The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-23 00:00:00

cause tie wished that the step should be taken by some individual
of greater Parliamentary knowledge than himself.
The petition was then brought up, and read.
On Mr. SPRING RICE's moving that it should lie on the
Table,
Mr. WYNN observed, that it was quite impossible
that the House could allow a matter of this kind to pass without
animadversion. It was bound to assert its own dignity and
power, by protecting the witnesses summoned by its authority.
He should therefore move, that the Hon. Martin French be or-
dered to attend the House to-morrow.
It having been suggested that it might be expedient to exa-
mine Mr. Lambert, with reference to the allegations in his
Petition,
The SPEAKER desired the Serjeant to inquire if
Mr. Lambert was in attendance in the Lobby?
The Serjeant having reported that Mr. Lambert was in attend-
ance, the SPEAKER asked the House if it was their pleasure
that he should be called in ? The answer being in the affirmative,
Mr. Lambert was called to the bar, and examined by the Speaker,
to the following effect
What is your name?—Thomas Lambert.
Look at that Petition, and state if the signature to it be yours?
—lt is. -
State to the House slowly and distinctly the particulars of the
occurrence of which you complain.—ln consequence of having
been. summoned by Mr. Martin to attend as a witness on the in-
quiry by this House into the late election for the county of Gal-
way, I came to the House on Tuesday last. I had not been in
the Lobby five minutes before I met the Hon. Martin French,
who said to. me "Lambert, how do you do ? I'm glad to see
you ;" and held out his hand to shake hands with me. Not being
disposed to shake hands with a man of whose conduct I had cause
to complain, when I was on trial, and my life was at stake, I
merely made him a low bow. There were present at the time
Mr. Phipps, Mr. Bagot, and Mr. Butler, a friend of mine, but
I believe a relation of Mr. French's. As soon as I had made my
bow, Mr. French went into so violent a rage that his countenance
became distorted ; and he made use of the following words :—" I
deserve it for disgracing myself by contaminating this hand in
holding it out to shake hands with such a rascal."—My reply
was, " Thank you ;I am much obliged to you."—(a laugh). I
immediately told Mr. Bagot and Mr. Butler to recollect what had
occurred. Somebody came up and asked what was the matter?
and if Mr. French was mad. I forgot to mention that Mr.
French held up his hand in a threatening manner. Ido not know
whether or not he meant to strike me; but if he had I should
not have returned it.
Is that all that you have to address to the House on the sub-
ject?—l received a letter from Sir R. Birnie in the course of the
day, desiring me to attend at the Bow-street Office the next morn-
ing, when I gave my word and honour to take no further notice
in a. personal manner of what had occurred. When the circum •
stance which I have described took place, somebody called out for
a constable to take Mr. French into custody.
The SPEAKER then inquired if any Hon. Mem-
ber had any questions to put to Mr. Lambert ?
The two following questions were put by Mr. SPRING
RICE :.
Yeu are come to London in consequence of a summons from
the Speaker of this House ?—I am ; I have the summons in my
pocket.
Are von aware that Mr. French is also here for the same rea-
son have heard and believe that he was summoned to attend
AS- a witness on the part of Mr. Martin.
A MEMBER asked at what distance Mr. French
was from Mr. Lambert when he held up his hand in a threaten-
ing posture?—The. answer was, that he was as near as an Hon.
Gentleman, pointed out by Mr. Lambert, was to the bar ; but we
were linable to observe what that distance was.
Mr. Lambert was then directed to withdraw.
Mr. WYNN, again remarking on the necessity of
protecting witnesses w ho were smmoned by that House from in-
sult, moved, " That the Hon.o Martin French do attend this
House to-morrow."
Mr. HOBHOUSE observed that, with all defer-
ence, this did not seem to him to be a case which called for the
interference of the House. It did not appear that any blow had
been struck, or that any obstruction bad been thrown in the way
of the witness. The whole originated In a former quarrel ; the
petitioner was not alarmed, or prevented from giving evidence on
the matter, respecting which he was summoned ; and therefore he
(Mr. klobheuse) really could not see why the House should take
soy step in the business.
Mr. H. GRATTAN said, that it distinctly ap-
peared that the eriginal offence proceeded from the petitioner him-
self.
. Mr. LOTT (Member for Honiton) said there ap-
peared to have been not the smallest reference to the business in
which the parties had been summoned before the House, and he
thought there was no reason whatever for noticing the petition.
The circumstances might have occurred a hundred miles off, for
any thing which connected them with the business of the House.
Sir J. YORKE could not agree with the last
speaker. As to the distance at which Mr. French was when he
held up his hand in a threatening manner, it mattered not if he
were a hundred yards off. The threat was the same. It was cer-
tainly evident that Mr. French had been, in the first instance, ir-
ritated by Mr. Lambert's refusal to shake hands with him ; but if
circumstances had occurred at Galway which might render that
refusal perfectly reasonable, was not Mr. Lambert to be protected
against Mr. French's subsequent conduct?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE allowed that this House
ought to protect those whom it summoned as witnesses, but main-
Mined that it ought not to interfere in shape of protection, ex-
cept on very clear grounds. These getlemen seemede to havebeen for-
merly quarrelled. The conduct of Mr.n French had crtainly
improper; but the civil power had already interfered; and that
being the case, be did not see why the House should interfere also.
It would be wasting their time to bestow it on so trifling a matter

