Star.
London, England, 1819-02-27 00:00:00

• -
no intention to offend the House of Commons in

stale of the business ; and if suck absence of bad
iunt:on was true in fact, could it be deemed an as-
sertion of the privileges of that House to punish him
. as ignorant offence? He begged pardon for in-
trading on the House so long. He called on the
Nembers, whose experience he could confidently rely,
spoil, to assi,t him. This was no party question,
rid involved no party concern. He concluded, by
racing—b• That Mr. Grady be conducted to the bar
: the House forthwith, in order to be discharged
Ina custody."
it ROBERT WILSON supported the motion.
lie nitrated the House to remember, that the Peti-
tioner had stated his liberation as essentially neces-
sity to forward the proceedings, which were now,
It might say, fixing the general attention of the
country. His son was a lad about 20 years of age,
atd from his necessary inexperience, unqualified to
conduct the important cause in which he was in-
volved. Surely that House ought not to attempt
to throw any impediment to the course of justice ;
steely the Honourable Member (Mr. Quin) would not
cointenance any measure that was not in unison with
toe feelings which he entertained with regard to Mr.
Grady, so much to his credit—(Hear, hear.)—But
there was no charge whatever proved : and if nothing
vas proved, and if one of the most important persons
in the cause was precluded from interfering in it,
the course of justice must inevitably stop. Let not
the parties say hereafter, that they were deprived of
the means of establishing truth by the hostile inter-
position of Parliament: let the opponents have the'
snlimited power of producing evidence, and if they
failed, let it be for want of evidence, and the punish-
mutt which should fall upon them would be an
ample sacrifice to .justice. The Hon. Member for
Dover (Mr. J. Jackson) had said, that the language
Of the petition was offensive to the dignity of Parlia-
tent. It was no such thing. He (Sir R. Wilson)
hew Mr. Grady's sentiments too well to allow such
art assertion to go uncontradicted. He knew that
Mr. Grady did write a most submissive letter to that
'Luse, and forwarded it to an eminent Member; but
taw: individual was prevented from producing it, by
:eacn of the informality of the proceeding—(Hear.)
Mr. COURTENAY said, that there could not be
a more painful duty than that which required resist-
,lce to the extension of clemency and mercy ; but
from his view of' this case, and he had viewed it as
agave and important one, he could not accede to
the Honourable Gentleman's. Motion—(Hear, hear.)
If the House should,, on more deliberate considera-
tion, take a different view of the: case, the House
could not hesitate to retrace its steps, and confess its
1:1.6r. He, for one, would not for a moment hesi-
tat. e to do so. Hut he opposed the Motion, because
Honourable Member had made out no case to
ttl
,:fie the petitioner to his dischar e, either by the
t''lleaey or the justice of the House. The first
;,:4lt he would argue was, the House had deci-
_el,without proof that the letter was a high breach
7, :4 privileges. The reasons for considering it a
t:ea breach of privilege hid been so eloquently and
stated by the Mover of the Resolution, that
E only repeated them for the sake of those who had
"'t 4Cen Pres'At. The breach was not committed
ip" the Member for Limerick was Member of
..tr!iament, hut because the petitioner had written a
a direct threat of using the power
42d
iaaucace Parliament to obtain money. Any

Court, whose power or influence should have been so
used, would find it contempt of Court, and have
the power in itself to punish it. It was on that
ground—on the general force of the letter, and not
on particular words or particular lines, that the Re-
solution had been founded. The 'second point urged
was, that the petitioner was not the author of that
letter. The House would not forget the testimony
of the Honourable Member far Limerick on this
point. But if the letter was not his, it was an abso-
lute forgery of his name and 'signature. Were the
House prepared to believe this ? Were they prepared
to say, that the letter for Thomas Grady the son, was
not written by Thomas Grady the father?—(Hear,
!rear)—lf the Honourable General would allow him
to ask him a question, he would ask one. Who gave
him the paper giving the names of the witnesses to
be summoned to attend ?

Sir ROBERT WILSON.—It was the pe itioner
who gave it to him. He afterwards explained, that
he meant Thomas Grady the father, and that he un-
derstood the paper to be that upon which the orders
of the House, for the attendance of the witnesses,
was founded.

