and learned Gentleman the Member for Abingdon; and under these circumstances could vote neither for the Motion nor the Amendment. The MASTER OF THE ROLLS said, he wished to state why he thought that the Motion of the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) ought not to be acceded to, and that Edwards had not put himself in a situation to entitle him to be discharged. It was admitted that, if the evidence was to be believed, he had been guilty of a grave offence. He had presented a petition commenting upon the evidence, and seeking to show that it did, not amount to proof of his being guilty of a Breach of Privilege; but he did not seek to come before the House to give explanation, but put forth a general denial of the offence. It was a rule of law that where evidence was suppressed, it must be taken to be of the very strongest description against the party withholding it, and it must be taken that Edwards was aware of that. Therefore it ought to be supposed that the evidence which had been kept out of the way was of the most vital importance to the petitioners. Now, it was plain that Edwards could not remain where he was; he ought to be either committed to Newgate or discharged. But he (the Master of the Rolls) had never heard of any person who had been committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms or to Newgate having been discharged without that person's having presented a petition to the House expressing either his contrition for his offence, or the fact of his having committed it through ignorance. If Edwards should pursue either of these courses, he might be discharged from custody, but not without the payment of his fees, for that amounted to a declaration that he had not been properly committed. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abingdon that the question of the legality or illegality of the adjournment of the Committee had no immediate connection with the point which they had then to consider. It appeared that any hon. Member of that House might upon his own responsibility state that some other person had been guilty of a Breach of their Privileges, and upon that statement the House might commit that person if they should think fit. It appeared to him that Edwards ought then to present a petition to the House, explaining his conduct, or expressing contrition for his offence, and that if he did not pursue that course, the House ought to send him to Newgate. But as the Easter holidays were at hand, and as it might be a serious disadvantage to Edwards to be compelled to remain in prison until the House should reassemble after Easter, he would suggest that they should adjourn that debate until to-morrow, and so afford an opportunity of presenting in the meantime a proper petition to the House. Mr. J. S. WORTLEY must remind the House that this person had been committed for a gross contempt of the authority of the House; and it was said, it seemed, that he was to come forward and take an objection to some irregularity which, even if it existed, had probably been cured. The Committee represented that the investigation ought to be carried on by a Commission; and was the House to set this man at liberty, to enable him still further to defeat justice? The right course was, to send him to Newgate; and the only further question was, whether the Attorney General should be directed to prosecute him. MR. ROEBUCK said, all were agreed that Edwards should not be set loose. The question then was, where was he to remain that night? He should be either sent to Newgate or afforded an opportunity to free himself of the charge against him. In the meantime he (Mr. Roebuck) thought it better to have him sent to Newgate, from whence he might appeal to the House. LORD JOHN RUSSELL considered the case a very embarrassing one. This individual (Edwards) had been, in the first instance, ordered into the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, but at the same time the House ordered that he should remain in the custody of the Serjeant-atArms, and that he should be brought by him before the Committee to be by them examined. Well, the Committee had ceased its functions, and the question now was, what should be done with Edwards? In the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms he could not remain; because, the Committee being dissolved, the purpose for which he had been consigned to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms had ceased. Therefore, they must either commit him to Newgate or discharge him. In his (Lord J. Russell's) opinion it was desirable to adopt the course suggested by the Master of the Rolls, namely, not to decide the question now, but adjourn it till to-morrow. to-morrow there should appear no reason for assenting to his discharge―in the If morrow. event of his not coming forward, or com- on the other side was in the highest degree ing forward and failing to prove his inno-technical. The hon. and learned Member cence-then he should be either sent to for Abingdon (Sir F. Thesiger) doubted Newgate, or ordered to be prosecuted. It very much if there was anything informal was desirable that that House should vin- in the proceedings of the Committee predicate the authority of its proceedings-vious to the adjournment; and, therefore, and therefore fully agreeing