Mr. LITTLETON agreed entirely with the Hon

and Le: rued Member for Calne.
Mr. SPRING RICE could not admit some of
the propositions which he bad just heard to pass without remark.
He was sure that if those propositions were adopted or acquiesced
in by the House, they would lead to monstrous and dangerous
consequences. If such words aLldressed to a witness, were to be
passed over because no actual blow had been struck, it appeared to
him to he a doctrine most fatal to the power and privileges of that
House. Because the police had interfered in the business, the
house, it was said, ought to have nothing to do with it! This
was a monstrous and most untenable doctrine. If owever, his
object in presenting the petition would be amply attained ; ciunely,
that witnesses and other parties would know that if they conducted
themselves unbeomingly, the House was ready, at a moment's
notice to call them to account. That, he trusted, would prevent
the recurrence of such eircumstances.
Mr. WYNN thought that after the examination
which had taken place, the matter really ought not to be alma.
Intel), passed over. The offending party ought at least to be ad-
monished by the Chair that such conduct could not be tolerated
by the Uouse of Commons. He really could not see why, be-
cause the Magistrates had made the parties pledge their howienr
that the matter should go no further, that the House was to be
precluded from taking any step to extend to those whom it sum-
moned to attend for the purpose of giving evidence, that fair pro-
tection to which they were entitled.
Mr. .ABERCROMBY, in explanation, did not
paean to contend that the House ought not to interfere because the
poi; e had interfered. He only meant to say, that the present was
exclusively a case for the police.
Mr. BERNAL could not look at the transaction
as a breach of privilege. He could not see that any obstruction
had been thrown in the way of substantial justice. He called on
the Right Hon. Geneman, to whom precedents were so familiar,
to instance a parallel case, in which the House had been induced
to resort to such severity as td admonish the party offending. It
would have been a very different thing if the Committee had been
sitting, and if the parties had met in the Committee-room, and
something of the same nature had passed there, bearing on the
merits of the subject under investigation.
Mr. Secretary PEEL was not present at the ex-
amination of the witness ; but from what he had been told, he
rather thought that his evidence at the Bar bad not completely
sustained the allegations in his petition. The question was not
whether the petitioner had exercised a sound discretion in making
this complaint to the House ; but how, the complaint having been
made, the House ought to act. He apprehended that a slight
notice of it was indispensible. A slight notice was, he be-
lieved, all that his Right Honourable Friend thought necessary.
--(Hear, hear, from Mr. Wynn.)—The offending party ought to
be told, that the House did not care whether he was right or
ivrong in his private feeling ; but that when any man was
called upon by that House to discharge a public duty,
there must be an oblivion of private quarrels.--(Hear, hear.)—
. The proceedings upon Election Petitions brought into such imme-
diate intercourse parties between whom there frequently exid
much personal hostility, that it was important to tell those person,
who were not inclined to quarrel that they should be protected,
and to tell those persons who were inclined to quarrel that they
must be qui4t. ;Senn admOni4ien, therefore, although not a very