Mr. COURTNAY proceeded. The paper was writ-
ten then by Thomas Grady.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He
had mentioned this, because he was anxious that
there should not be the least doubt that the letter was
the hand-writing of Thomas Grady ; and he would
appeal to the Honourable General, whether he had a
doubt that both, papers were in Mr. pradys's hand-
writing ? He had moved his immediate commitment,
on the suggestion of others, lest Thomas Grady
should withdraw himself from the power of the
House. The Petitioner did not throw himself on the
mercy of the House. He would not attempt to dic-
tate to the feelings of the House, and he would make
all allowances for the circumstances of the Peti-
tioner ; but it was too much to say, that a man, who
complained that the House had done him wrong,
threw himself on its mercy; The last point which
he had to reply to was, that the assistance of the Pe-
titioner was necessary for conducting the prosecution.
Whit was the case made out by the Petition against
the Honourable Member ? That there had been a
conversation between the Honourable Member and
Mr. Carew Smyth ; that this convers•tion had been
committed to writing by the latter, and handed to
the former ; was this adopted by the Honourable
Member or not? This was the whole case. What
part of this case required the Petitioner's presence
and assistance ? Was he necessary for making up the
evidence of Mr. Carew Smyth, who, he understood,
was a respectable man in Dublin ? If he had felt that
it was necessary for the purposes of inquiry, he should
be most ready to consent to Mr. Grady's liberation.
Mr. BOOTLE WILBRAHAM said, that as he
was not a party to the vote by which Mr. Grady had
been sent to prison, he should resist his enlargement,
merely upon the Petition he had since presented, and
the documents that had been published. He con-
tended, that neither submission nor contrition had
been shewn by the prisoner, and the appeal he had
made was couched in terms scarcely respectful. He
was not, by any means, disposed to be unnecessarily
severe, but no sufficient claim to lenity had been
established.

Mr. N. CALVERT had read the printed papers
containing the evidence of Mr. Grady, and he felt
called upon to say, that the answers of that person
were most unbecoming the station he had filled of a
Barrister and a Gentleman. He should vote against
the motion.
Mr. BENNET observed, that he should not have
offered himself to the notice of the House, if he had
not been anxious to do his utmost to bring it back to
the line of duty and discretion. He was persuaded
that there were not two Lawyers to be found in the
kingdom who would give it as their opinion that Mr.
Grady had been guilty of any offence. It was of no
consequence to this question whether the allegations
in the second letter were true or untrue ; that on
which the commitment had been grounded merely
spoke of the supposed misconduct of a Member of
Parliament ; it was put merely hygoothetically, and
no man with the right use of his understanding could
construe that into a breach of privilege. Supposing
the facts stated to be well founded, all honest men
would join heartily in the opinions which the writer
had expressed. A Member who had so misconduct-
ed himself would well merit the severest censure the
House could inflict; but, on the contrary, if it were
proved that a foul conspiracy subsisted, the chastise-
ment of Parliament was equally due to the authors
of it. The real and only question wigs, whether the
letter produced by Mr. Windham Qffin was or was
not a threat—(hear, hear)? He (Mr. Bennet) begged
to state most distinctly, that in his judgment the letter
of the 19th of October was not meant as a threat.
The fair construction of it was no more than this—
" I have known you for fifteen years, and our inti-
macy has gradually increased; you have removed
my son from an office he has long held, for political
reasons ;—retrace the steps you have so unadvisedly
taken—recollect that you are about to commit a high
political offence—replace my son, and I, in consider-1
ation of our friendship and your incautiousness, will
do—what for no other human being in similar cir-
cumstances I would do—l will drop this matter:—
my object is not revenge, but justice, and I will net
expose that profligacy which I am cOnfident you your-
self will repent." Such was the natural interpreta-
tion candid minds would put upon the letter, and
even the Honourable Member had so considered it
in his reply ; this was upon the supposition, that no,
offer had, in the first instance, come from Mr. Quin.
A great deal had been said about the sacred privi-
leges of the House; perhaps he (Mr. Bennet) did
not look upon them as quite so sacred or important
as many gentlemen; they were, however, no doubt,
of considerable value, though now and then em-
ployed for bad purposes, and sometimes put into
odious exercise : they were, however, intrusted to the
House, not as a scourge,
.but as a protection to the
people--(Cheers).
this subject, he had
and was happy to state
fion was as comfortab)
admit; at first, his
With regard to his .
could bear testimony
had represented it ; any
for the severe remarks
tual defect of his vision.
was obliged to put
there appeared no

paper.4Hear,hear hear!) Since he had risen, the setter
to which the gallant General (Sir Robert Wilson) had
alluded had been put into his (Mr. Bennet's) band;
it was addressed to the highest authority in the House;
but.unfortunately, as had been observed, the only in-
dividual who could not communicate its contents.
He begged leave to read it, as it showed that Mr.
Grady had been actuated by no improper or unbe-
coming feelings at the time be wrote the Petition,
which had been objected to as disrespectful. The
Honourable Gentleman then read the following Let-
ter, addressed to the SPEAKER:
" Newgate, Friday, Feb. 27, 1219.

