Star.
London, England, 1819-07-06 00:00:00

MR. ALEX. LAMBE.

Mr. C. W. WYNN rose to call the attention of the
.House to the conduct of Alexander Lambe, a witness
examined in the case of Grampound, with which the
House had recently been occupied. This witness had
net only contumaciously' refused to answer several
questions put to him, but had also taken it upon him
to destroy a material document respecting the late
election, after his first examination. It would be ne-
cessary for the House to adopt some measure to pre-
vent the recurrence of acts of this nature in future ;
otherwise, at every step of an examination, a witness
would feel himself at full liberty to destroy every
document, however material to an investigation, The
'Honourable and Learned Gentleman concluded with
moving, " That Alexander Lambe having, since his
first examination before this House, destroyed a ma-
terial document relative to the Grampound election,
is guilty of a wilful suppression of evidence, and a
high contempt of the authority of the House."
Mr. R. MARTIN suggested, that it might be ad-
visable to call ow Mr. Lambe again, to afford expla-
nation respecting this transaction.
Mr. C. WAVYNN said, if Mr. Lambe had had any
explanation to give he ought to have come forward
while the Committee was sitting.
Mr. MARRYAT contended, that Mr. Lambe had
been guilty of no disobedience to the authority of the
House. He had no reason for thinking that this do,
cument would be demanded from him. It was a
private agreement between two solicitors, and the
moment the money was paid stipulated in it, the
agreement was to be destroyed. Mr. Lavie, the other
solicitor, had also destroyed his copy. How could
Mr. Lambe be answerable to the House for a docu-
ment he was bound to destroy, and which he-had not
been called on to produce? Besides, there was no
information in this document which could not be ob-
tained from other sources, furnished by the assiduity
of Mr. Lambe, in his character of solicitor for the
prosecution in this case. There was no occasion,
therefore, for calling on him to violate the confidence
reposed in. him. He thought the conduct of Mr.
Lambe not objectionable, and he felt it his duty to
give the motion his decided negative.
Mr. ABERCROMBY conceived, if the destruction
of documentary evidence, after a witness had been
examined before the House, were to be tolerated, it
might prevent the House from carrying on any in-
vestigation or inquiry whatever. The House were
not to take into their consideration, whether the in-
formation contained in the document could be ob-
tained elsewhere. But he thought the House would
best consult its own dignity, in adopting the most
lenient course towards 'qr. Lambe, who stood in a
peculiar situation in this case, being concerned pro-
fessionally with those who were engaged in the trans-
actions of this election. It would be sufficient, in his
opinion, to reprimand Mr. Lambe.
Mr. ARREN contended, that in the first exami-
nation of Mr. Lambe nothing was to be found which
indicated that he had been given to understand that
he would be required to prodvie the agreement. It
was, therefore, not to be wondered that he had said
that he did not recollect any question as to that
agreement; and when he had admitted the other
day, that in that examination (of the 27th May) he
had been given to understand that he might be called
on to produce that document, he must have been
mistaken, as not a word respecting it was to be found
in the minutes. He therefore urged that though Mr.
Lambe might not have acted with propriety, he had
done nothing which could deserve either the gentler
or the severer punishment.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS said, that when Mr. Lambe
was about to leave the House after his examination
of May 27, he (Mr. Williams) had distinctly stated to
him, that he was not to consider himselfreleased from
attendance en the House, and that he would be exa,
,mined

as to that agreement. Mr. Lambe, therefbry
was a better judge of his own feelings than the titi-1
nourable and Learned Member who had spoken last,
when he had admitted that he had been told that this
agreement would be referred to. Yet he had told
the House, that he had within ten days, that is, since
his last examination, destroyed this document. As "to
the confidence between lawyer and client, which had
been spoken of, he thought that plea could not be
construed to extend to the protection of an attorney,
when he departed from the fair course of his profes-
sion, to enter into illegal compromises affecting seats
in that House.

Mr. WARREN put it to the House, whether a
Member could fairly alle,se to the injury of a wit-
ness, words addressed by him to that witness, which
words had not been entered in the minutes ?

Mr. W. WILLIAMS said that his caution had been
addressed by him to the witness from his place, and
in the hearing of the Members who were then pre.
sent—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. ERNAL thought that Mr. Lambe bad Imp
guilty of an infraction ofthe privileges of the Hai"
and this opinion made it compulsory on him to vote
for the Resolution. As, however, he was inclined to
think favourably of the disposition which Mr. Lambs
had shewn, to protect the interests of his client, di*,
(if he might be allowed the expression) thispeccagla'
-(No, so, from Mr. Wpm, and a laugh), might I.
visited gently.

