House shewed the aukward shifts that were necessary, when the sanction of an oath was wished to the evidence given at the bar. At one time the justices of the peace of the counties were called upon to administer that oath, at another time, it was done by a joint committee of Lords and Commons, and at other times again the chief justice of the King's Bench was required to attend to administer it. From all these considerations he wished to reserve the whole case to the committee on the Westminster election. He begged, however, to be understood to be most anxious that the present matter should be particularly inquired into in some shape or another.

Mr. Perceval observed, that the question at present was, whether counsel should be called in. Upon that the right honourable gentleman opposite had introduced a dicussion, whether the matter ought to be entertained at ali. But the time for that was past; that was a point which had already been considered and determined upon. An order had been made and witnesses had been commanded to attend. But if the point was to be re-considered yet there would be no difficulty in shewing the necessity of entertaining it. The right honourable gentleman had said, that the matter ought to be entirely referred to the election committee. He admitted that the committee might examine into many, or into all the matters now to be brought before the House. But there were two objects in view, the one to punish the offenders, and the other was to prevent the offence from being completed, which would put it out of the power of the committee to do justice to the petitioner. It was quite clear that if the sitting member was employed, as alledged, in keeping witnesses out of the way, he might have time to complete his object before the 14th of Aprii; and if there was a material letter in the possession of one of the witnesses, it was necessary that the sitting member should not have the power of extinguishing the means of justice. It might be competent to the petitioner to state to the committee the manner in which he had been dealt with, but they could not call up the evidence, and would thus be deprived of the means of doing justice. He hoped, therefore, the House would feel that the ends of justice required their interference in this stage of the business. The next point was the calling in of counsel. It might be right to confine the counsel within certain limits, but that he must be called

in there was no doubt. The noble lord (Howick) seemed to think that there was nothing here but a breach of privilege. But the petitioner complained not only of a breach of privilege, but also of the injustice done to himself. He called upon the House to preserve for him the means of doing himself justice. The committee, under the Grenville act, could only decide upon the matters that took place during the election. But with regard to the interimediate acts that took place between the time of presenting the petition and the sitting of the committee, the House retained the same powers as before. The act and the pre. cedent for calling in counsel was therefore strictly in point. The House had received some other petitions, and he apprehended that the ordinary way was to hear persons by their counsel, except when they were brought before the House merely for punishment. If this was the ordinary way of proceeding, he apprehended that counsel must be admitted in the present case. The next point was, how the counsel should conduct the business? He saw no reason why the counsel should not be heard, if the Speaker from the chair should inform him that he was to confine himself entirely to the statement of the facts and the alle gations in the petition. This petition referred to matters that passed subsequent to the election; and the counsel might easily be stopped, by the Speaker and others, if he attempted to introduce any extraneous matter. This was not a question of law to be argued before the House; it was merely a question of facts, to the pointing out of which the counsel must confine himself. But the honourable gentleman who spoke last thought that this discussion would be inconvenient, as it would prejudice the committee. If the allegations were proved, he said, a bad inpression would be produced with regard to the one side; if they were not proved, then a bad impression would be produced with regard to the other. But it was impossible to help that; and in either case the parties would only feel the consequences flowing from their own improper conduct. He hoped, therefore, that the House would be satisfied that the motion ought to be agreed to.

Mr. Grenville, in explanation, said, that notwithstanding the advanced state of the business, it was worth while to consider the consequence of the proceeding. His sense of the inconvenience arose from this, that previous to the

trial the same witnesses were to be examined who were afterwards to appear before the committee.

Lord Henry Petty, notwithstanding all that had been 'said by his right honourable friend (Mr. Grenville), and his honourable friend (Mr. Leigh), who had spoken with so much credit to himself, thought the House ought to proceed immediately to the investigation of this matter. The House had but a choice of inconvenienccs. There was an inconvenience in proceeding in the House rather than in a committee, and there was a further inconvenience in the risque of touching any part of what belonged exclusively to the committee. But there would be a greater inconvenience in deferring, to a late period of the session, and, perhaps, eventually to the next session, a matter which involved charges of such serious moment, and related to mischiefs likely to increase and become more fatal, if their existence, if any they had, was not timely closed. As to any prejudice which the result of this investigation may have on the committee, it would be nothing more than if the investigation now instituted here should have taken place in a court of law previous to the trial by the committee. On the whole view of the case, he thought it indispensable that the House should proceed immediately with the present matter.

