The Sun.
London, England, 1819-02-27 00:00:00

COAL DUTIES

Sir C. MORGAN presented a Petition from cer-
tain inhabitants of Monmouth, praying that no
alteration might be made in the Coal Duty Laws.
Read, and ordered to lie on the table, after a few
words from Sir C. Morgan, Mr. Edwards (Mem-
ber fot Glanaorganshire), and Sir J. Coffin.
Mr. LLTTLRTON said, if any new tax was pro-
posed on inland coals he would strenuously op-
poe it. The subject had excited a great ferment,
and he advised Ministers not to lose a moment
in coming down to declare to the House that they
did not intend to propose any such ttx.
Mr. KENNET spoke against any equalization of
the Coal Duties.
Mr. CALCRAFT was in favour of such an equa-
lization
Mr•. S. WTORTLRY Opposed it.
Mr. DAVENPORT said a few words, but teas not
audible.

Mr. PROTHRRoII ss►id, that on this stibect he
should act in obedience to the wishes of his con-
stituents, an►i would suppott -such an

za ion.
Mr. H. SUMMER was of the same opinion. The
subject ought to be initnediately brought forward,
and he pledged himself to brim it before the
House. It was intolerable that the great bulk
of the people should be taxed for the benefit of a
aew monopolists, lie dwelt strongly on the mi-
series endured by the poor from this local, partial,
and unjust tax upon coals.
Lord G. Somerset, Mr. N. Calvert, and Mr.
(--?pps, slid a few words, when
LOrd.CASTLRREACH suggested that this was not
a fir orportuoity for discussing this subject.
Mr. LITTLETON repeated his deterviluation to
oppose toy -measure which the Hon.-Member
(11r. Kinner) might bring forward on this
subject:

Lord:LOWTHER presented a Petition from cer-
tain inhabitants of Kendal, praying for some al-
teration in the Insolvent Debtors' Act.--Itead,
and ordered to lie on the table.
Lord G. SOMERSET presented Another Petition
from the inhabitants of. Monmouth, against any
alteration in the Coal Doties.—Read, and ordered
to lie on the table.
INSOLVENT OEBTORS' ACT.

Mr. LITTLETON presented a Petition from cer-
tain merchants in the county of Stafford.
Against the renewal of the Insolvent Debtors'
Act.—" Ordered to fie. on the table.
PENRYN ELECTION.
Mr. A. WRIGHT, the Chairman of the Com-
mittee appointed w inquire into the merits of the
Penryn Election, appeared at the Bar with the
Report, declaring the sitting Member, Henry
Swann, Esq. to be unduly elected, upon the
grounds or wilful and corrupt bribery having been
employed in procuring hii election.
A new writ being therefore moved for,
Sir C. BURRELL rose, and opposed the issue of
it, till further investigation should be had as to
the merits of the case. Some individuals, he did
not deny, had been found guilty of bribery, but
there were others implicated in the same offence
to a greater extent than those whose names had
come before the public.
The SranKan here asked the Flon. Member if
he hail any motion to Sobalit on the subject, when
h• moved, as an ameudment, that all the words iu

the order for the new writ after. the word that b*
omitted,
A MEMBER observes!, that there was no proof
of any general corruption having been used, which
could induce the House to grant a new writ.
Mr.GuitsEy observed, that both parties were
known to have find recourse to the grossest in-
stances of bribery. The House, therefore, ought
to pause before it condemned one side, when the
other was no less guilty.
A MaNniEtt of the Committee, whose name
could not be learnt, said, that these was a strong
feeling in the Committee that the prows of bri-
bery which had been adduced were not sufficient
to warrant the Borough being distranchi ed. To
that feeling he had thought proper to submit,
though the conviction in dlis Owu mind was, that
a place so notoriously corrupt ought to be deprived
of the election franchise. He wGuld not hesi!ate
to avow himself a reformer, but riot a reformer of
a character to harmonise in the opinions which
prevailed among a deluded class of men out of
doors. lie was a model-We reformer, and he was
persuaded if the misguided persous to whom lie
alluded could see a disposition in that House to
purify the Representation by disfranchising such
places as Penryn, they might be made sensible of
their error. Boroughs like that, which were
shamefully sold, ought to be made to yiehi
those tights 'which they abused, and which might
be conferred with advantage to the cause of
justice and freedom upon such large towns as_
Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield.
Sir Jou N NEWPORT perfectly concurred in the
sentiments of the flou. Member who had jitst sat
clown ; it was time that the business of Reform
should commence, when such corruption as this
was known to prevail.
Mr. ATKINS WRIGHT made some few nbserva.
tions, stating, that Out of two or three hundred
voters, nut more than eleven had the charge of
bt ibery clearly proved against them.
Lord CASTLEREAGH said, that it was certaitily
very important that the Represe'ntation should be
pure and unimpeachable ; and it was no less im-
portant that it should be completed as to the
Members composing it, without any unnecessary
delay. Ije should beg leave to be toed from
the Chair, if, in the practice of the any
instances were known of motions bring
made, when there was no special Report troll) the
Committee ?
The SPEAKER, being called upon by the Noble
Lord to state whether such a step as the present
bad been taken where there was no special Re-
port from a Committee, should answer that
he slid not immediately recollect any instance. Jt
would be for the House, however, to consider
how far the present case might be deemed allele-
gous to others in which similar motions had beep
made.

