The Sun.
London, England, 1807-03-03 00:00:00

Bourn

.ayo

TOM

o-tnorrow

23d
.of April, baring been resumed, a short conver-
sation ensued, *bich terminated in leave being
granted.
wESTMINsTER ELECTION.

Lord FOLKSTONE inoyed that the Order of the
Day be read for takiiig into consideration the Peti-
tion relative to the Westminster Eletition-hen
MC. &Mal 1)-A begged to, say a few-words t--
ters of privilege, it was not unusual to order strait-
gers to withdraw. lie deprecated such an order most
strongly in the present instance, and addressed him-
self particularly to one Hon. Member, earnestly re-
questing that the investigation might be as open as
possible.
Mr. PETER MOORE stated, that several Gen-
tlemen whose fortune, eharatiler, and reputation,
were most deeply implicated in the Petition present-
ed last week, relative to the Westminster Election,
and who were extremely desirous of rescuing them-
selves from the foul calumny that had been cast upon
them, had applied to him to present thei,- Petitions
to that effed to the House, to which request he bad
acceded. A Petition, similar to that which lie had
mentioned, bad been presented, and afterwards
-withdrawn, which was stated to be the Petition of
the Inhabitants of St. Martin's le Grand. A re-
spe6lable body of those. Inhabitants were now in
attendance about the House, anxious to exonerate
themselves from the charge of gross disresped, to
which they would otherwise be liable, by-declaring
at the Bar that they were wholly ignorant of the in-
tention of presenting any such Petition. He re-
quested leave to bring.up these several Petitions.
''he SPEAKER observed, that the question be-
fore the House was; that the Order of the Day be
read. At the same time it was competent to the
Hon. Member, if the reasons he assigned were suffi-
cient, to present any Petitions which bore upon the
subject that was on the point of being brought for-
ward.

After a few words from Lord FOLKSTONE and
Mr. P. MoORE, it was agreed that Lord For.x.-
STONE'S Motion for reading the Order of the Day
should he withdrawn, for the purpose of. allowing
the Petitions to be first presented,
Mr. P. MooRE then presented a Petition from
Henry Burgess, which stated, that a Petition had
been presented to the House, signed James Paull,
charging the Petitioner with divers-crimes against
the Privilege of the House; that the Petitioner begged
leave to confront the evidence that was to be adduced
to prove this charge, as he had strong reason to be-
lieve that a system of perjury had been established,
and was still persevered in, in order to deprive the
Right Hon. R. B. Sheridan of his seat in that House.
Mr. P. MOORE moved, that the Petition do lie on
the table.

Lord FOLKSTOIVE,• although he would not op-
pose the Motion, obseived, that the prayer of Mr.
Paull's Petition was to be allowed to confirm his al-
legations by evidence; but that Mr. Burgess consi-
dered those allegations as already confirmed.
_ _

.
Mr. SHERII)4N was convinced that the Noble
Lord did not mean any thing unfair or dishonourable,
and that therefore he could pot mean to summon

witnesses against him, and deny him the opportunity
of refuting their assertions by opposite' testimony.
He was aware that many would r that testitut,my,
and he cared so little who heard it that he had,pro-
tested against excluding strangers from the House,
though among them might be, and no doubt were,
many who would at a future period be'called on for
their evidence," Arraigned as he was of having ei-
ther himself, or by his agents, tampered with wit-
nesses, it surely could not be intended to deny him
the,privilege of disproving the truth of the charge at
the Bar.

Lord HOWICK thought that the Petition had a
just claim to be laid on the table of the House, and
that when the proper time came the Petitioner ought
to be heard at the Bar in his own defence.

Lord' FQLKSTONE disclaimed any 'intention of
preventing
_the Right Hon. Gentleman from.calling
evidence on his 'own. part.
.111r.B1DDULPH observed, that in so grave and
so unusual a proceeding, his Noble Friend was en
titled to the indulgence of the 'House, acid to the
Speaker's advice and assistance. The result of the•
inquiry which was about to be instituted' would be
to prote& the most valuable rights of the Eledors of
Great Britain.

'rhe Petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

. .
Mr. P. MOoRE presented two other Petitions.
The one from James Wallis, stating that the Peti-.-
tioner had been charged in the Petition from James
Paull with having tampered with witnesses; but'
that not having been served with a warrant by the
said James Paull to appear to be examined at the
Bar of that House, he prayed that he might be exa-
mined, and that witnesses might be called to the
Bar to disprove the allegations,contained in the said
Petition. The, other Petition was from Frederick
Bowman and Alexander Johnston, and was couch-
ed in nearly the same terms: Both these Petitions
were ordered to lie on the table.

