statement of counsel was stronger than what had been actually given in evidence.

Mr. Plomer, on returning to the bar, apologized for any inaccuracies that his wish to save the time of the House might have led him into. After some further interruptions from Mr. Sheridan on the same ground, the Speaker suggested, that me instructions to the counsel should be moved, but Mr. Sheridan declined moving any. Mr. Plomer, on being again called to the bar, confined himself to the recitation of the evidence from the notes taken down, with some few occasional comments.

Mr. Sheridan protested that he was never more surprised at any thing than at the speech which he had just heard from the learned counsel. He had heard rumours that he intended to have thrown up his brief. But if he was surprised, he was not alarmed. The learned counsel had said that he (Mr. Sheridan) had an advantage over the petitioner. He denied this, as he had not availed himself of the assistance of counsel. If he had been capable of stating as proved, matter which had been only asserted, and that too by witnesses who had been only not committed by the House for scandalous prevarication; if he had stated every thing in the evidence that made for him, and none that made against him, and had the stupidity to think that the House would believe him, then he might be said to have the advantage. He expressed his high respect for the profession, but thought there were limits within which counsel ought to confine themselves; and certainly it would have been much more proper if the counsel, instead of pressing the matter as he did, had stood at the bar in shame and confusion at his being engaged in such a cause. He perfectly admitted the great respectability of the solicitors, Messrs. Williams and Brookes, and had heard that Mr. Williams had even thrown up the cause. He wished that Mr. Powell might stand as clear. He wished that Mr. Paull and Mr. Powell might have been only dupes in the business. He would be glad if it should appear so. But when he examined his witnesses, there would appear, he understood, such a system of bribery, corruption, subornation and perjury, as had never before been heard of. He wished the counsel for the petitioner to hear the evidence. The learned counsel, though he remarked on the part of the evidence where Drake had stated, that he had

been

been employed by him (Mr. Sheridan) to get the letter from Harris, had forgot to mention that the witness had afterwards stated, that he had offered 301. of his own money to get the letter for Mr. Paull. His own money! He wished it might not turn out to be the money of other people. He had pity on the poor wretches who had been called to the bar, but wished that the charge might not be carried towards a higher quarter. The counsel too had observed upon the statement of the witness, that he saw him sign the letter, but had forgot to mention his having retracted that assertion. He had adverted to his having desired the attendance of Drake and Wetherhead the next day, he had done so certainly with a view to carry them to Bow-street. But finding, as Weatherhead had said, that they had got into suspicious company, when they saw a Bow-street officer they made off, and he saw no more of them till he observed them on the 24th of February in a hackney-coach with Mr. Paull. He was ashamed of his own credulity in having given any credit to what these persons had said, but he had called at the Admiralty and found that Wetherhead had been dismissed for scandalous conduct by Captain Trollope, and that his name was marked Run, having presented forged certificates for a lieutenancy. There was a gross falsehood in the petition, where it alleged that the consideration of the election peti tion stood for the 24th of February, whereas it had been originally appointed for the 13th of January.

Mr. Perceval observed, that the right honourable gen tleman bad certainly taken the advantage over the counsel when he had spoken of him in the manner he had done. There might have been rumours of his intention to throw up his brief; but when so much was at stake with respect to the client who employed him, and several others, it was not for the counsel to prejudge the case, and if he had heard that he had thrown up his brief, he certainly would not have believed it. It was impossible to misunderstand the counsel when he said that these charges were proved, for he had distinctly qualified it by referring this to the credit due to the witnesses. There was, therefore, no more grounds for his imputations against the counsel, than for his assertion, that there was a gross falsehood in the petition. It stated, that the consideration of the election pe'tition had been postponed from the 24th of February to the 14th of April. This was true, and no intention ap

peared

peared of denying that it had been in the first instance fixed for the 13th of January.

Mr. Sheridan said, that he had a great respect for the counsel; but still thought that he ought to have been somewhat more liberal. If the allegation in the petition was not a gross falsehood, it was at least a pitiful prevarication. He then moved that Frederick Homan be called in.

Lord Howick suggested, that the petitioner's counsel should be allowed to attend and cross-examine, that an ample opportunity might be afforded to the petitioner of supporting his case.

Mr. Sheridan concurred in this, and said that it was only from inadvertence, that he himself had not proposed it.

Mr. Warren was then called in, who stated that he had an objection to this witness being examined at all. He was ordered to withdraw.

Lord Howick wished to know, whether it was proper that the House should allow the counsel to state objections to the competency of a witness?

