at the bar, that they were wholly ignorant of the intention of presenting any such petition. He requested leave to bring up these several petitions.

The Speaker observed, that the question before the House was, that the order of the day be read. At the same time it was competent to the honourable member, if the reasons he assigned were sufficient, to present any petition which bore upon the subject that was on the point of being brought forward.

After a few words from Lord Folkestone and Mr. P. Moore, it was agreed that Lord Folkestone's motion for reading the order of the day should be withdrawn, for the purpose of allowing the petitions to be first presented.

Mr. P. Moore then presented a petition from Henry Burgess, which stated, that a petition had been presented to the House, signed James Paull, charging the petitioner with divers crimes against the privileges of the House; that the petitioner begged leave to confront the evidence that was to be adduced to prove this charge, as he had strong reason to believe that a system of perjury had been established, and was still persevered in, in order to deprive the right honourable R. B. Sheridan of his seat in that House. Mr. P. Moore moved, that the petition do lie on the table.

Lord Folkestone, although he would not oppose the motion, observed that the prayer of Mr. Paull's petition was to be allowed to confirm his allegations by evidence; but that Mr. Burgess considered those allegations as already confirmed.

Mr. Sheridan was convinced that the noble lord did not mean any thing unfair or dishonourable, and that therefore he could not mean to summon witnesses against him, and deny him the opportunity of refuting their assertions by opposite testimony. He was aware that many would hear that testimony, but he cared so little who heard it, that he had protested against excluding strangers from the House, although among them might be, and no doubt were, many who would at a future period be called on for their evidence. Arraigned as he was of having either himself or by his agents, tampered with witnesses, it surely could not be intended to deny him the privilege of disproving the truth of the charge at the bar.

Lord Howick thought that the petition had a just claim

to

to be laid on the table of the House, and that when the proper time came, the petitioner ought to be heard at the bar, in his own defence.

Lord Folkestone disclaimed any intention of preventing the right honourable gentleman from calling evidence on his own part.

Mr. Biddulph observed, that in so grave and so unusual a proceeding, his noble friend was entitled to the indulgence of the House, and to the Speaker's advice and assistThe result of the inquiry which was about to be instituted, would be to protect the most valuable rights of the electors of Great Britain.

The petition was then ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. P. Moore presented two other petitions. The one from James Wallis, stating that the petitioner had been charged in the petition from James Paull with having tampered with witnesses; but that not having been served with a warrant by the said James Paull to appear to be examined at the bar of that House, he prayed that he might be examined, and that witnesses might be called to the bar to disprove the allegations contained in the said petition. The other petition was from Frederick Bowman. and Alexander Johnston, and was couched in nearly the same terms. Both these petitions were ordered to lie on the table.

Mr. Sheridan had really thought that when the noble lord opposite had moved for the attendance of witnesses at the bar, he would also have moved for the attendance of the persons arraigned. He held in his hand a list of witnesses, for whose attendance he should move; but he should first ask an honourable gentleman why he had not re-presented the petition, stating to be from the inhabitants of St. Martin's-le-Grand. It was withdrawn, with the understanding that it would be so re-presented. There were persons then in the lobby of the House ready to prove that a more gross fraud never existed.

Mr. Biddulph denied that there had been any understanding as to the re-presenting the petition alluded to. On the contrary, he had specifically stated, that he was under no obligation whatever on the subject. He had not represented the petition, because it had never been brought to him.

Mr. Whitbread confirmed the honourable gentleman's statement of his not having given a pledge on the subject. Mr. Sheridan was glad to find that such was the case.

On

On his motion it was then ordered, that the following witnesses should attend the consideration of the petition complaining of certain proceedings at the last election for Wesminster: Messrs. Paull, Powel, Harris, Dawes, Butler, Coleman, Steel, Hughes, Townley, Ward, Graham, Wallis, Wright, Cooper, Boyle, T. Sheridan, T. Browne, Gillespie, &c.

The order of the day having then been read, for taking into consideration the petition of James Paull, Esq. the same was accordingly taken into consideration, and Lord Folkestone moved, that the petitioner be heard by himself, his counsel, and his witnesses, in support of the allegations contained in his petition.