_ .
Mr. SHERIDAN had really thought that when
the Noble Lord opposite had Alloyed tOr the attend-
ance of witnesses at the bar, he would also have
moved tin the attendance of the persons-arraigned.
He held in his hand a list of witnesses, for whose at-
tendance he should move—but he should first ask an
Hon. Gentleman why he had not re-presented the
Petition stating to ba from the inhabitants of the
Parish of St. Martin's le Grand. It was withdrawn,
with the understanding that it would be so re-pre-
sented. There were persons then 'in the Lobby of
the House ready:to prove that a more gross fraud
never existed.

Mr. BIDDULPH denied that then: had been any
understanding as to the re-presenting the Petition
alluded to. On the contrary, he had specifically
stated, that he was under no obligation whatever on
the subje&. He bad not re-presented the Petition,
because it had never been brought to him.

Mr. II7III77BREAD confirmed the Hon. Gen.
Oman's statement ofhis not having given a pledge
on the subje&.
Mr. SHERIDAN was glad to find that such was
the case. On his Motion it was then ordered, that
the foliating Witnesses should attend the considera-
tion of the Petition complaining of certain proceed-
ings at the last Deakin for Westminster :
Messrs. Paull, Powell, Harris, Dawes, 13utler, Co;e-
mail, Steel, lughes, Townley, Ward, Graham, Vlallts,
IVlight, Cooper, BoYI, T. Sheridan, T. Browne,
&c.
The Order of the Day having been read for taking
into consideration the Petition of J. -Null, Zig, the

.ore t-stone move aat 'he card by Meisel,
!his Counsel, and Witnesses, hi support of the.alle-
gat ions of his Petition.
Lord HOWICK declared that he had 'formerly
expressed his. doubts as to the prppriety of bearing
Cenfisel in this case, lest such a.proceeding might
frustrate the ends of public justice. He still enter-
tained doubts ; but, on inquiry,,he had found a pre-
cedent in the reign of King William, of Counsel
basing been heard in support of a charge of tamper-
ing with witnesses. Feeling a desire that this trans-
aelion should be so investigated as to satisfy the pub-
lic, and auxious to remove the slightest pretence for
accusing the House of an intention to deprive the
Petitiener of the means of supporting his charge, he
would be wiling to allow the Counsel to be heard;
but he wished the House to observe, that since the
passing- of Mr; Grenville's Bill it had been the prac-
tice to abstain from hearing evidence which might
defeat the ends of justice in a subsequent Committee.
He trusted the House would confine the examina-
tion simply to the point of tampering, and that if any
question should be proposed affeaing the merits of
the Election, the examination would be stopped. He
did not see the necessity of allowing the Counsel to
plead, because such pleading would only increase the
danger it was desirable to avoid. it was true that the
Court of King's Bench, when an application was
made by one party on the ground that the other was
tampering with the evidence, interposed its authori-
ty ; but the cases were very different. In the Court
of King's Bench the case was afterwards referred to a
Jury—the House of Commons were themselves to
be the Jurors. It behoved the House, therefore, to
be very cautious how they allowed the merits of the
Election to he anticipated. He moved that the Clerk
do read the precedent to which he had alluded.
The proceedings in the Wootton Bassett case, ita
the reign of King William, were'then read. In that
case the parties were allowed the benefit of Counsel'
and witnesses. But the Speaker'stated, that at that
time EleCtion PetitiOns were tried by the House it-
self in a Committee. The present proceeding was
before the House at large.
Mr. GRENVILLE was of opinion that 'the pre-
sent case' ought to go to a Committee. While-the
House looked only to the examination of feels in
having the ease proceeded upon at the Bar, a prece-
dent may be established which may tend to much
inconvenience hereafter. He was more inclined
than others seemed to be, to doubt the propriety of
the House having proceeded .even so far as it had
done. The qitestion before the House seemed to him,
if not an integral part of that which was reserved by
the GrenVille Ael for the decision of a Selea Corri
mittee, at least so nearly to border On it, that. it would
be impossible to keep the two objeets-distind.- 'He
had no doubt that under the Grenville Aa a Com-
mittee was perfectly competent to do the justice re-.
quired in this case, if the fans alleged could be sub-
stantiated or completely falsified: The Committeis
might make a Special Report if either should be found
guilty of improper .praaices... If no inconvenience
could arise to publicjustice, as he thought none could
in this case, the House ought not to interfere with a
jurisdiction so nearly conneCted,if not identified,with
that which it had, by a
.solemn Aet, delegated toits
Committee. He did not suppose that the I\lernbers
in the House unsworn were a iess ckstroUle iribtiont