Mr. WYNN recollected several instances in
which the issue of a new writ had been delayed
under similar circumstances.—(Here the Hon.
Member quoted Aylesbuty, and certain other bo-
roughs, as precedents.)—This was a motion of
which the House ought to entertain a coilstilo-
tional jealousy. A place entitled by law to a Re-
presentative, ought not to reinain longer tintype-
sewed than the Constitution authorised.
Sir JOHN Nsweoirr said, that the parties had,
by a Committee of that House, been found guilty
of a most shameful traffic.
Mr. I'. Moons followed oo the same side; and
after a few words from Admiral Sotherou and
Mr. Howard, it was carried in the affirmative,
that the original motion be withdrawn, and, the
debate adjourned till Monday next.
Mr. WYNN then moved, that there. be laid be•
fore the House the Minutes of the Committee ap-
pointed to inquire into the Yearyn
Motion agreed to.
• BREACH OF PRIVILEGE—MR. GRADY.
Mr. liuTcHINsoN rose, pursuant to his notice,
to move that Mr. Grady be discharged from New-
gate. He expressed a strong sense of the diffi-
culty of the situation in which be was placed, not
because he thought he was advocating a rong
cause, but because he feared he had not influence
enough to induce •t he llouse to protect at) injured
individual, and to support its own dignity. He
begged to observe, that the decisitni to it hid) he
objected was come to on Wednesday night in
a very thin House--with not more, than tiny
Members in theii• places—many of whom proba-
bly were not aware of the exact nature of the de-
cision they came to. Ile disavoWed any inten-
tion of undervaluing the privileges of the House ;
yet lie thought the decision come to the other
night was an error. It seemed to him as if the-
general impression on the House was, that the
Hon. Member for Limerick was the victim of a
'foul conspiracy. lie washed, however, to call
the attention of the House to a•few facts. The
present state of the case was, that a grave and
selious charge was-made against a Member, who
had made a most able and impressive defence, It
Was now resolved, that the complaint should be
beard at the bar. He agreed that it was proper
Mr. Grady's attendance at the hearing of the
charge should be secured, but not by so harsh a
step as that which had been taken. Mr. Grady
happened to have heard that the House came to'
.a resolution that the letter in question was a gross•
breach of privilege. Thus situated, he Was railed
to the Bar, and called upon to answer a question'
by which he might have criminated himself:- He
old not criminate himself. And how had hio cri-
rminality been proved ? By the evidence of Mr.
Quin, a party in the case. The evidence of Mr.
Quin in such a case might not to have been re-
ceived ; for how would it stand, in case, upon
hearing the charge, Mr. Quin should be found
guilty He knew that many Members who had
concurred in that motion, were now very sorry
that they had done so. Evidence as respectable
as any in the empire could be brought to the Bar
of that House, to prove that Mr. Grady cannot;
read by candle light.—(Langliter.)—He could
prove also, that Mr. Grady was so short-sighted,
that in walking along the street, if he had not a
guide, a carriage might run over him.—(Laugh-
ter.)—Besides, Mr. Grady had it in his power,
over and over again, to have withdrawn from the
House after he heard the turn which their pro-
ceedings were taking, But he must lay it down
broadly, that there was no sufficient evidence of
Mr. Grady being the author of that letter. But
suppose it Was written 10 a state of irritation alter

