Star.
London, England, 1810-03-28 00:00:00

Gentleman was then heard at length in his clefencei
as was also a Noble Lord (Castlereagh) who was im-
plicated with him in the transaction, which gave rise
to the charge (respecting the seat of Mr. Dick, then
recently vacated:) Both the Honourable Members
had had the advantage of hearing the speech of his
Hon. Friend, and after they had made their defence
and; withdrawn, all that remained for his Hon. Friend
to do was to submit his Motion to the House. The

other precedent was, that of the Lord Advocate of
Scotland, some years since, when an Hon. Friend of
his (Mr. liXilitbread) explained the ground of his ac-
cusation in a long speech, reserving his motion only
till that Noble Lord had made a long speech in his
own justification, and withdrawn. The same course,
according to all the information which he had been
able to collect, ought to be pursued-in the present case;
and it was upon the thorough conviction of the pro-
priety of that course, according to the reason of the
thing, that he had ventured to suggest The Right.
Hon. Gentleman seemed to have grefily misunder:
stood the views he-had upon this question. An Hone
Member had produced a pamphlet, the work of ann.;
ther How. Member, and read some passages fromi
that pamphlet, which he made the ground of a charge
of breach of the privileges of that House against the
author. How such passages were a violation of the
privileges of that House had not been shewn ; and
unless that could be shewn, and if the writer remained

still of the same opinion as when he wrote the pam-
ishlet, he contended that his Hon. Friend could not
know on what ground he was charged, or in what
manner to defend himself, particularly as he had
stated that, in writing it, he did not conceive that be
was infringing any privilege of that House. If the-
Hon. Baronet had changed his opinion, he might un-
doubtedly retract, or qualify, or even excuse his con-
duct; but without knowing in what way his sentiments,
as expressed in his work, were considered a violation
of the privileges of that House, it was actually impose
sible for him to know what defence to make. He
could not suppose it to be the object. of the Right
Hon. Gentleman to entrap the Hon. Baronet into
the embarrassment in which the proceeding proposed.
must unquestionably involve him. It was a fallacious -
argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman to say, thatir
the Hon. Baronet was to hear the speech of the Hon.
Gentleman, he would equally be entitled to hear the.
whole discussion. When an Hon. Member called the '
attention of the House to a grave and serious matter of
charge, it was but fair that the accused Member should.
have an opportunity to hear the grounds upon which
the-charge was brought forward ; and, after defend=-
ing himself in his place, be required to withdraw,
without hearing any part of the subsequent discus-
sion. The reason of the case, therefore, bore him.
out in the course he recommended ; and he must con-
tend, that the Hon. Baronet was entitled to the fair-
advantage of heating the ground's upon which the
Hon. Member had made the complaint and charge
against him.
The SPEAKER felt himself bound in duty to the
House to bring to the recollection of Gentlemen, that
in cases of complaints against Members, there were
two sorts of proceedings resorted to by the House,
which might account for the difference of opinion on-
this question. One of these proceedings was, when
a complaint was founded upon a written paper, or-
other document. When that was the case, the paper
on which the complaint was founded was given in at
the table, after which the Member, the object of the
charge, was heard in his defence froth his place, and
then required to withdraw. . The House, upon that,
proceeded to discuss the merits of the
charge, and came to a final decision upon it. The
other course was that which- was followed when a
Member could have no notice .of the charge against
him ; in which case the Member bringing for-
ward the charge was bound to clear the grounds
of his Motion, and state the nature of the charge.
—To this description of cases he conceived the
case of the Lord Advocate of Scotland, already
alluded to by the Noble Lord, to belong. —ln
• that instance the charge was founded on a letter,
which had been written by that Noble Lord, in his
official character, to an individual in Scotland. The
grounds of the charge were fully stated, and that
Noble Lord was heard at length in his defence. The
House would recollect the comments, which, after
that Noble Lord had withdrawn, had been made on
the species of defence to which he b.d resorted. The
Noble Lord in that defence, which appeared to many •
Honourable Members-full and satisfactory, had made
some allusion to the peculiar laws and institutions of
Scotland ; and it must be fresh in the recollection of
several Gentlemen, how these allusions had been
commented upon, and the comments made to bear
upon the question under discussion. He touk it to be
the right of a Member under accusation, to have due
notice of the charge against him, but not of the argu-
ments in support of it. If an honourable Member
was entitled to hear all the arguments in support of
the charge before he should withdraw, then he should
not withdraw till the House should have passed its
vote upon the subject, a doctrine which could not for
a moment be entertained. The course of proceedings
laid down in the Text Books, directed that in case of
a charge founded on a written document, that dote-
inent should be given in, and that the Member under
accusation, after being heard in his defence, should
then be required to withdraw. But in cases where
the complaint should not be founded on any writteo
document, the accused party had a right to heir the
grounds of the charge stated before he should be put
upon his defence previous to his withdrawing. He
had felt it to be his duty to put the House in posses,
'sion of these circumstances, as to the uniform and
established course of proceeding in all matters of con'
plaints against individual Members. •
Mr. LETHBRIDGE then rose testate the grounds
of his charge, and declared that in doing _o, lie should
be very short. Many reasons, he observed, induced
him to be brief on this occasion. The principal one
was, the little habit liewas in of addressing that House.
The task he bad undertaken was painful and difficult,
but, however painful or difficult it was, he felt him-
self called upon to bring forward the question. The
letter of the document was,
however, so clear, talereal question lay within such a small compass, that it
would require •but little abilities to put it in a form
for the decision of the House. Really, from what
had fallen from the Noble Lordopposite, one w
have supposed that he (Mr. Lethbridge) had written
a long speech on the subject, the copy of which I.tee
had dropped from his pocket, and was found by tt,..
Noble Lord, who thought to embarrass him by al