:1 1(011

d tl]

be I

than the Members sworn upon a•CoMmittee. But
there was no doubt, that a sworn Committee, with
its attention direCted to the objects it was to try, was.
as eligible a tribunal as the House unsworn. He was
so strongly ccnvinced that this was a case that ought
to be reserved to a Cominit tee, that he kit an innis-
pensible duty to:state his opinion to the House, the'
he could ,not hope that any opinion of his could
have such weight with the House as to lead its de-
eision. If, notwithstanding the considerations be
had thrown out, the House should persevere in the
present course, be was of opinion there would be
great danger in hearing Counsel. By the interfer—
ence of Counsel, it would be rendered next to im-
possible to keep this case distinct from the question
of the late gleaion, which was to be tried by the
Committee—a question which the House was by
law prohibited from interferino• in. It the, whole
matter was not sent to the Committee, the only
way the House could reserve that part which be-
longed exclusively to the Committee, was by keeping
.the examination of witnesses in its own hands. An
Advocate, who looked only to what was best adapted
to his present objed, could never aet up to the delicacy
which became the House upon this head, and there
would thus he an endless necessity for-the-interposi-
tion of the House. If, however, the House should
agree to hear Counsel, as well as to examine this-
matter itself; he hoped that it would not be permit-
ted to such Counsel to attempt to instru& the House
with respea` to its privileges ; and that particular
care'should be taken to prevent him from int';olViug
the two cases, which it was so essential to -keep.
distin&.

Mr. LEIGH thought the matter of the Petition
now before the House, would be a fit subjc6t for
the consideration of the House, rather than for a
Committee, if it were mere insulated matter of fast,
involving only the guilt and punishment of some of
the parties. But the case to which the attention of
the House was now called, involved the question of
the validity of the Westminster Eleetion, which was
appointed for trial on the 14th of April. Mr. Paull,
the present Petitioner, was the Petitioner in-that
case, and possibly the witnesses who were to .be
called in - support of_ the present Petition were the
very same who were to be produced before.the
Committee. If the charges now made were sub-
stantiated, the Committee would form a prejudice
against the right of the sitting Member. If, of the
contrary, they were falsified, a prejudice equally
hostile would be created against the Petitioner, who
would have brought corrupt witnesses to the bar to
establish fabrications of so foul a nature. • If any of
the witnesses should be guilty of prevarication here,
or if the testimony of any should be contradi&ed and
falsified, the stigma would accompany them before.
the COMmittee, and render their testimony -there-
suspeaed.—The 'Journals of the House shewed the"
awkward shifts that were necessary, when the SafiC-:
tionof an oath was wished to the evidence given at
the bar. At one time the Justices Of, the Peace of
.the Counties were called upon, to administer that
oath, at another time it was done by" a:joint Corn.-
cnittee of Lords and Commons, and' at other iiriies •

31,

Jeggekk,toweVOt, to be 'understood to be most anxi-
ous that the preSent matter should be particularly
inquired into in some shape or another.
Mr. PERCIKti L: said, the present case was a new
one, being the, first of the kind that had occurred
since the Grenville Mt. He agreed with the two
last speakers, that it was extremely proper to keep
the_prelient inaLter.distind7 from that which---was to
come before the EleCtion Committee. But the House
had already pledged itself,' he was sure not without
due consideration,--to proceed on the present matter
itself, for the order for the attendance of the witnesses-,
and for the hearing of the parties,_ c‘)Uld be inider;-
stood in no other way. He did not deny that a
Committee on the .Election was -competent to try
the matters now before the
.House, so tiir as the
party was concerned by himself. and.,his
But there was another great. .objed, that, of pre
venting and restraining this system of tampering, if
such a system did exist. For if such a sySteli) 4 ere
allowed to proceed without restraint, no fair trial
could possibly :be had befdre the Coannittee 'at
the time when it would proceed to the investigaa-
tion of the matter to be referred to
.it. As to
the hearing of Counsel, he thought the precedent
of the case,read from the Journals ought to be col-t•
lowed. The Counsel was then. heard on the whole
of the case. If it were matter of privilege, alone
that was -before the House, he would be disiiosed
to agree that Counsel should not be heard;
.but when
it was matter of privileie intermixed with the ge,
neral case of the Petitiotier, he thought there ought
to.be a full hearing on all the case. If, hoiivevcr, a
restrietion with respet to privilege was thought de-
sirable, it would be easy to iiiform the Connsel at
the Bar that he was to confine himself to the fauns
alledged in the Petition, -and to go into no 1-batter
foreign to then.). There was no question of law in
the present ease. All that was to be done. was to
state fa6ls, and to call evidence to substantiate them.
As to any prejudice that may exist, that would be
nothing more than the common case of a trial in
one Court in Westminster Hall, preceding a-trial
between the Same 'parties, and with the sam2 wit-
nesses, in another. The tribunal in the subsequent
case would guard itself against the influence
.of the
decision in the former.
Mr. GRENVILLE explained.
Lord H. PETTY, notwithstanding
.all that had
,been said by his Right' Hon. Friend (Mr. Grew.,
and his Hon. Friend (Mi-. Leigh), Who had
spoken with so much credit to himself, thought the
House ought to. proceed immediately to the .investi-
gation of this matter. The House had but a choice
of inconveniencies. There was an inconvenience in,
proCeeding in the House rather than in a Committee,
and there was a further inconvenience in the risk
.of-touching any part of what belonged exclusive-
ly to the Committee. But there -would be a
greater inconvenience in deterring, to-a---late• period-
of the Session, and, perhaps, eventually to the next
Session, a matter which involved enarge:l'_of stich
rious moment, and related to rnischiets likely to
crease and become more fatal; it th'ir existence, if
any they bad; was not timely closed: As to any
-prejudice which the result of this investigation may
haveon the Comthittee,--- it• would be nothing more
than if the investigation n instituted
_here should
hay tnkNn plitoe in a Court of Law previous to the