in the sugges- he (Sir J. Graham) spoke with great detion of the Master of the Rolls, he moved ference, after such high legal authority. the adjournment of the debate till To- But, if he was not much mistaken, there was no court in Westminster that would allow a party committed on a contempt, to plead informality in mitigation of his punishment. He did not think that this person was in a position to ask for any lenity from that House. He was therefore of opinion, that both the Motion and Amendment ought to be withdrawn, and that Edwards ought at all events for that night to be committed to Newgate. Let him to-morrow, before the House adjourned, present a petition to the House; and if couched in proper terms, he had no doubt it would be attended to by the House. Motion made, and Question put, "That the debate be now adjourned." MR. HUME thought it mere trifling with the House to think of adopting any one of these courses. If ever an individual deserved the censure of the House, as also the punishment, it was Edwards. By his conduct the means and objects of justice had been frustrated. The Committee had done their best to investigate the matter submitted to them; but all the means of arriving at a just or satisfactory cenclusion had been removed by Edwards. Under such circumstances he never recollected an individual being discharged without at least presenting a petition. In his opinion they ought to send Edwards to Newgate until he should have presented a proper petition to the House. Therefore, at present, they were only losing time. The matter had been already three times before the House, and if then adjourned, to-morrow would be the fourth time. SIR R. H. INGLIS thought it would be an anomaly to adopt the course of hearing Edwards at the bar, and receiving his unsworn assertions in opposition to the Report of a Committee of five sworn Members of that House, as also of the witnesses examined upon oath before them. If Edwards were to express his contrition the House might extend to him its mercy; but without such an expression of contrition, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) would not be disposed to allow him to be discharged. MR. AGLIONBY said, that the facts had not been proved against Edwards, as they should have been, previous to his committal. No tribunal in England would commit a man to Newgate without giving him an opportunity of defending himself from the charge made against him; and he thought that the House should not call upon a man to express contrition for an offence, the commission of which he denied. He thought that Edwards had in his petition clearly expressed his desire to be heard at the bar of the House, for he said therein that he has never to his knowledge committed a Breach of the Privileges of the House of Commons, he submits to the justice of your hon. House that he should not be condemned unheard, or punished by imprisonment without having an opportunity of defence." It was for the House to say if they wanted any more formal expression of Edwards' deSIR J. GRAHAM wished to ask this sire to be heard. He (Mr. Aglionby) had question, was Edwards committed for con- communicated with the gentleman who tempt, or for further examination ? It placed Edwards' petition in his hand; appeared he was originally committed with had asked him whether Edwards wished a view to examination by the Committee; to be heard at the bar; and had been told but if committed for contempt, he had in reply that Edwards expected to be disdone nothing to purge himself of it. He charged on the technical point without (Sir J. Graham) did not understand that being called to the bar; but that if he any member of the Committee, indeed he was not so discharged, he desired and was might include the hon. Member for Cock-ready, at any time, to be called to the ermouth, was prepared to say that he disbelieved the report of the Committee, and believed the qualified denial of Edwards. If such were the state and merits of the case, the point raised by hon. Gentlemen bar, and asked any question that the House might think proper. Even if the House thought that they should have a more formal petition from Edwards, he (Mr. Aglionby) thought that the House MR. BAILLIE said, that Edwards had been committed to custody for contempt of the House upon a Report of the Committee, and he thought that the House must accept the contempt as proved by that Report. They could have no other evidence; for it was preposterous to think that they could have a trial at the bar of the House, and waste days in investigating the matter. If Edwards expressed contrition, it would be a different thing, the House might then extend its lenity to him. would hardly, in the meantime, send him | Committee, but they must also hear witto Newgate for that night, when he (Mr. nesses on both sides (who were not under Aglionby) told them that Edwards desired the sanction of an oath), and try the whole to be heard at the bar. question afresh at the bar. There was no precedent that he was aware of for calling a person who had been charged with contempt, or Breach of Privilege, to the bar of the House, and there trying whether he was guilty of the offence or not. If Edwards had any ground for alleging that he had not been guilty of a Breach of Privilege, he should have