Lord Howick declared, that he had formerly expressed his doubts as to the propriety of hearing counsel in this case, lest such a proceeding might frustrate the ends of public justice. He still entertained doubts; but, on further inquiry, he had found a precedent in the reign of King William, of counsel having been heard in support of a similar charge of tampering with witnesses. Feeling every desire that this transaction should be investigated in such a manner as to satisfy the public, and anxious to remove the slightest pretence for accusing the House of an intention to deprive the petitioner of the means of supporting his charge, he, for one, would be willing to allow that the counsel should be heard; but he wished the House to ob serve, as a guide to their proceedings, that since the passing of Mr. Grenville's bill, it had been the practice to abstain from hearing at the bar evidence which might tend to defeat the ends of justice in a subsequent committee. He trusted that the House would confine examination simply to the point of tampering, and that if, in the outset, any question should be proposed affecting the merits of the election, the examination would be stopped. He did not see the necessity for allowing the counsel to plead, because such pleading would only increase the danger which it was desirable to avoid. It was true that the Court of King's Bench, when the day of trial was distant, and an applica tion was made by the one party, on the ground that the other was engaged in tampering with the evidence, interposed its authority; but the instances were very different. In the Court of King's Bench the case was afterwards referred to a jury; the House of Commons were themselves to be the jurors. It behoved the House, therefore, to be very cautious how they allowed the evidence on the merits

of

of the election to be anticipated. He moved, that the clerk do read the precedent to which he had alluded.

The proceedings in the Wooten Bassett case, in the reign of King William, were then read. In that case, the parties were allowed the benefit of counsel to plead, as well as to examine witnesses. But the Speaker stated, that at that time election petitions were tried by the House itself in a committee. The present proceeding was before the House at large.

He

Mr. Grenville was of opinion that the present case ought to go to a committee. While the House looked only to the examination of facts in having the case proceeded upon at the bar, a precedent may be established which may tend to much inconvenience and much mischief hereafter. was, he confessed, more inclined than others seemed to be, to doubt of the propriety of the House having proceeded even so far as it had already done. But if it was improper to have gone so far, it would be much more improper to go farther. The question before the House seemed to him, if not an integral part of that which was reserved by the Grenville act, for the decision of a select committee, at least so nearly to border on it, as that it would be impossible to keep the two objects distinct. He had no doubt that under the Grenville act, a committee was perfectly competent to do the justice required in this case, if the facts alleged could be substantiated or completely falsified. The committec might make a special report, if either should be found guilty of improper practices. If no inconvenience could arise to public justice, as he thought none could in this case, he was of opinion the House ought not to interfere with a jurisdiction so nearly connected if not altogether identified with that which it had, by a solemn act, put out of its own hands, and delegated to its committees. He did not suppose that the members in the House uns worn were a less desirable tribunal than the sworn members of a committee. But there was no doubt, that a sworn committee, with its attention particularly directed to the objee's it was to try, was as eligible a tribunal as the House unsworn. He was so strongly convinced that this was a case that ought to be reserved to a committee, that he felt an indispensable duty to state his opinion to the House, though he could not hope that any opinion of his would have such weight with the House as to lead its decision. If, notwithstanding the considerations he had thrown out, VOL. II. 1806-7,

E e

the

the House should persevere in the present course, he was of opinion that there would be great danger in hearing of counsel. By the interference of counsel, it would be rendered next to impossible to keep this case wholly distinct from the question of the validity of the late election which was to be tried by the committee between the parties in this case, a question which the House was by law prohibited from interfering in. If the whole matter was not sent to the committee, the only way the House could reserve that part which belonged exclusively to the committee, was by keeping the examination of the witnesses in its own hands. An advocate, who looked only to what was best adapted to his present object, could never act up to the delicacy which became the House upon this head, and there would thus be an endless necessity for the interposition of the House. If, however, the House should agree to have counsel, as well as to examine this matter itself, he hoped that it would not be permitted to such counsel to attempt to instruct the House with respect to its privileges; and that particular care should be taken to prevent him from involving the two cases, which it was so essential to keep distinct.

Mr. Leigh thought the matter of the petition now be fore the House, would be a fit subject for the consideration of the House, rather than for a committee, if it were mere insulated matter of fact, involving only the guilt and punishment of some of the parties. But the case to which the attention of the House was now called, involved the question of the validity of the Westminster election, which was appointed for trial on the fourteenth of April. Mr. Paull, the present petitioner, was the petitioner in that case, and possibly the witnesses who were to be called in support of the present petition, were the very same wha were to be produced before the committee. If the charges now made were substantiated, the committee would form a prejudice against the right of the sitting member. If, on the contrary, they were falsified, a prejudice equally hostile would be created against the petitioner, who would have brought corrupt witnesses to the bar, to establish fabrications of so foul a nature. If any of the witnesses should be guilty of prevarication here, or if the testimony of any should be contradicted and falsified, the stigma would accompany them before the committee, and render their testimony there suspected. The journals of the House