The Sun.
London, England, 1818-05-14 00:00:00

BRE.-1(41T OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. W. WYNNE, in pursuance of his notice, rose
to move for the removal of Thomas Ferguson
ft()m his office of Collector of Taxes for the coun-
ty or Lanark. It had already appeared to the
D.,,ise that this man bad, without any authority,
taken upon himself to endeavour to influence a
person in the vote which he shouhl give for a
MeMber of Parliament, by the promise of an of-
fice. This was an offence which, consistent with
the 'dignity and independence of the House of
COmmoits, and the liberty of the people, the
House could not pass over unnoticed. The Hon.
Member proceeded to state several precedents,
t articularly that of a Bishop of Winchester, a
Mayor of Worcester, a Sheriff of Suffolk, and
other persons holding offices, who having inter-
fered in the election of Members of Parliament,
the House had come to a vote that tho%e persons,
in consequence of such interference, were become
unfit to hold any of the public offices of trust
which they held. So also several Acts of Parlia-
ment had h en passed, particulatly- the 10th of
Anne, by which persons holding offices in the
Excise, the Customs, the Post-office, and other
public
offices, were declared incapable of inter-
feriug in any Election for Members of Parliament;
and had the NVindow-tax, of which Mr. Ferguson
was a Collector, then existed, he had Ito doubt
that would also have been included in the prohi-
bitory clauses of the Act. After some further
observatio,s, the Hon. Member moved an humble
Addre,s to the Prince Regent, praying that he
would he graciously pleased to direct that T.Fer-
gnson, who had been guilty of a gross breach of
tbe privileges of the House of Commons, should
be removed from the situation of Collector of
Taxes for the county of Lanark.
Sir F. Boar) ETT, previous to the motion being
put,- %visited that the Petition of the Friends of the
People,•presented to the [louse by the present
Earl Grey, then Mr. Grey, in 1793, should be
read.

• The petition was accordingly read, and evil-
taincd a review of the then state of the represen-
tation of the people, and the influence by which
the majority of the House were elected, &c.

Sir F. BuRDETT then moved that the Resolu-
tion of the Committee appointed in 1793, to en-
quire into the merits of time Great Grimsby Elec-
tion, should be read. This was accordingly done,
when it appeared that one of the Resolutions was,
that it appeared to the Committee that the Right
Hon. Wm. Wellesley Pole 104 d been guilty uf
bribery in the election of a Member of the House.
Sir F. BURDETT said, he had nothing-to add ;
he had moved the reading of these Resolutions
and Petition to chew the House the injustice of
its present pinceedings.

Mr. S. BonaNg wished to make some few ob-
servations on the case now before the House.
The real state of which was as follows :—Mr.
Ferguson had been brought before a Cote•
Injure of the House, by whom lie was questioned
at great length, and his answers were drawn from
him by the Committee upon that' examination,
occupying 15 folio pages ; the House afterwards
pi (weeded to punish him to the tgmost of its
power ; having called him to its Bar, committed
him to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, (no
slight punishment), and afterwards to the most
ignominious prison : and having thus proceeded
to the utmost of their power, it was now pro-
posed to address the Prince- Regent to remove
him from some situation which he• held, and
from which he derived his support. He did not
mean to palliate this man's
.offence, but he must
be allowed to say, that if the House intended to
go to this extent of punishment, they ought to
have gone. to other quarters for evidence, and, not
have drawn Conviction from his own lips.
Mr. BATHURST could not view this question in
the same light as his Hon. Friend did ; it was not
on evidence of Mr. Ferguson himself that the
Committee acted, but on the letter.

Mr. D. BROWN thought a high offence bad been
con►mitted against the House, the Members of
which, ‘vbatever might be the vulgar prejudice
without doors, it was well known never inter-
fered in elections.

Mr. JONES was against the motion. He thought
the person alluded to bad been sufficiently punish-
ed already. He bad been punished on his own
evidence, which if he bad withheld, and refused
to answer questions, would have caused him to
hive been committed to Newgate for contumacy
and now the, House were proceeding to address
the Prince Regent to deprive him of all the
means of support which he had left. He was
decidedly_ hostile to this mode of proceeding, by
which a man was. deprived of
,that right which
will his b►rth-right—a Trial by Jury.

