Star.
London, England, 1828-03-11 00:00:00

questions; and Lord Colchester upon that occasion said,
that no Member had a right to examine another, except
in a Committee of Inquiry. If a Member should refuse
to answer, the Comniittee could not compel him, any
more than they could any other witness. All the Com-
miner could do was to inform the House that he ref used
to answer.—(Here the Right Hon. Gentleman referred
to various cases to prove what the practice of the House
was in such cases.)—He, however, saw no necessity of
acceding to this motion. He should be most unwilling
to call upon any Hon. Gentleman to criminate himself,
unless it was. absolutely necessary to the ends of justice.
Here, however, there could be no danger of that kind,
as the House might refuse the only scut of written evi-
dence which could be produced, the notes of the short-
hand writer at the bar.
Mr. Secretary PEEL explained. He never expressed
a doubt of the power of the House to compel its Mem-
bers to attend for the purpose of being examined. He
only referred to cases i• which the words " if he shall
so think fit," were used, and said that on these words
a doubt had been grounded by some persons. la 1790,
General Ropke was called before a Committee of the
' whole House on the Stave Trade, for the purpose of
being examined, if he should so think fit. There were
other cases of the same kin 3, but the preponderance of
authorities was the other way. He did not think the
Committee had the, power of summoning without the
previous order of the House, or that the Committee
could examine without a previous summon%
Lord HO WICK opposed the motion. When a scan-
dalous case of bribery was made out, the House should
omit no means by which puni>hment could be effec-
tually brought home to the guilt/ ; but when it was
notorious that nine-tenths of those who represented
boroughs in that House were teturned in consequence
of bribery, either in money or money's worth, it was
too hard that one individual should be selected for
punishment. They could not deceive the public into a
belief, by a proceeding of this kind, that elections were
generally pure. He should support the Bill for dis-
franchising East Retford, because he thought the bur-
gesses were most culpable in converting their rights to
the gratification of mean and roelfish purposes.
Sir R. WILSON said the evidence appeared to him
quite sufficient. He saw no necessity for examining any
more witnesses; but he could not conceive how those
who were not yet convinced of the guilt of East Retford
could oppose the bringing forward of other witnesses.
The natural conclusion must be that they considered
the evidence sufficient for disfranchising the borough.
Mr. PEEL said, that in the observations he had
made, he begged not to be understood as pronouncing
any opinion upon the question of disfranchisement.—
Before he made up his mind, he should carefully peruse
the %%hole of the evidence, and then decide accord-
ing to the dictates of his conscience.

Mr. HARVEY was at a loss to conceive why tl e in-
sinuation should have arisen, that the evidence of Mr.
Crompton was called for through spleen. For himself
he could declare, that he felt 'no spleen against that or
any other Gentleman. And as to his (Mr. Harvey's)
interference in the matter, he begged to explain that
two persons from Birmingham, who were watching the
progress of this Bill, and who were then below the bar,
had called upon him with the Hon. Mover's compli-
ments, and entreated his assistance. He could prove, he
told them at the time they had first spoken to him, that
Mr. Crompton and other Gentleman ought to be exa-
mined. It certainly appeared, from Fox's evidence, that
2,8001. had been made up in sealed parcelsof 211. each,
and it remained to be shown how these sums bad been
disposed of. The time was gone by when those
penalties would be imposed to which, perhaps, at com-
mon law, the Hon. Member might be liable—(Hear).
He (Mr. Harvey) protested against the doctrine that it
was competent for a Peer of the realm to interim in
the election of a Member to serve in that House, in the
manner in which it had been proved the Noble Earl
(Fitzwilliam) had done. He would take the sense of
the House upon the motion.
Mr. Secretary PEEL explained. He had distinctly
stated, that if they examined Mr. Crompton they would
be bound to protect him against penal consequences.
He could see no ground for suspecting the Hon.
Member (Mr. Harvey) of being influenced by spleen or
private motive of any kind.
Mr. TENNISON said, his reason for pet calling Mr.
Ckbaldicon, Mr. Evans, and Mr. Crompton was, that
he thought big case did not require it. His case was,
that the burgesses received money, not that the candi-
dates paid it. •
After a few words from Mr. Hum and Mr. Alderman W.41:7H.
MAN, Mr. ithavvr consented to withdraw his motion, which was
accordingly done.
The Rill then went through the Committee, the Report was
received, and ordered to be taken Into further consideration ea
Friday nest.