wiss given away. Now, "for i.e nimt
the House, that the Hon. Member, in his
/Wiener, had said, that when threatened with the
hsTge of guilty, he might 'have averted it by giv-
ing his son the office---now he could prove by
the dates of the letters, that when it was written,
The office had actually been given away. He now
held the letter in his hand, and with great respect
te must insist that there was not 'one word in it
amounting to a breach of privilege.
Mr. WYNN submitted whether it Was not too
much, that, after the House had voted, nemine
tontradicente, that the letter was a breirch of pri-
stileg.!, and come to the vote in the presence of
the Hon. Member himself, that be should now
be al:owed to contend that it was no breach of

Mr. LIIITCHrNfON said, though he had been in
the House shortly before the vote, and soon after
it, he was not present during the vote. Ile sub--
mined whether he ought to be prevented from
tending the letter.
Mr. WYNN said, that of course he could not
chi( ct to the letter being real!.
Mt. ihrrcntresoN then read the -toter of the
IStil of October :—" Sir, Underneath yon have
a copy of a letter written by me t.O a Member of
the Opposition, with whom I hale been for
week, and who has furnished me with clot acts
(rum the Cism mons i) urn Ids applicable to your
conduct, and to whom I have cot»mittiUl myself.
I deprecate every idea of a threat, hut I offer you
advice, and I advise you to restore my son to the
office torn which you have deprised him for life,
and that before the first of Janstaty. I wish a
reply, stating, that -take it, or no answer
in ease you refuse. But yrmr an!. ever, or no an-
swer, will not be requisite if yon do not agree to
this,"—Was these Any thing in this letter reflect-
ing ;Too the Hon. Member ? It was distinctly
tussled, that his Pdtliamentary character was not
affected, and what did it amount to ? NVhy-a
char re hAd been made, and had been contra-
dicted, and the copy of a letter stated to have been
acithessed to a Member of the Opposition was
mere statement of the accusation to be preferred
against him. The Hon. Member for Dover had
said, What ! will you release a person on iday
vvl7o was committed on Wednesdvy ? Certainly,
If, as he trusted, the House on reconsidering
should be convinced that no offence had been
committed, they ;could take the earliest opportn-
nit!, of restoring him to liberty. With these im-
pressions he should move—" 'flat Thomas Grady
be brought to the liar of the House forthwith and
discharged."
Sir R. WILSON rose to `second the motion.—He
thought the House had proceeded with too much
precipitation in committing, Mr. Grady. He re-
minded the House that all parties in this case

