The Sun.
London, England, 1819-03-13 00:00:00

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

The examination of 1%.1r. Richard Smith and Mr.
Carew Smyth was con,inned till near 11 o'clock,
when it was iniertui,ted by the following pto-
cecding

Sir GEORGE HILL said, that he rose in order to
move that a witness, formerly examined (Mr.
Goold), be called in, and examined as to a ques-
tion of privilege. He understood that Mr. Goold
had received a threat as to the manner •in which
he bad given his evidence at the bar of that
House, and in which he might continue to do so.-
Goold was accordingly called in, and thus
examined by the SPEAKER
Have you seen ?dr. Grady, jun. since you gave
evidence at that bar ?—I have.

Did any conversation pass between you /
There did.

What was that conversation )—About a quarter
of an hour ago I was in the witnesses' room, with
several other Gentlemen, when Mr. Grady came
to met and said, "Mr. Goold, I wish to speak to
you." I took off my hat with all the respect I
could to him, and replied, that I could not speak
to him, as it would be indelicate while the pre-
going on. He said be sent inquiry Was t

-zrea't to me. 1 •repi;ell, that if he 7etsistea s
'most leave the room. These were then precisely
'his words :—" Yuu have spoken disrespectfully of
sne in the evidence von gave last night ; and if
you do so again, 1 shall kick you about the
Streets,"--'lie itniss withdrew.

M. W. WYNN thought the only way was to
call in Mr. T. W. Grady
He w ts accordingly called in, and thus examin-
ed by the SrPAKEtt

Jr.ll Grady, you had a conversation with a Mr
Goold, a witness who was examined at that Bar i
--I had.

On what subjeas, and in what terms ?—I said,
" You have mentioned my name very wantonly
if ynu do so again, I mist take notice of
that is, kick hint.
Did Air. Gold make any reply ?—None at all.
The witness withdrew.
Mr. \V. WYNN moved, that T. W. Grady had,
by insul:ing and threatening a witness before that
house, been guilty of high contempt of that
Loose, and of a gross breach of its privileges.
Mr. V. %%'S N` next moved, that T. W. Grady
s!iotild be committed to the custody of the Ser.
shonld have moved his com-
rnirmtml Neweate at once, but that, doling the
t:reseur inquiry, it seemed necessary that he should
t'e in flae of the rooms of the House of Commons.
hear !)
Sir H. WILSON said, that it was quite manifest ,
to the House that Mr. Grady's conduct proceeded
bout youth and inexperience. lie consii:ered Mr,
Goold's conduct as he had always been accost om-
en 10 consider insults. It most he apparent to the
loose, ft am the details abeadv- before them, that
he -was eat I cnte'ly ieexperienci.d. a youth of a weak
character. He hoped, Iberefnre, that they would
v,.g aid with indulgence an indiscretion in which
nn contempt or breach of privilege bad been con-
templfreed.
Air Barges.—The question was not what in.
dnlgenre the youth and inexperience of Mr.
Grady might claim, but what was necessary for
tie purposes of justice.---(Meer, hear !)-11aving
said so, it was only necessary to add, that justice
required the protection of an infiruz, old mati—
(No, no) —against the petulance of a young man, I
Nyilo4e illdiSCretill was so much already laid be-
fore the house.
The SPEAKER put the question, that T. W.
ady, hating used insults, and having used
threats to a witness at the bar of the House, re-
specting the evidence he had already given, and
the evidence he should afterwards give, and hav-
ing thereby been guilty of high contempt of that
House, and of a gross breach of its privileges, be
committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-
Arms.

SPEAKER then announced that it was car-
ried nemine contradicente.
Sir I. Coins said, that Mr. Grady's conduct
as the liar was an aggravation of his offence.
Mr. BROUGHAM said, if he might he excused
for the irregularity of !peaking after the question
had been disposed of in the only manlier in which
it could have been disposed of, he only rose to
'protest aeainst the construction that had been put
on Mr. Cradv's conduct at the bar, as an aggra-
vation of his offence. On the contrary, he con-
sidered it creditable to bins to have in the most
manly and frank manner stated conduct that was
in it_self improper.
Mr STUART WoRTLEY agreed that be had
keen nothing in Mr. Grady's conduct at the bar
to aggravate his offence.—Wear, hear .!.)
The examination of Mr. Carew Smyth was
'then resumed.
After Mr. Carew Smyth bad been examined,
'there was a motion made to call in Mr. 'l'. W.
Grady, the petitioner. Sir R. WILSON' opposed
this motion, and submitted to the House that it
would he better that the further investigation of
the matter should be adjourned, owing to the ex-
hausted state in which the [louse must be after
the long examination to which they had been lis-
tening.
Mr. PEEL and Mr. CANNING opposed this pro-
posal in a few words.
Sit It. WILSON asserted, that his chief reason
for postpouiug any further discussion of the sub-
ject for the present was, that he felt that be should
not he able to do justice either to the house, the
-Petitioner, or the Country, in going further into
the petition at that late hour in the evening.
A short conversation ensued among several
members, from which it was tinderstood that Mr.
'l'. W. Grady was the next witness who was to be
caked before the consideration of the House.
Mr. CANNING said, that it was for the security
of a respectable witness that he had coincided with ,