trialby the Committee. On the whole view of tiles
case, he thought it itidisdensibleiathitshisieHnotutsce,
should proceed tio‘i with tie present iiiatter.
Mr. SHERIDAN could not gi
any argument, however well founded, for May,
not even to those of his Right Hon.
_Friend (Mr.
Grenville), hOWever much he respe6ted his talents
and his character, from a long and intimate ac-
quaintance. It was for the .House to judge how tat
there was a risque of improperly mixing the mattes
of the present investigation with that reserved foe
the Cominittee. For himself, he had no hesitation
to say, that his present defence would consist in
laying open the- whole case 'he would -have to ad-
duce before the Committee. It - would consist
-in shewing that no one of the Witnesses to.
be brought forward. accainst him. was worthy of
credit. Here these Witnesses would be- examined
without being. sworn, but he was sure the-result of
this examination would shew, that little credit could
be given to their oaths there. He did not think this
should suggest to his opponents the policy of getting
a new set of witnesses for the Committee, and if it
should afford them an opportunity to make that pro-
vision, his obje& was not so much to preserve his seat
for Westminster, as that his character should not-be!
suffered to remain one hour subject to the:stain of so
foul and scandalous a libel as that here pr {erred
against him. He was sure there was not on& o'f the
Gentlemen who heard him who would suffer charges
of so infamous a nature to hatig over him for six.
weeks. Let the witnesses come to the aar,.and if he
was perhaps not prepared on every pOint of the infa-
my of their charaCters, lie hoped the .Hot )1d)

dtilge him with time to make inquiry, and to collect
_use Wi.,)ll_ 111
such farther evidence as he may have occasion- for:
Mr. 13Ari-euRsT was entering into some observa-
tions, tending to shew the most convenient mode
of proceeding, but the loud cry of " Question !
Question!" induced him to desist.
Mr. BAKER thought the House ought to protect
the Witnesses summoned to give evidence at its Bar;
and that no Gentleman having a seat in the House
ought to speak. of Witnesses about to come to the
Bar, in the terms of reprehension as then used Or
the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite.
Mr. WYNNE, after some explanation with Alr.
Baker, pointed out the Honiton case, subsequent
the Grenville Aft, as the only precedent for 111
present. The cry of" Question ! Question >" «a
-renewed.
The ATTORNEY GENERAL'thjouusg t
tice a:Cp:
sary to ppose himself a moment to !hi! impatience •
-pof
iethtyeoHf oauilsoe‘,viinnzortdh7bteonsentigtgoVwtilt'ielesses
and Coun•
-sel to all-the parties, as well ,as to the oneth thats
fa 10'
111,
ar
v.l,rouealcityb,aell:;Aa•evidtetdo, bt eh
osuolt-ile heard :rect Ittopcl Petitioners
11.4 y
Prot have prayed for Counsel, not thinkin: perhapi
Alia it was consistent with tke usages-of the' Heise
grant such a prayer. He did not know how 6r.
''his Right kron. Friend may be disposed to waiVe this
advantage, but the agents and others be knew rnay
be' desirous of it, and 'he hyped the House
think them as well entitled u A tls Mr. Paull.

.
again Ow Chief Justice of the King's Bench was re- Mr. SHERIDAN wklied Inc lionie to go direa-
,quired to attend to ;lurminist2r • From ali these lk into the husine:ts. As to Cwnsel, he had no ob-
oowiderations hg wished to rezerie the whole Case to je;:tiou to give. I].t. opponents all the Counsel in ti.l