were judicially innocent. They were persons of
rank and consideration, and their reputation and
for:tles might be now at stake. Surely, there-
fore, the House would not proceed so as to give
any of the parties cause to say that they had
been found guilty breartse they were not allowed
fair means to prove their innocence. It was also
►necessary that he should state, that since he came
into the !loose, he understood that Mr. Grady
bad written a very humble and submissive letter
to the House, which he had sent through the
only channel by which it could not be conveyed to
them. Under all the circumstances of the case,
he trlsted the House would see the justice of
agreeing to the motion.
Mr. COURTENAY rose, with much reluctance,
to oppose this motion. It was from a strict and con-
scientious feeling of duty, and not from any hos-
tility to any party, that lie did so. At the same
time he must say, that it the House had hied.;
vertently been led into a mistake, or, acted with
undue rigour, they would ❑ot, he was sure, hesi-
tate to retrace their steps. But he did not think
that the case had been quite fairly stated by the
Hon. Member. The offence was deemed a breach
of privilege; not because Mr. Quin was a Mem-
ber of Parliament, ►tor because of any personal
affront. Ihe proceedings of Mr. Grady were un•
doubtettly an offence against the House. The
writings complained of could not be considered
as of an anonymous nature. The author of 'the
correspondence had been clearly made out, and
therefore, as Mr. Grady had been allowed to be
the writer, he was liable tretbe consequence. With
permission of the Hon. Member, he wished to ask,
who gate him the paper ?
• Sir Roaetia. Wasote answered—lt was given
to me by IheTetitioner.
Mr. CovaTeNav thanked li7m for his informa-
tion. On looking- at the manuscript of the sum-
awns and that of the letter, he found that both
were the stove handwriting►. When the Hon.
Member moved, that the Petitioner (Mr. Grady)
should be called to the bar, he 'never had any
idea of the consequences. it was never his, in-
tention to commit him to Newgate. tie merely
wished that he should enter into sonic security for
his appearance when the inquiry commenced, and
not be permitted to withdraw himself till the
House were-satisfied. At to the minute of con-
versation so of'en referred to, it had nothing to
do with the present case of Mr. Grady. Mr. Ca-
mew Smith, who, according to information, was a
respeable Gentleman of Dublin, became impli-
cetettit the affair. It was ridiculous to maintain,
tliat,4ii'catise young Grady was only 23 years old,
he was wholly incompetent to officiate as Clerk of
the Peace. It was a very strange degree of in-
competency indeed. But what was still more
strange, the young Gentleman had held the office
23 years Mr. Courtenay concluded by saying,.
that they would be acting with ',justice to them-
selves, and derogating from the character and
dignity of the House, if they suffered the present
case to pass' with indifference; be should there-
fore vote against the Petitioner.
• Mr. BOOTLE{ WILBRAHAM said, that as he wall
not a party to the vote by which Mr. Grady bad
been sent to prison, he should resist his enlarge-
ment, merely upon the petition he had since pre-
sented, and the documents that had been publish-
ed. He contended, that neither submission nor
contrition bad been shown by the prisoner, And
the appeal he had made was couched in terms
scarcely.lespectful. He was not, by airy means,
ttiaposed to .be unnecessarily severe, but no suffi-
cient claim► to lenity had been established.
Mr. N. CALVERT acknowledged that be had
bet a a►bseat whathe petitioner was called to

the Ile :wit AVelik to s:etre ;
but he could not help saying, the correspondence
so often alluded to W 39 not characteristic of
Gentleman.
Mr. BENNEt said that he was not in the House
at the time when the petitioner had been commit-
ted, or he should have entered his protest against
so rash a measure. However, as be bad not been
present, he could only endeavour to persuade the
House not to keep the petitioner in Newgate for
an act which no two lawyers in the kingdom
would allow to be any offence at all. It it were
supposed that the letter was written by Mr.
Grady (of which, though' it were not proved,
he should not affect to doubt), what did it con-
tain ? It stated acts of a corrupt Member of
Parliament, and detlnced inferences from those
facts. Now whether the alleged facts were true
or not. was not the present question ; but if they
were (roe, be would himself subscribe to ever) one
of the conclusion; deduced from them,and say that
they called loudly for the justice of the House, and
the indignation of the country. It had been said that
the letter contained a threat. He had carefully
read the letter, ad could not find that it con-
tait!od any threat. That was to Sly, any
threat which could warrant the House to inter-
fere. The letter recapitulated a corrupt offer

wh;ch had been made to the f.ther and 501), and

the wtiter of the letter spoke to this effect :
" You have 'lowered yourself so tar as to make
an offer ti) me which would have induceddlme to
call tor punishment on the he4d of any other man.
1 hive heel' connected with you for 13 years—
trace hack your steps, and 1 will not proceed
against you." Whether the facts were true or
not—whether the offer were made or Ho—such