Mr. Perceval observed, that on the same principle on which he was called in, he ought to be allowed to state his objection.

Mr. Bathurst concurred in this. If the cause was to be heard as between party and party, the counsel ought to be allowed, as in a court of law, to ask the witness whether he had any interest in the decision.

Lord Howick still held his former opinions, but at the same time as he was desirous of affording every advantage to the petitioner, he was inclined to yield the point.

Mr. Warren was then called in and stated, that his objection simply was, that Mr. Homan was a party in the cause, and that his evidence might go to exculpate himself.

1 Mr. Taylor observed, that an objection of this sort, if carried to its utmost extent, might deprive one of the parties of all his witnesses, as the petitioner might with this view include in the charge all who could be material witnesses for the other side.

Lord Temple rose to order and said, that it was irregular for a member to proceed to answer the arguments of counsel, without a question before the House.

The Speaker agreed that there ought to be a question, and suggested that it might be considered, whether sutti

cient evidence had been presented against Mr. Homan to prevent his being acquitted. If he should be acquitted, he might then certainly be a competent witness.

Mr. Bathurst said, that this was the point. He was not prepared to say, that there was nothing to prevent the immediate acquittal of Mr. Homan, and he wished the counsel to be called in to state that part of the evidence.

The Attorney General observed, that in a court of law it was usual for the judge to submit to the jury, whether some of the accused persons ought not to be acquitted, when the plaintiff had made out nothing against them, and so enable them to become good witnesses. Nothing material had in this case been made out against Mr. Ho man, and he moved that he be called in and examined.

Mr. Taylor said that he meant to have made the same motion, and supported that of his learned friend,

་་

Lord Folkestone took upon himself to say, that there was no intention of fraud of any sort on the part of the petitioner. He thought that, upon the whole, the best mode of proceeding would be to call in Mr. Homan to be examined.

Mr. Bathurst said, that it was in evidence that Mr. Homan had said to Drake that it would be a good thing if he could procure the letter from Harris. He could not therefore say, that he might be immediately acquitted.

[The evidence was referred to, and the fact found to be as the honourable gentleman stated.]

· Mr. Sheridan had no objection to take any course to shorten the business, and therefore had no objection to ge first into the evidence respecting the character of the peti tioner's witnesses.

Mr. Adam protested against adhering strictly to the rules of courts of law respecting evidence, as it would occasion the greatest inconvenience. There were cases in which this House ought to suffer the objection to go to the credibility of a witness, that in courts of law would go to his competency.

Mr. Leycester denied that all consideration of the com petency of witnesses ought to be excluded even in this House.

Mr. Adam did not say that all consideration of compe tency was to be excluded. The House would decide on the particular cases, and the witness here ought to be

asked

asked no question, the answer to which would go to his exculpation.

Lord Howick expressed his concurrence in the opinion of his learned friend Mr. Adam.

The Lord Advocate for Scotland also contended that the rules of courts of law respecting evidence ought not to be too strictly adhered too in that House.

Mr. Perceval had a strong presumption that Mr. Homan ought to be examined, though he had a doubt as to the manner in which he ought to examined. The petition charged Mr. Homan with having tampered with witnesses as an agent of Mr. Sheridan, and there was nothing in the evidence to prove that he acted as an agent; he was of opinion, that he was a competent witness to be examined, As to the form in which he should be examined, he thought, that, with a view to the analogy to the practice of the courts of justice, the witness should first be acquit ted of the charge, after which he might be examined at the bar, and the learned gentleman, on the former motion being withdrawn, move that the allegations of the petition against Mr. Frederick Homan had not been made good.

Lord Folkestone objected to this motion, though he was ready to agree to the motion that the witness be called in and examined.

The motion was then agreed to without a division, and Mr. Homan was called in to be examined. The following is the substance of his evidence, in a connected shape, as it came out, both on the cross-examination, and the exa mination in chief:

Witness is a native of the county of Westmeath in Ireland, and a nephew of the Bishop of Killala. He has some property in Ireland, and was engaged formerly in the flour business, which he gave up about twelve months since, when he found it unprofitable, and is not at present in any business, nor of any profession. Was not employed by Mr. Sheridan at the late election, but assisted him as a friend. Was present at the meeting between Mr. Sheridan and Drake at Somerset-house on the 19th. Drake had called on him that day, and told him, that having returned with Mr. Wetherhead in a post-chaise from Hampshire, and being to return the next day to take possession of a cottage he had purchased there, he wished much to see Mr. Sheridan that night. Witness was to dine with Mr. Sheridan that day, aud told Drake to come