asked the Committee to investigate the matter; and the House were bound to assume that the Committee had taken the best means to ascertain whether he had been guilty of a Breach of Privilege before they reported to the House. The ATTORNEY GENERAL thought They were bound to believe that the Comthat the House ought not to commit Ed-mittee had fully investigated the matter, wards to Newgate upon ex parte evidence and were satisfied that Edwards was guilty taken before the Committee, or at all events of a Breach of Privilege, and therefore this without his being present, or having an opportunity afforded him of cross-examining the witnesses. This man had presented a petition praying to be heard at the bar. [An Hon. MEMBER: No, no!] He understood that he had, but he certainly thought that it would be hard that he should be sent to Newgate without being heard. A Motion was made the other day by the hon. and learned Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) that Edwards should be called to the bar, and the responsibility of that Motion having been defeated rested with the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby), who had then said that he did not desire that Edwards should be heard at the bar. This matter had, in fact, been delayed so long by various means, that Edwards' petition was placed in rather an unfavourable position, and he thought, therefore, that if Edwards desired to be heard at the bar, he should not be sent to Newgate; if he did not desire to be heard, or, if being heard, he had nothing to allege in controversion of the facts stated by the Committee, no one who had made himself acquainted with the Report or the evidence upon which it was founded could doubt that there had been a gross violation of the Privileges of the House; and if Edwards did not purge himself of the contempt, or submit himself with that contrition which the House thought fit, he ought assuredly to be sent to Newgate. SIR F. THESIGER said, that if they followed the suggestion of the hon. and learned Attorney General, they must not only hear Edwards' own statement in contradiction to the witnesses examined by the VOL. CXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] was not to be taken as a mere ex parte statement. Although there was a primá facie appearance of hardship in committing him to Newgate, he maintained that Edwards had brought himself by his own fault into his present position; and under these circumstances he was most unquestionably not disposed to accede to the delay proposed by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), because he did not think that Edwards had placed himself in a position to ask the indulgence of the House. He had not presented a petition asking for investigation or making his submission for his offence, and he therefore thought they should dispose of both the Amendment and the original Motion, and leave Edwards to bring himself again before the House by a proper petition. The SOLICITOR GENERAL said, that after carefully examining the precedents, he thought that, if the House committed a party to Newgate without hearing him, they would be taking a course which had never been pursued before, and one indeed which was contrary to the course pursued on previous occasions. He had not yet heard any suggestion made for allowing Edwards to enter into evidence at the bar of the House; all that was asked was, that he should be asked what he had to say to the Report of the Committee. In the Dunfermline case in 1803, a person named Trotter was reported to the House to have absconded, in order to avoid giving evidence, and on that report he was committed to the custody of the Serjeant-atArms. When that officer reported that he was in custody, Trotter was brought to G the bar of the House, the Report of the Committee was read to him, and he was asked what he had to say with respect to it. He was then ordered to retire; the House took the Minutes of the evidence adduced before the Committee into their consideration. It was moved that the House do agree with the Report of the Committee, and, upon that Motion being carried, Trotter was committed to Newgate. The next precedent, the Grantham case, in 1820, the parties were merely summoned to the bar (not in custody); the Report of the Committee was read to them; they were asked what they had to say to it, and, after they had been heard and had retired, a Motion was made and carried for their commitment to Newgate. Newgate. In the Ipswich case, in 1835, the parties on the Report of the Committee were committed to custody, presented petitions confessing their delinquency, and of course they were not brought to the bar of the House, but were forthwith committed to Newgate. Now, in this case, the party, so far from confessing his delinquency, asserted that he was entirely guiltless of the charge; and although the House could not allow him to produce witnesses, nor could they enter into an investigation of the matter, he ought not to be placed in a worse position than Trotter, or the witnesses in the Grantham case. Was it just that he should be placed in a worse position than were the parties in the cases he had cited, and that he should be sent to Newgate without giving him an opportunity of being heard by himself or counsel? The question then was whether