was the natural and liberal interpretation of the
letter. The House had committed a man, 60
years of age, and an invalid, at a time when there
were about 50 persons in the House. With all
the respect he had for the privileges of the House,
be could not approve of such a measure, bad
however satisfaction in stating, that this Gentle-
man had all the accommodation in Newgate which
persons committed for such offences were entitled
to. He had gone to Newgate for the purpose of
ascertaining the truth of the Petitioner's state-
ment as to his eye-sight, and certainly it was im-
possible for any person not stone blind to have
more defective vision. The Petitioner had writ-
ten a letter to the only ;Member of the House
who could not read it to them (the Speaker).—
Mr. Bennet then read the letter to the
.House,
which expressed a hope that if his Petition was
not couched in the most respectful terms, it would
not be attributed to the most remote idea of ques-
tioning the justice of the House. It disclaimed
any intention of infringing the privileges of the
House, which were the best bulwarks of the liber-
ty of the people. The writer stated, that his son
was pledged to prove his case, under the pain of
the heaviest punishment ; and as be bad no one
about hint capable of assisting him, the writer
was desirous of obtaining his freedom, without
which he could not have unrestrained communi-
cation with him.—Mr. B. concluded by stating
that be should support the motion.
Mr. BATES OW:light that there was no ground
for differing from their former proceedings. The
Hon. Gentleman who spoke last had, no doubt, a
right to question the proceedings which bad taken
place on a night when he had been absent from
the House ; but be was surprised that any Hon.
Gentleman who had seconded the committal
should do so. He was surprized -that an Hon.
Gentleman, who was then present in the House,
should now object to the proceedings which had
taken place, aohoogh he did not do so on the
former night. The Hon. Gentleman who had
brought forward•this question expressed great re-
gret that persons called before the House were not
put on their guard against committing tbeinselVes.
His reasoning un the subject might be good ab-
stract reasoning, hut he would not be able to find
any thing in the precedents of the House which
would support his argument, for they had been
in the habit of summoning persons before them,
and of insisting that they should answer to any
questions which might be proposed to tl►em. The
Hon. Member who spoke last had said that it
would be almost impossible to find. t Tv° Lawyers
who would agree in the justice of the committal,
That Hono►,rable Member, it is true, had stated
that he was not in the House on the former night,
and be should therefore tell him that there was

one no inconsiderable Lawyer (meaning fir.
Breugham), and one, be shoull suppose, of no
small authority with the Hon. Gentleman, who
gave his reasons at large for the committal. There
never was an individual, to his knowledge, dis-
charged by the House at so short a time after
committal, as it was now proposed.—(The name
of Mr. Fuller was here mentioned by aflember
on the Opposition Benches.)—Mr.Fuller certainly
was immediately discharged, but it was in con-
sequence of having made an ample apology to the
House. He (Mr.Bankes) had heard many loose
applications for liberation, but he never heard any
so loose as the present. in answer to the difficulty
which the petitioner had stated, namely, that his
son woald labour under a disadvantage in pleading
his cause, as he was pleased to say, unless be
should be liberated, it might simply be stated,
that the House would not suffer the father to ap,

pear at the examination, and that, let the guilt

or, innocence of the Hon. Member accused be
what it may, the case could not be affected by tl►e
presence of the petitioner. He objected to his
son's incapacity, although he had exercised the
office of Clerk of the Peace during many years, an
office which was- important, as connected with the
administration of Civil and CI iminal Justice.
Sir Hoßaal. WILSON, in answer to the last ob-
servation ckf-the pt ecedin,r speaker, remarked, that
the younger Mr. Grady bad exercised the office
by deputy.
Mr. Alderman WOOO declared that he was one
of those who bad voted against Mr. Grady's be-
ing sent to Newgate. if it was considered as a
great breach of privilege, there were many other
breaches of privileges ; but there were shades of
breaches. 11 Gentlemen looked around theta,

►hey would find themselves surrounded with %% hat
might be con trued into breaches of privilege.—
The Hon. Member (Mr.Caurtenay) had confessed
that when he was the means of calling Mr. Grady
to the Bar, it never was. his intention to order
hint into custoily, far less to be imprisoned. Tbe

4 4 PS
Lie I.i)ah; thol•tore, nolien Nit the tionse
would !Consent to relax somewhat from their usual
rigour, by the speedy release of the prisoner.—
" To Sbe.sure (continued the Hon. Member); one
cannot but say that he (Coady) was the miter of
the letter ! I told him so in Newgate." The
worthy Alder Man then appeeled to the Member
for Limerick (Mr. Quin), if the prisoner were not
released, that a wrong impression might be made
on the public Mind ? It would do no injury to his
cause to consent to his release, and prevent all
idle clamour. That the accormoodation of New-
gate had been much improved could not be de-
nied ; but then it was still Newgate at best ; and
if any Hon. Member were sent thither, whatever
might be his accommodation, he would certainly
wish for a speedy release, The Prisoner was a
Barrister, aged, and the adviser of his son, who
could not proceed without him. Under all these
circumstances, the worthy Alderman implored the
House to consent to his release, as the Prisoner
had already been sufficiently punished.
Mr. MARTIN (of Galway) recommended the
Hon. Member to withdraw his motion, and hoped
that lie himself (Mr. Martin} would be the last
speaker on the subject. To avoid any misunder.
s funding', and to prevent vexatious insinuations,
he earnestly urged that Mr. Grady might speedily
be the Prisoner at large !" And he hoped that
either he or his friends would present a respectful
Petition.

