was obliged
to resume his seat. •
The gallery was then cleared for a division, when
there appeared—
For the motion
Against it
Majority for the motion —l46
On our entrance to the gallery,
Sir G. GREY was on his legs, and moved that Mr. Walter
be called to the bar of the House, that the resolution of the
House might be communicated to him.
After a few words from Colonel SIBTHORP,
Lord J. RUSSELL conceived his Right Hon. Friend was
right in saying that the Committee lad authority to summon
persons before it, and that persons were bound to attend to diet
summon;. That was the course adopted with regard to Mr.
Fleming, a Member of that House, and he supposed that they
did not mean to adopt a differeat course, in the present instance.
He conceived. the motion having now been carried, it was suffi-
cient that Mr. Walter be informed of the resolution of the
House; but he did not think it was necessary to make such an
order in every case.
The motion having been put,
Sir R. PEEL said he did not think the power of making
witnesses attend rested in the inherent right of the Committee,
hut was derived from the delegated power of that House. If
the proposal originally made had been that the Speaker signify
to John Walter, Esq., that he should attend, he would give his
vote in favour of that resolution, because he did net see any dif-
ference between it and the one to which the House had just
come. He thought the ends of justice would be answered by
the adoption of the course he had proposed, and he did not see
a very material distinction between that and the course this
House had adopted. When, however, he assented to that, he
did so on the ground that the Committee did not, require the
assent of the House, but that they had already had the power to
summon witnesses conferred upon them, and to send for papers
and records.
Lord HOWICK thought the proceedings on both sides of
the House bad been extremely irregular; the more proper
course to have pursued would have been to have passed the
resolution proposed by his Right Hon. and Learned Friend.
He would have voted for negativing the original resolution in
order that a better one might have been adopted; as the House,
however, had assented to the original resolution he thought the
better course would be to adopt the one proposed.
Mr. O'CONNELL said that no person could understand the
resolution now come to as casting any reflection ; but no wit-
ness had any right to say he would not attend, on the ground
that certain parties were not neutral enough to sit on such a
Committee. He would suggest that nothing could be more
mischievous than the idea that in a Committee appointed by
the House it was to be a sort of bye battle whether a Member
was sufficiently neutral to sit in a Committee. —( Hear.)
Lord JOHN MANNERS said that Mr. Walter had ob-
jected to the Hon. Member for Bath ; that objection stood
upon the record, and nobody had denied the validity of it.
Mr. O'CONNELL must have been misunderstood by the
Noble Lord. He did not consider a mere unsupported state-
ment, such as that which had been alluded to by the Noble
Lord, sufficient. He meant that the party should present a
petition to the House on the subject, and that the Member
presenting the petition should move that the party be removed
from the Committee.
Mr. WAKLEY said that although it had been contended
that the resolution-of the House did not convey any censure
upon Mr. Walter, yet the speech of the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Devonport did convey a censure. The Right
Hon. Gentleman had laid it down as a rule that all parties sum-
moned as witnesses were bound to attend most passively and
most submissively; that whether summoned as a witness or a
criminal he was bound to submit. He (Mr. Wakley) protested
against such a doctrine. It constituted the very essence of a
tyrannical disposition—( Hear, hear, from Colonel Sibthorp )
and in practice it was fraught with the greatest danger to the
character of the House.—( Hear, hear, from Colonel Sibthorp.)
He agreed with the Hon. Member for the University of Oxford
in every sentiment he had uttered. Ile (Mr. Wakley) thought
the House had been startled into a most ridiculous and uncon-
stitutional proceeding.—(Hear, hear, from Colonel Sibthorp,
followed by shouts of laughter.) He should never forget the
way in which Hon. Gentleman hail got -up, one after another,
to answer in the most submissive manner questions which had
been put to them in reference to a private transaction.—
(Cheers.) He said it was a private transaction, the
law took no cognizance of it—the law did not ho'd the
parties engaged in it criminal—and before they hall commenced
legal proceedings they had required parties to get up and cri-
minate themselves. The sooner they got out of it the better—
( Hear, hear, from Col. Sibthorp)—it would be better for the
country. He was convinced, from what he had heard out of
doors, that the general opinion was that the Committee was
not an impartial one, and had not dealt out an equal measure of
justice to all parties.—( Hear, hear.) He did not believe that
his lion. and Learned Friend's Committee would tell anything
new. Every one in the country knew that compromises had
taken place, but the Report of that Committee would cast an
unfair slur upon the character of individuals. He thought the
practice a most dangerous one, and he protested against it al-
together.
Mr. ESCOTT said he had two objections to the Committee
of the Hon. Member for Bath. The first was, that it had been
proved that the Hon. Member had assumed towards Mr Wal-
ter a hostile attitude, and he must dissent from the principle
that an accused person could not call in question the tribunal
before which he was to appear and give answer. The
second objection was that the Honourable and Learned
Member for Bath had last night stated that the
Committee was determined to adopt the system of exclud-
ing the parties accused ; and, in facteall parties but those under
examination. He should give his vote ageinat the attendance
of
.Mr. alter, because the proceedings were conducted on au
unjust principle.
Lord STANLEY thought there was some degree of mis-
conception on 'the subject. lie understood that Mr. Walter
was summoned before the Committee, not a' an accused party,
but as a witness, with regard to the facts of the case trusted to
the Committee for inquiry. The proper time fur objections to
the Committee was at the time it was formed, and the powers
complained of delegated to it. No such objections had been
taken, and the House bad appointed the Committee, for the
purpose of trying certain offences. In the discussion that then
took place, it was distinctly avowed that the object of the
Committee was not to criminate individuals. In the course of
the investigation, Mr. Walter was summoned, not as an acemed
person, but as a witness ; and, iu that character, ha could
not conceive that he had any more right to object.
fi em any personal feeling, to attend that Committee, than
a witness summoned before any other Election Com-
mittee, constituted in the ordinary manner.—( Hear, hear. )
It was on that ground he thought that Mr. Walter had now
no reason to remonstrate. It was further his ( Lord Stanley's)
(pinion that a Committee requiring the p.esence of a witness
did not stand in need of any specific authority from the liou•e„
inasmuch as the House delegated to the Committee the pourer of
sending for all persons, papers, and records, they might think

223