Star.
London, England, 1818-05-14 00:00:00

*~_^~~.

~'.~

\

nee officers was so much increased? Such an inter-'
Terence as that on the ll= of Mr. Fergusson would
have been criminal in any nan, but was doubly so
in him, on account of the office which he held. It
was no doubt painful for the House to inflict any
additional punishment on an individual who had
already suffered very severely—(hear, hear). But
that it had been usual to follow up the punishment
of such offences by the removal of the individual
from his offite, it was only necessary for him to al.
lude to a case which had occurred within the last
four years, in which the guilty individual had been
deprived- of all those high honours which he had
earned in his profession. The motion, indeed, which
had been made some days ago for the discharge of
Thomas Fergusson, was supported by an allusion to'
what the House had done in a case which occurred
in 1809, somewhat similar to the present. In 1809
the House declined coming to any decision on the
case. But in the present instance it was recorded on
their Joucnals that Mr. Fergusson had been guilty of
a high breach of the privileges of the House ; and it
also appeared in evidence that he held an office un-
der the Crown. How then could the House, con-
sistently with its dignity, stop short, after having
such evidence before it, and having proceeded so far?
On these grounds he moved—" That an humble
Address be presented to his Royal Highness the
Prince Regent, praying that he may give directions
that Thomas Fergusson, who has been guilty of cor-
rupt interference to prevent the freedom of election,
and has been guilty of a high breach of the privileges
of this House, be removed from the office of Surveyor
of Taxes for the County of Lanark."
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, that in order to
er.able the House to judge of the justice and pro-
priety of such a motion, he felt it necessary to move
that the Petition of the Friends of the People, pre-
sented to the House in 1793, be read by the Clerk.
The Clerk read the Petition, which was of consi-
derable length, and which minutely described the
alleged corrupt constitution of the House.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT then moved, that the
Resolution of the House in the same year, on the
case of the Great Grimsby Election, be read.
The Clerk then read this Resolution, which.stated
it to he the opinion of the House, that'the Honour-
able William Wellesley Pole had been guilty of gross
bribery and corruption in the case of the Great
Grimsby Election—(Laughter).
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT said, he would not
trouble the House with any thing farther, erupt
stating that the Resolution which had just been read
had not been followed by any steps taken against.
the individual named in it, as guilty of the offences
rnentionei.
Nr. STURGES BOURNE said, he could not help
thinking that the offender in the case I e ;ire the
House had already been punished with much seve-
rity, and that the House would not be justified in
taking any further proceedings against him, and
especially not in agreeing to the present motion.—
The delinquent had been called before a Committee
of Privileges, and though he appeared as a willing
witness, he was not told whether he was at liberty to
decline any questions which might tend to criminate
himself. After having given -full answers to all the
questions which were thus put to him, he was upon
his own evidence called before the House, and treat-
ed with the utmost possible severity—(hear, hear).—
In the first place he was committed to the custody
of the Serjeant at Arms—no slight punishment
when the heavy expenses there'iy cast upon him were
considered. Then he was committed to Newgate,
the most 4nomi Mous receptacle of prisoners. And
after visiting with these heavy punishments, the
Ilouse was now called upon to follow up these other
proceedings, by depriving him of the situation which
he held, and on which his means of subsistence. de-
pended. All this was to be done on the evidence of
the delinquent himself, given as a willing witness,
and without his being Warned of the consequence of
eriminating himself. He could not think that it was
the practice of the House to act on principles so dif-
ferent from those which guided the proceedings in
our Courts of Law. The examination of the indivi-
dual occupied no less than fifteen foliO pages, and
when the circumstances under which it was given
were duly weighed, as well as the severity of the
punishment which had been already inflicted, he
trusted the House would see that the present motion
ought not to be agreed to.
11-. BATHURST said he could not think that his
llonourable Friend who spoke last was quite right in
the view he took of the case before the House. The
delinquency of Mr. gergusson was not in the cir-
camstances stated in his evidence, but was m ide out
solely from the letter which lie had written. It was
also to be considered that it appeared by the evidence
that the office from which it was the object of the
present motion to have him removed, was not his
only means of subsistence. He was aware o. the 1

hardship of the case, but still he thought the ..ig-
nity of the House required it to pursue that course
vel.ith had been usual in all such cases.

Mr. DENNIS IJIWWNE opposed the motion on
the ground that the punishment already inflicted on
the offender was sufficient.

Mr. JONES thought there was more harshness in
the motion than the case warranted. The case of a

'run in the situation of Mr. Fergusson, when called
before the Committee, was one of peculiar hardship;
for he could not answer the questions put to him
without criminating himself; and if he had refused
to answer, he would have been reported to the House
as contumacious, and thereupon at once have been
committed to Newgate. As it was, he had not only
teen committed to Newgate, but the present motion
sought to deprive him of all that constituted the com-
fort of his life--of his whole means of subsistence
—(No, no, from several Members).—lf the House
agreed to this Motion, it would take upon itself to'
do that which, as he understood it, the Act of the
10th of Queen Anne directed should only be done
by the verdict of a Jury. Ia this case, the House
Lad not only extorted evidence, but was called to
vote an Address for the removal of the individual
(tom his office, without substituting any remunera-
tion in lieu of it. On these grounds he should op-
pose the motion.
Mr. METHUEN remarked, that a Noble Lord
opposite had been guilty of the same offence for
which Mr. Fergusson had been already so severely
punished, and yet the House passed over the offence
• gos Noble 4.9,rd without punisigneut. For the