Mr. 111. gnitJEN was against this motion, rot
because he held the offence of Mr Ferguson light,
but because he considered that person had already
been sufficiently punished.

Mr. 1...\-r FLE-ros: also opposed the motion, not
because he vv as a favourer of bribery and corrup-
tion, bin because he considered the House had
already inflicted sufficient punishment : and fur-
ther, that this proceeding would not render the
House of Commons more remmetable or more
pure; He wsshed to see this mode of punishment,
in which so much severitywa3 frequently com-
bined,.better defined.
Lord Fot(RsToN F. was in favour of the motion.
If this metion was not carried, every one holding'
a situation in the revenue would consider he had
a tight to use his interest and, ioflaenee in- pro-
moting election interests. It had been urged that
gyeat delinquents hash been allowed to go
without punishment he thought ttose delinquents
oeght .to have been punished ; but it was not now
the question whether great delinquents had been
punished, but 'Whether little ones should be al-
lowed.to offend With impunity. It had been said
that if you bleprived this man of his situation, you
would, deprive him of subsistence ; but it was not
so, for he understood that Mr Ferguson was
either a writer himself, or a clerk to a writer, at
Glasgow.

Lord BINNING opposed the motion. Mr. Fer-
guson had already been punished with severity
beyond precedent. His Hon. Friend (Mr. Wynne,
had cited precedents and cases, but they were
none of them cases in point. The first be had
cited was that of the Bishop of Worcester, who,
having interfered in an election, was deprived of
his office of High Almoner, with a salary of 1001.
but he was not like Mr. Ferguson, a poor collec-
tor-of taxes with 1201. a-year. He was a Peer of
Parliament. The next case was that of the Mayor
of XVinehester—who was he—why Returning
Officer : did his situation resemble Mr. Fergu-
son's? yet he was not sent. to Newgate 'De next
case alluded to by his Hon. Friend was that of
Mr. Burslam, Receiver-General of Stafford. Did
the Receiver-General, giving large sums of money,
resemble Mr. Ferguson ? yet the House did not
commit Mr. Burslain. [his Hon. Friend next men-
tioned Mr. Beetham, but Mr.Beetliam was collector
of Duties in the port of Hull, and to influence an
election he gave a bond to an elector for an
annuity to be paid out •of his own salat y if he
would vote in a certain manner ; yet the Hoti-e
did not commit Mr. Beet ham. The only case in
which they had sent an individual to prison. men-
tioned by his Hon. Friend, was that of Mr. Mid-
dleton ; but who was Mr. Middleton ? High
Sheriff of Denbigh, who. it appeared had made a
false return, for the purpose of procuring the
election of a particular iodividoal. With respect
to Mr. Ferguson, he was informed, that such were
his circumstances, that to deptive him of his office
of. Collector would be to-ruin him. The Noble
Lord concluded by moving the previous question.
Mr. BROUGHAM thought the House had already
gone far enough.
Mr. CANNING said, that, on the best considera-
tion which he could give this question, he was of
opinion that the measure of punishment against
Mr. Ferguson was already equal to his offence.
The Noble Lord opposite (Lord Folkestone)• had
indeed endeavoured to make out a case, which, if
true, would have gone tar to induce the House to
agree to the Address. It was not, however, at
all proved that Mr. Ferguson had used the inflo-
ence of his office to obtain the vote of any
elector.

Mr. WYNNE replied, and contended at some
length, that it was the invariable practice of the
House to punish such offences by the removal of
the offender front any office which be held under
Government.

The House then divided--
For the previous Question
Fur the Addre,s
Majority 49
ROYAL MESSAGE.
Lord CASTLERPAGH appeared at the Bar of the
House with a Message from his Royal Highness
the Prince Regent tesuecting the Marriage of his
Royal Highness the Duke of Kent, for which see
the Lords.

When the Message had been read from the Chair,
an Address of Thanks was, on Lord Castlertagit's
motion, ordered to be presented to the Prince
Regent for his most gracious communication, and
to assure him that the House would immediately
proceed to the consideration of his Royal High-
ness's Message.

Lord CASTLEREAGH then moved that the said
Message be referred too-a Committee of the whole
House to-morrow.—Agreed to.
Accounts of the Expences incurred by the Bank in prose-
cutions for forgeries, and of the nominal amount of forged
flank notes, were presented, and laid on the table.