the 11,ni Gentkman's motion regarding the com-
initownt of Mr. T. W. Grady.
Mr. C. WYNN said, that as it would be highly
inconvenient to send Mr. T. %V. Grady to New-
gate at that late hour of the inasmuch as
the-keeper of the prson would have no accommo-
dations wherewith to receive him, be slit:mid not
move that Mr. Grady be committed to the prison
in question: The reason why he had proposed
. the measure tha't he bad done against Mr. Grady,
was to prevent the witnesses who at any future
time might be called to give evidence betore that
Douse from being intimidated by the violent,
conduct of either of the two contending parties.
Any Gentleman who had been along with him on
the Secret Committee appointed to examine into
the letters of Mr. C. Smyth (he was understood
to say) would have seen the impropriety of Mr.
Grady's behaviour. The consideration of that

impropriety led him to say,, that one 6f the
grossest attacks that could he made on the privi-
leges of the. House would be to resent any thing
-without its walls that had passed within them.—
(Hear, hear I)

Mr. CALCRAFT said that he conceived the gallant
General's ok/ject was to protect both parties.—
Considering that there was no business going
for Ward on the morrow, he thonght that the further
investigation of the matter was desirable.--(Some
cries of adjourn. adjourn.)—He had no objection
to young ,11 r. Grady's being released from the
eii,toey of !he Serjeant-at-Artns.
PETL said, that when he considered' the
irritation which the petitioner, tviio was a young
w,is likely to feel from the course which the

Jae it had taken, and when he considered that

irritation was calculated to prevent that col-
ltetedness of which every man ought to be in

possession \Aihn eiaMined bEfort that. Hottse,
Was not inclined to act with much severity. If
some alteration were not made in the condition to
which the petitioner had reduced himself, it was
clear, that he must either give his evidence in
Newgate, 'or under the apprehension of being in-
stantly sent there.:—(Hear, hear !)—The House
could not forget that the father had been sent
there.—(Hear, hear !)—He thought that no evil
consequences could ensue from the discharge of
Mr. T. W. Grady being ordered by that house.
Mr. C. W. WYNN had no objection to this le-
nity being shown to the petitioner, it he would
give an assurance not to be guilty of the same of-
fence in future.
Mr. PaEL (it was understood) then moved that
Mr. T. W. Grady should be released from the
-
custody of the Serjeant-at-4rms.
Lord C. [Hutu:HILL said, that he wished Mr.
T. IV. Grady to he admonished, severely repri-
manded, and then discharged on the payment of
his fees.
Mr. BLAKE said, that he thought the House
ought by no means to postpone the investigation
of this case ; it was not proper that such a charge
should be kept baugingiover the head of art Hon.
Member
Mr. LAstaToN suggested the proprie'y of re-
plimanding and discharging the Petitioner, in
which Sir Robert Wilson concurred.
Sir it. Wte.oN said, that he agreed in principle
with the Honourable Member who had spoken
last but one.
Mr. S. WoRTLEy had no intention to aggra-
vate the crime of which the younger Grady had
been guilty he would not oppose the general
sense of the tionge, if it should be for tlie dis-
charge of the ynntt man,
Mr. Cott tiTt..NAY said, that for various reasons,
hr was not inclined to enter into the question of
the ultimate dkcharge of Mr. T. SY.
sir J. NewPoRT was understood to say, that
the House ought rather to consult its own dignity
than the private feelings of auY individuals.
Mr. CALCRAFT was for an adjournment of the
whole business.
Sir C. Mosctc said, that if Mr. Goold had taken
liberties with the name of Mr. Grady, it was not
unnatural that the latter G,ntleman st,ould feel
strongly inclined to resent it. He certainly didcon-
demn Mr. Grady's conduct ; but still he should
not feel satisfied with himself if he vote' against his
dischatge.--rche Hon. Gentleman was here in-
terrupted by cries of " Question, question
Mr. GRATTAN thought that the outrageous
manner in which Mr. Grady had made his attack
on Mr. Gould was such as deserved the attention
of the House. Every man ought to he enabled to
state his opinion to the House, %Olen call-ed be-
fore it as a witness, %%idiot', any rear of person,il
danger from those whose interests his testimony
might he likt,ly to prejudice. He was desirous nor
only of securing Mr. Grady's person, but also his
feelings.