. . -

Mr. WYNN said, that far from being a peccadillo,
the offence of the witness was one of the worst which
he could have been guilty of, against the privileges
'of the House and the course of justice. He observed,
that it was the uniform practice that cautions ad-'
dressed by individual Members to witnesses should,
not be entered in the Minutes of Evidence. He was'
sorry to see any disposition to palliate the offence of
which the witness had been guilty, by allegations
that he had been actuated by such and such feelings.
As to the protection which the House was bound to
afford to attornies, it could only extend to bona fide
communications between them and their clients. If
the House were to be stopped in all its inquiries as
to what had been transacted by them as agents, their
powers of investigation would be nullified. In the
present case, lie should, however, accede to the pro-
posal for a mitigated punishment.
The Resolution was agreed to.
Mr. WYNN then proposed that A. Lambe be
brought to the Bar to-morrow, in custody of the
Serjeant at Arms, to be reprimanded by the Speaker
for his said offence.—Agreed to.

CAMELFORD ELECTION.

The House went into a Committee, to consider
the Report from the Committee on the Camelford
Election. Mr. P. MoORF. took the Chair.

Mr. Hallett, of St. Mary-Axe, was called in and
examined by Mr. D. W. ILtavey.
He stated, that in June, 1818, he had intended to
go down to the Borough-of Camelford. He had
about that time a convescition with a Mr. Sibley on
the subject. Witness's intention was to go down to
Cameltord to endeavour to procure the return of
two 'Members to Parliament. He was introduced to
a Mr. Stewart on the 10th June, and he left London
on the 11th. He was introduced to Mr. Stewart by
a Mr. Allsop ; on that day they made arrangements
for Mr. Stewart to accompany him to Camelford.—
Till Mr. Allsop introduced him to Mr. Stewart, wit-
ness had never heard of the latter Gentleman. Mr.
Stewart and Mr. Allsop wished to be returned for
the Borough of Camelford. Mr. Allsop had been
introduced to him by a Member of the House (whose
name it was not necessary to mention), whom he had
informed that the Borough of Camelford was
satisfied with its Patron. The I-lon. Member had told
him that Mr. Allsop would be glad of a seat. Previ-
ously to the 10th June he had sent a letter to a Mr.
Chingal, Camelford, containing the halves of a parcel
of Bank-notes ; they were the halves of six £l,OOO
notes ; he received part of those notes as the discount
of Bills from his Banker (as would appear from his
Banker's book), and the rest he raised by other means.
He threw himself on the indulgence of the House,
whether, as a mercantile man, he should be called on
to state how he had procured them, but he declared
he had raised them on his own means. He had rea-
son to suppose that he should be able to procure the
return of two Members to Parliament for Camelford,
and he had been given to understand that in the case
of a contest, the appearance of money would be re-
quired to inspire the confidence of the Electors in a
contest with so powerful a person as the patron. This
was done to procure the return of an individual whom
he had never seen till the Ist of June. He was to
avail himself of this money as the exigencies might
require. He knew James Ilarvey of Camelford.
The witness had been engaged in an attempt to raise
potters' clay in the neighbourhood of Camelford, and
he thus came to the knowledge that the people were
dissatisfied with the patron of the Borough. He
made an arrangement with James Harvey, that he
should go down to Camelford with two Gentlemen,
as Candidates. Mr. Stewart, Mr. Amory, and Mr.
Sibley, went down with him. It was James Harvey
who told him that £6OOO would be necessary. The-
half notes were only sent to Ching for the sake of se-
curity. Witness having declined to state why he had
sent the £6OOO down to Mr. Ching, was ordered to
withdraw.

Mr. HARVEY was of opinion that the witness
ought to answer this question. There could be no
excuse here that an answer would be a breach of pro-
fessional confidence.

Mr. PRIMROSE thought that the witness ought
to have been examined before a Select Committee.
He had pledged himself to give a full account of all
be knew, but is was unfair to put questions, the an-
swers to which would implicate himself. The; House
had an instance in the case of Mr. Merceron of the
impropriety of compelling a witness to answer. The
testimony extracted from that Gentleman before a
Committee of the House of Commons, had been used
against him in one of the Courts below, and he was
convicted upon it.
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN observed, that if this
question could not' he put, they had better give up
the investigation altogether.
After a few words from Mr. R. MARTIN and Mr.
W. Ws
The witness was again called in. He knew that
many of the Electors were in debt to a Mr. Carpenter,
and to several other persons, and he had provided
himself with money accordingly. He did not know
on what ground the Electors had received loans of
money, but having been told by J. Harvey that a
'sum of E 6090 was necessary, he had provided him-
self with it. He declined stating whether he did or
grid not know of his own knowledge, that the £6OOO
or any part of it was to be paid to the Electors.--
Ordered to withdraw.
Mr. PRIMROSE suggested the propriety of in-
forming the witness, that he would be protected
against the effects of any evidence he might give
before the House.