" Su—Having observed In the public prints of this morning,
that It was the intention of in Hon. Member of the Ilouse to
call the attention of the House to my Petition, to some passages
of which another I lonourable Member is reported to have ob-
jected, on the ground of their not being sufficiently respectful—
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that yon will permit me to request you tp
assure the House, that if my Petition was not couched in the
most respectful terms, •r was otherwise informal, its defects ors
Inaccuracies were quite unintentional, and not to be attributed
to the most remote design to question its justice or to offend its
authority. Perhaps it may he some apology for these defects,
that when I drew up that Petition, my mind was incapable of
discharging its ordinary functions, for I was then, after passing
fourteen hours of a dreary night in an apartment not calculated
for repose.
" Permit me, Sir, with the highest consideration, to request,
that I may through you, be suffered to assure the House, that
in nothing I said in that Petition, and that in nothing I ever said
or wrote in my life, hurl the remotest intention of infringing
the privileges of the House, or of hinting an insinuation against
the exercise of an authority calculated to sustain those privileges,
which I know to he the bulwarks of the British Constitution,
and the best safeguard of the liberty of the subject.
" Suffer me, Sir, to add, that my son is pledged, under peril
of the severest censure of the House, to prove the allegations of
Ms Petition within the course of nine days ; and that there is
nobody now alibut him upon whom ha can rely to prepare an
adequate case in that interval' and to do all that is necessary for
bringing him with credit to the liar of the House of Commons.
Here it is impossible I can do any thing ; and every hour I con.
time here, will render it more difficult for him to redeem his
pledge.—l have the honour to be with the most profound re-
spect, Sir, your most obedient and humble servant,
" THOMAS GRADY."

The letter was received with many cheers, arfd
Mr. BENNET sat down, after observing that he was
strongly persuaded, that had the decision of the House
been delayed for only twenty-four hours, it would not
have thought it proper to send Mr. Grady to prison.
Mr. BANKES maintained, that the proceedings
of the House on Wednesday were warranted.by pre-
cedents in the best times of parliamentary history.
The Honourable Member (Mr. Hutchinson) had said,
that 'he had not concurred in the vote ; but if he
(Mr. Bankes) jecollected rightly, the Honourable
' Member had net withdrawn until he found that Mr.
Grady did not avow or deny the letter : he had con-
curred, he believed, in the first resolution, declaring
the letter a breach of privilege. Independent of the
breach of privilege in the threatening letter, Mr.
Grady had been guilty of most discreditable preva-
rication. As to the assertion, that no man ought to
be called upon to criminate himself, he could only
say, that such had been the uniform practice of the
House from the earliest .date : the party was always
put to the Bar, and called upon to avow or deny
what was charged against him. To the Honourable
Member who spoke last, and who could not perceive
that the letter was a threat, he knew not what to
say ; he (Mr. Bankes) was bound to believe him, but
if any other individual had told him that the good
sense of the Honourable Gentleman bad been so im-
posed upon, he should have burst out into involun-
tary laughter. If Gentlemen would wish to know
the practice of Parliament in similar cases, he would,
with permission of the Speaker, refer them to the
very highest authority, to that of his eminent prede-
cessor in the Chair (Mr. Abbott, now Lord Colches-
ter)—( Hear, hear, from all parts.)—He would refer
them to the case of Mr. kuller, a late Member of
that House, who was taken into custody, and con-
fined in the prison rooms up stairs, and not released
till he presented a respectful petition acknowledging
his offence, and praying for the pardon of the House.
He did not wish to bear hard upon the petitioner;
but the House could not, consistently with its cha-
racter, deviate from its usual course—(Hear, /war.)

Mr. Alderman WOOD declared that he was one
of those who had voted against Mr. Grady's being
sent to Newgate. If it was considered as a great
breach of privilege, there were many other breaches
of privileges ; but thsre were shades of breaches. If
Gentlemen looked around them, they find themselves
surrounded with what might be construed into
breaches of privilege. The Honourable Member (Mr.
Courtney) bad confessed that when he was the means
of calling Mr. Grady to the Bar, it never was his in-
tention to order him into, custody, far less to be im-
prisoned. The Worthy Alderman, therefore, hoped
that the House would consent to relax somewhat
,from their usual rigour, by the speedy release of the
prisoner. " To be sure (continued the Hon. Member)
one cannot but say that he (Grady) was the writer of
the letter—(hear, hear)—l told him so in Newgate."
(Hear, hear, hear.)--The worthy Alderman then
ap-
pealed to the Member for Limerick (Mr. Quin), if
the prisoner were not released, that a wrong impres-
sion might be made on the public mind ? It would
no do injury to his cause to consent to his release, and
prevent all idle clamour. That the accommodation
of Newgate had been much improved, could not be
denied ; but then it was still Newgate at best ; and if
any Honourable:Member were sent thither, whatever
might be his accommodation, he would • certainly
Irish for a speedy release—(hear, hear). The prisoner'
was a Barn. ter,. aged, and the adviser of his son, who
could not proceed without him. Under all these
circumstances, the worthy Alderman implored the
House to consent to his release, as the prisoner had
already been sufficiently punished. .
Mr. MARTIN was disposed, as he was sure the
Member for Limerick and the House were, ko act
with lenity on the present occasion; but he begged to
suggest that the present Petition should be discrged,
and another presented in a more proper form.
Mr. PETER MOORE apologized for the vote
which he had given when this subject was last dis-
" - which