Mr. TIERNEY, after some other remarks, ex-
Tressed a hope that the 'Mouse would not waste
any further time in idle discussion, but would im-
mediately proceed eiti!er to an adjournment or a
real investigation into the evidence.

Lord C. CHURCHILL, however, persisted in his
determination to divide the House regarding the
admonition and reprimand which were to he given
to Mr. T. IV, Grady, previous to his discharge.
The Gallery wits then cleared for a division, and
strangers it hdrew.—After ;bey had been absent
for about two minutes, they were again adinitted
into the House, and wet e given to underOand,
that in their absence Lord C. Churchill had been
induced to withdraw his motion, and that in con-
sequence the matter bad fallen to the ground.
When strangers re-entered the Gallery, Mr.
BROUGHAM was found speaking in tacour• of Mr.
Goold's being again called to the bar of the
House as a witness.

Atter Mr. Gould's re•examination, which lasted
till a very late hour, Mr. LAMBTON was of opinion
that further evidence'must necessarily be brought
from I►cland, to settle a point which at present was
inexplicable, and which implicated the credibility
of the two principal witnesses.
Mr. CANNING (as was understood) did not con-
ceive that matter of such imjeortance as to delay
the inquiry.

Sir It. 11-msoN thought it was the duty of the
House to have every information which might
lead to the true understanding of the question.
Mr. ABEECROMBY conceived' the delay in the
present instance could not be productive of injury,
as. its object would be to sift the matter to the
bottom, and thereby arrive at the truth.
Sir. It. WILSON then moved, that Mr. Carew
Smyth be called in, in order to give the names of
his two servants, whose testimony be considered
of importance.
Mr. C. Smyth was then called in, and gave the
names of his servant's, Thomas Lambert and
Sarah Lyons,
Mr. Gool&was also called in, and gave the name
of his servant, Hugh Riley.
Mr. LAmwroN moved, that these persons be
ordered to attend at the Bar of the Ilothe on
Thursday next. This, it was understood, was car-
ried in the aflirtnativ.

Mr. PEEL then observed, that he saw no rea-
son iNhy the petitioner himself- should not be

called in. He had pledged himself to prove every
allegation in his, petition.
Sir R. Wit.soN had no objection to his being
called, but was unwilling to have him produced
as a witness %slide in custody. • He could not be
supposed to have the same tranquil feelings in
giving his evidence when a prisoner as he must
be supposed to have when at liberty.
Mr. PEEL conceived the circumstance of his
being a prisoner ought to have no weight with his
testimony one way or the other.
Mr. LAMarat4 thought that the pledge con-
tained in the petition to prove every allegation it
contained, did not by any means bind the peti-
tioner to prove it by his own personal evidence,
if be did it by Lis witnesses.
Mr. PEEL replied shortly, but his observations
were nut audible in the gallery.
litiouGnAnt said, th&re had been once a
doubt whether a petitioner could be called in sop-
t of bis oleo petition, and mentioned the case

of some peti:iuners on the Orders i❑ Council, who

withdrawn their signatures that they might be
admittul as evidetsce but he cuuceived that a

petitioner ;gig w ;di propriety be.ccdlea In sup-
port of lois own petition,

Mr. W. COURTENA7 was of opinion, that the
petitioner should be call.-d to state the grounds
sipon which l►e had presented his complaint to the
House.

Mr. ABERCMOMBY did not think the evidence of
the petitioner in this case as at all essential.
• Mr. CANNING- observed, that after what had
he should persist in wishing that the ex-
amination of evidence he continued on Monday.
Sir R. WlLsoil said, it was his intention to have
called the petitioner himself, but his only objec-
tion was his being a prisoner.
The question was then put, and the further ex-
amination of witnesses was postponed till Mon-
day.