Two New Members followed in snccession ;
but their rt,ltnes could not be learnt, and there-
lute it would be needless and unintertving to re•
cord their sent intents.

Mr. I'. Mooas apologized for the vote which
he had given when this subject was last discussed.
Had-he seen the papers which he had since -ex-
amined, he would have voted differently. Poit he
considered himself perfectly innocent, and only
under the temporary guidance of misconception.
The letter from the Honourable Member (Mr.
Quin), which he had that day read, was a complete
release to Mr. Grady. It appeared to him (Mr.
Moore) an amicable adjustment of all differences.
The Prisoner ought therefore to he released. Pt
sufficiency of punishment had already been in-
flicted on hire.- Mr. Fuller's case was widely dif-
ferent... The Prisoner had been pacific; but Mr.
Fuller's passion against the House was so inflam-
ed, that had his eccentric mind not been artfully
subdued, be would have knocked down the
Speaker !—(Laugh.)
Mr. MASTERTON URE.—I think the dignity and
consistency of the House is materially interested
in the decision on this question. On a former
night the petitioner was, after an examination
at your bar, declared guilty of a high breach of
privilege, and in consequence sent to his Majesty's
jail of Newgate. The House adopted. this -mea-
sure unanimously, on such evidence as to them
appeared proper. The petitioner now arraigns
the rtl of the [loose, and the evidence on
t. hick it was founded. We cannot therefore com-
ply with the prayer of this Piitition, -Without im-
plying a censure on our own cleciiion. And after
the sat*stactory manner in • IA Weil fife letters al-
luded to have been proved, 1 think the Horse is
bound to refuse the petitioner's liberation.•
he comes before the House and states his eoutrir
tion for the offence, it will then be the proo!:r.
time to extend the clemency of the House to him,
if thought right so to do;
the ANnew
most aNnlxFimo sE Bs
'el,' al? ids not
‘'name ttai

be learnt..
Mr. LAMETON thought the best mode would
be to withdraw the motion, and comtmine with
the Gentleman who was tie subject of it. after
which a more respectful,Petition might be framed
and presented. In avoiding any share of the last
discussion, he hail yielded his opinion to those
who were much better acquainted with the rules
and usage of Parliament than he cou;d pretend to
be. The letter might certainly he construed into
a breach of privilege ; the Gentleman had already
been sufficiently punished.
Mr. Aldermah %VAITHMAN respected the privi.
loges of the House. BUt if it should turn out that
the allegations if the Petitioner were well-founded,
Gentlemen would form a very different opinion of
thetile
11(w:tel.
otrnooti
thld
the merits of the case. It appeared to him that
it was a bargain ; that it was an illegal bargain ;
goneiio (.t
farthera and butwel
it
toha that
proceed :en
pu-
nishment.

Mr. 11t.rcluNsow did not deny that the letter
of Mr, Grady was an offence against the 1.10.u5e.•
The'Petition might he construed into an offence
also. But what evidence was there against him ?
The evidence of the Hon. Member himself (?Jr.
Quin), who was a party in the transaction. The
act complained of deserved the most serious in-
vestigation. It was a great constitutional ques-
tion, and ought not to be passed over with indif-
ference. In tl►e mean time, however, he would
consent to withdraw the motion, it being under-
stood that a becoming,, a co►►trite, and a respect-
ful Petition, would he presented, praying for Mr.
Grady's release.
The motion was withdrawn accordingly.
LAWS OF SETTLEMENT.

Mr, BOURNE gave notice that he would on
Thursday next bring in a Bill for altering the p e-
sent Laws of Settlement.'

USURY LAWS.

The Report of the Committee on the Usury
Laws Repeal Bill, was ordered to be taken into
consideration on the 26th of April next.

POOR LAWS.

The Ho'use went a into Committee pro forma
on the Poor Laws' Amendment Dill. The Report
was brought up and ordered to be taken into tur-
ther consideration on Thursday next.