Mr. Sheridan could not give his assent to any argument, however well founded, for delay, not even to those of his right honourable friend (Mr. Grenville), however much he respected his talents and his character, from a long and intimate acquaintance. It was for the House to judge how far there was a risque of improperly mixing the matter of the present investigation with that reserved for the committee. For himself, he had no hesitation to say, that his present defence would consist in laying open the whole case he would have to adduce before the committee. It would consist in shewing that no one of the witnesses to be brought forward against him was worthy of credit. Here these witnesses would be examined without being sworn, but he was sure the result of this examination would shew, that little credit could be given to their oaths there. He did not think this should suggest to his opponents the policy of getting a new set of witnesses for the committee, and if it should afford them an opportunity to make that provision,

provision, Iris object was not so much to preserve his seat for Westminster, as that his character should not be suffered to remain one hour subject to the stain of so foul and scandalous a libel as that here preferred against him. He was sure there was not one of the gentlemen who heard him who' would suffer charges of so infamous a nature to hang over him for six weeks. Let the witnesses come to the bar, and if he was perhaps not prepared on every point to the infamy of their characters, he hoped the House would indulge him with time to make inquiry, and to collect such further evidence as he may have occasion for.

Mr. Bathurst was entering into some observations, tending to shew the most convenient mode of proceeding; but the loud cry of question, question! induced him to desist.

Mr. Baker thought the House ought to protect the witnesses summoned to give evidence at its bar, and that no gentleman having a seat in the House ought to speak of witnesses about to come to the bar, in the terms of repreliension then used by the right honourable gentleman opposite.

Mr. Wynne, after some explanation with Mr. Baker, pointed out the Honiton case, subsequent to the Grenville act, as the only precedent for the present. The cry of question, question! was renewed.

The Attorney General thought it necessary to oppose himself a moment to the impatience of the House, in order to suggest the justice and propriety of allowing the benefit of witnesses and counsel to all the parties, as well as to the one that was already allowed to be so heard: he hoped this favour, though the recent petitioners may not have prayed for counsel, not thinking perhaps, that it was consistent with the usages of the House to grant such a prayer. He did not know how far his right honourable friend may be disposed to wave this advantage, but the agents and others he knew may be desirous of it, and he hoped the House would think them as well entitled to it as Mr. Paull.

Mr. Sheridan wished the House to go directly into the business. As to counsel, he had no objection to give his opponents all the counsel in the realm. For himself he asked no conasel, but the justice and rectitude of that honourable House... What the petitioners connected with him may wish for, he knew not."

The

The Speaker stated, that parties omitting to pray for counsel in their petitions, would not be entitled to that benefit, without presenting a supplementary petition.

On the suggestion of Lord Howick, who thought it would meet the wishes of all parties,

The Speaker was instructed to acquaint the counsel when called to the bar, that it was the pleasure of the House that he should confine himself to the matters of fact alleged in the petition, to which he meant to adduce evidence.

Mr. Warren, counsel for Mr. Paull, was then called in, and being instructed by the Speaker to this effect, he proceeded to state the matter of the petition, the charges contained therein, and the nature and character of the evidence by which they were to be supported. The first witness, Mr. Drake, was a lieutenant in the navy, and had had a share in those glorious actions which had attached so much glory to that service. The second witness, Wea. therhead, was also in the navy. The remaining witnesses were men of low and humble stations. But it was only persons of low situation that any one would attempt to tam per with, and the evidence of guilt should be sought from the scenes where it had been committed. The story Mr. Drake would tell, would perhaps strike the House with so much astonishment, as almost to appear incredible. But he would here again represent to the House, that the effect should be taken in the mass, and that each part ought to be regarded as confirmatory of the rest. With respect to the object of these charges, he was a man of very high talents and character, unstained in the present instance; as such, Mr. Paull, as well as himself, were willing to describe the right honourable gentleman; and they wished the present transaction may not be found of a nature to give an opinion of him different from what had been entertained. When the whole of the evidence should be before the House, he was sure it would not seem too much to ask for the interposition of the House. Mr. Paull asked the House to take his witnesses under its protection till the trial of his petition. Without that it would be vain to expect justice. It was in vain, if tampering with witnesses were allowed, to hope that the House would be fairly constituted, or the people fairly represented.

Here the counsel was ordered to withdraw, and the Speaker said, he wished to know if it was the sense of the

House,