the House was prepared to make a new precedent by sending a man to Newgate without affording an opportunity of hearing what he had to say? His (the Solicitor General's) opinion was, that he ought to be brought to the bar and asked what he had to say to the Report of the Committee, before he was committed to Newgate. He ought to have an opportunity either of defending himself, or of confessing his guilt, and asking the mercy of the House. MR. J. S. WORTLEY said, that Edwards had been daily in attendance before the Committee, and he should there have asked to be heard. The Committee had investigated the matter, and had reported to the House evidence which left not a shadow of a doubt upon the matter. MR. VERNON SMITH would remind the House that the question before them was one involving the liberty of a British subject, whose case was brought before The Solicitor General the House without his having had an opportunity of being heard in his defence. It was true that evidence had been given against him by two women, but he was brought before the Committee merely to be identified by those witnesses; the Committee asked him no questions, and, as he had had no hearing, he now asked to be heard by the House. He (Mr. V. Smith) did not wish to see these committals for contempt and Breach of Privilege carried to any extravagant extent, and he therefore thought it was due to the diguity of the House that they should not proceed hurriedly in this matter, but should give Edwards an opportunity of being heard, as the hon. Member for Cockermouth (Mr. Aglionby) stated that he knew he desired it. The House had assuredly the power of committing to Newgate, but he still thought this power ought not to be carried to a tyrannical or arbitrary extent. He, therefore, considered that the party should get the chance of purging himself of the contempt by giving him an opportunity of presenting a new petition. MR. ROUNDELL PALMER would not be a party to letting Edwards go without the House marking, in a proper manner, the sense which they entertained of his guilt; but he thought that they might, without any risk of compromising its dignity or privileges, accede to the course proposed by the hon. and learned Solicitor General. That was to say, that if, on the following day, Edwards should not have presented a petition, either making his submission to the House, or varying the statement which was now before the House, he should be brought to the bar: that, in accordance with the precedents, the Report of the Committee should be read to him; and that he should then be asked what he had to say to it. cumstances he (Mr. R. Palmer) should then vote for that course which he had indicated, and which, in his opinion, would best vindicate the dignity of the House. Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned.' Under the cir The House divided:-Ayes 108; Noes 87: Majority 21. Headlam, T. E. Heneage, G. H. W. Heywood, J. Heyworth, L. Hindley, C. Hobhouse, T. B. Hodges, T. L. Humphery, Ald. Mowatt, F. Pechell, Sir G. B. Prime, R. M'Neill, D. Pusey, P. Mahon, Viset. Rawdon, Col. Milnes, R. M. Reid, Col. Mitchell, T. A. Ricardo, O. Scholefield, W. Seymour, Lord Thornely, T. Towneley, J. Labouchere, rt. hon. II. Wall, C. B. Walmsley, Sir J. Williams, W. Lewis, rt. hon. Sir T. F. Wigram, L. T. Lygon, hon. Gen. Willoughby, Sir H. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C. TELLERS. Hayter, W. G. List of the NOES. Berkeley, hon. H. F. Blandford, Marq. of Brown, H. Booker, T. W. Cardwell, E. Carew, W. H. P. Charteris, hon, F. Chatterton, Col. Christopher, R. A. Cochrane, A, D. R. W. B. Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Coles, H. B. Cubitt, W. Currie, H. Douglas, Sir C. E. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he would now, with the permission of the Committee, propose the following Resolution : "That the Duties granted by the Act 48 Geo. 3, c. 55, and now payable in England, Wales, and Berwick-upon-Tweed, and in Scotland, respectively, upon Dwelling Houses, and levied and assessed according to the number of Windows or Lights therein, as set forth in the Schedule marked (A) to the said Act annexed, shall be levied and assessed upon Inhabited Dwelling Houses in and throughout Great Britain, according to the annual value thereof, in the manner following that is to say "For every Inhabited Dwelling House, which, with the household and other offices, yards, and gardens therewith occupied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of twenty pounds or upwards by the year; "Where any such Dwelling House shall be occupied by any person in trade, who shall expose Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. to sale, and sell any goods, wares, or merchandise Currie, R. Deedes, W. Halsey, T. P. Denison, E. Henley, J. W. Disraeli, B. Herbert, rt. hon. S. in any shop or warehouse, being part of the same Dwelling House, and in the front, and on the ground or basement story thereof; "And also, where any such Dwelling House shall be occupied by any person who shall be duly licensed by the laws in force to sell therein, by retail, beer, ale, wine, or other liquors, although the room or rooms thereof, in which any such liquors shall be exposed to sale, sold, drunk, or consumed, shall not be such shop or warehouse as aforesaid; |