Witness being called in, was told by the Chairman
that the House would protect him as far as was in its
power ; but he was at the same time cautioned against
refusing to answer any question put to him..
Witness then said his impression was, that in t1:66
event 6f the two Candidates nominated by him being
returned, he was to give up the £6OOO. He did not
recollect having told his partner, Mr. Sibley, that
the Camelford Electors were a set of scoun-
drels. He had particular reasons for cautioning the
House against relying on the testimony of Mr. Sibley.
If the parties nominated by witness had been return-
ed, he had no doubt but they (Messrs. Stewart and
Allsop) would have honourably repaid him his ex-
penses. He had been repaid his travelling expenses
by Mr. Amory. He did not know the Electors had
received money at former elections, or notes of band
which were not to be presented unless the parties re-
fused their votes to the holders. There were six Can-
didates for the Borough. Two were proposed by

Lord Darlington, two by Mr. Mason, a Clergyman,
and two by witness. Mr. Mason lived within
miles of Camelford. Witness had the sum of L.
.0
in his possession for some days before he sew. die
half notes to Mr. Ching. He never had any commit.
nicapon with any elector qn the subject of purchasing
his vote; he never made any attempt of the kind;
he was disappointed, and had no opportunity of
making any such attempt, probably if he had he
might have done so ; he understood the majority of
the voters had promised the other parry.
Sir G. HILL objected to any questions which
went to inquire what witness would or might e
done in any given case. He ought only to be CA.
pined as to matters of fact.
Mr. PRIMROSE submitted that his exarninati%
was directly in point. His object was to elicit cruel
the witness those truths which he seemed very lin.
willing to tell. He had stated that he had posse ea
himself of the means of corrupting the Electors, LI
that he declined using those means, though he wea
down with the avowed purpose of having his friend;
returned; from whom, by the bye, he expected to he
repaid all his expenses, in the event of their election.
The witness being again called in, the Committee
proceeded with his examination, which was chiefly
directed to ascertain how he had obtained the 6,000 i.
and how he had disposed of it after the election. ,The
witness stated that he had obtained it partly by dis.
counts from bankers,partly by loans from his friends,
and partly from the concern in Which he was a part.
ner. He believed he had paid it into the blinker's
bands after the election was over, but could not say
so positively. Being asked to state the names of the per.
sons from whom he had borrowed part of the money,
Mr. BROUGHAM objected to the question as un-
necessary and unfit to be pet.
Mr. WAITHMAN maintained the propriety cf
putting the question, upon which a conversation arose,
and alter a few observations from Mr. W. Hanvcv,
Colonel DAVIS, Mr. MARRYAT, Mr. K. DousLar,
"'Mr. GORDON, Mr. PRIMROSE, and Mr. W. IVYNX, a
division took place.—For putting the question 2.6
Against it IB—Majority 8.
The witness was then again called in, and under-
went a long examination as to the mode in which he
bad obtained the 60001. after which the' Chairman
reported progress, and obtained leave to sit again on
Wednesday.
Mr. P. MOORE presented the Evidence taken before
the Committee.—Ordered to be printed.

It was ordered, that the Speaker shu.uld not issue a new ors
fur the Borough of Carnelford before Wednesday next.
Mr. CARLISLE presented the Second Report of the Cm.
mission appointed to inquire into the State of the OsatitaLiells.
stitutions for the Education of the Poor.—Ordered to be prim 4,
The other (artless of the Day were then disposed of, sada
One o'Clock this morning the Douse adjourned.

THE EVENING STAR.

LONDON.

TUESDAY, JULY 6, 1819.
THE FUNDS.
PRICE OF STOCKS THIS DAY AT ONE O.CLOCK :
Bank Stock 2171 217
3 per Cent. Reduced 68 671111
3 per Cent. Consols 671 661 67+ 67 ex. div.
Si per Cent. 75+1 76 75+-4. per Cent. 85185
5 per Cent. Navy 1011i1 ex. dive
Bank Long Annuities 17 13-16 I
India Bonds 6 2 pre.
Exchequer Bills (2d.) 1 pre. 2 dis.:
Drank= 01 131 dis.
Consols for Acct. 69 681Hi1.

The Bill to prevent the misapplication of the Poor
Rates, which had passed the House of Commons, and
stood for a second reading in the Lords last night,
was thrown out ; the Marquis of LANSDOWNE moving
that it should be read a second time this day three
months, and the Noble Marquis's Amendment being
adopted without a division. The Insolvent Debtors'
Bill was recommitted ; several verbal Amendments
were made to it. The measure, however, was de-
clared, both by the LORD CHANCELLOR and Lord
REDESDALE, to be wholly inadequate to its object.—
The Clause, which went to deprive Debtors of the
indulgence of the Rules, was amended on the motion
of Lord REDESDALE, and a power given to the Com-
missioners either to grant or to withhold this in-
dulgence.
Last night the House of Commons was occupied
till seven o'clock with hearing evidence in the case
of the Grampound Election. The evidence being
closed, it was voted, on the motion of Lord Joss
RUSSELL, that a system of notorious corruption had
prevailed in the Borough of Grampound, and that
the House would take the same into its consideration
in the next Session of Parliament.