The Carlisle court-house bill was reported, and ordered to be read a third time on Monday.

The Irish stamp duty bill was read a third time, and ordered to be committed the next day.

Jebb's land-exchange bill was reported, andordered to be read a third time the next day.

Mr. Hobhouse brought in a bill for making an allowance on salt, &c. &c. employed in bleaching, and to remove doubts as to the liability of Glauber and Epsom salts to the excise duty. Read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time the next day.

The Frogmore lease bill, and Irish infirmary allowance extension bill, were brought in, read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time the next day. Adjourned.

HOUSE OF LORDS.

FRIDAY, JULY 17.

A number of bills were brought up from the Commons, amongst which was the bill to repeal the duty on coffee and cocoa nuts warehoused. These were read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time.

A conversation took place upon the bill granting to his majesty 50,000l. for the purpose of building glebe houses in Ireland. Lord Suffolk spoke at some length, and the bill was afterwards read a second time.

The bills were then forwarded in their respective stages, and the House adjourned.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.

FRIDAY, JULY 17.

The Speaker, with the House, went up to the House of Peers, where the royal assent was given by commission to the exchequer bills bill, Sir John Stuart's annuity bill, and several other bills.

The lottery bill passed through a committee, and the report was ordered to be received the next day.

The excise regulation bill, and the Frogmore House bill, were read a second time, and were ordered to be com

mitted.

mitted the next day; as was also the British Museum bill.

The Irish spirit licence bill was read a third time, and passed.

The Windsor forest bill went through a committee, and the report was ordered to be received the next day; as was also the report of the Irish stamp duty bill.

The Attorney General moved for leave to bring in a bill to amend the 40th of the king, for disposing of the real and personal estates of his majesty and his royal consort for the time being.

POOLE WRIT.-BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

On the motion of Mr. Jeffery, the House proceeded to the further consideration of the inquiry into the causes of the detention of the writ for holding the late election at Poole.

Mr. Jonathan Brundrett being in attendance, pursuant to an order of the House, was called in and examined. He stated, that he was a solicitor, acting as clerk to Mr. Lowten; that immediately after he had taken out the writ from the crown office, he had handed it over to a gentleman who he expected would have forwarded it with all possible expedition. Ile professed the most respectable deference for the authority and privilege of the House, and declared, that if he had offended against either it was altogether without intention. On being questioned more than once from whom he had received the writ, he answered from Mr. Stainforth (of the crown office). On being ques tioned as to the person by whom he had been employed to take out the writ, he pleaded his honourable feelings as a bar to his answering, and intreated the indulgence of the House for his silence.

On this Mr. Brundrett was ordered to withdraw.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that when the situation, education, and character in life of the witness were considered, his hesitation to answer the question put to him, could not be imputed to mere ignorance. But as it did not become the House to take any rigorous step without explanation, he proposed that Mr. Brundrett be again called in, and that the Speaker should explain to him, that the House could not allow the ground he had laid down for refusing to answer the question put by his authority.

Mr.

Mr. Brundrett being again called in, the Speaker informed him, that the House did not admit the excuse he had offered, and repeated the question two or three times, by whom he had been employed to take out the writ? Mr. Brundrett persisted in declining to answer the question, and throwing himself upon the indulgence of the House.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer saw no option for the House in the contumacy of the witness, but to commit him to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms.

The Speaker suggested that the first question to be not was, that Jonathan Brundrett having refused to answer the questions put to him by the authority of the House, was guilty of a high breach of privilege.

A resolution to this effect having been put, was agreed to

nem. con.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that as the House had so unanimously declared its sense of the offence committed against its authority, by the refusal of the witness to answer, it remained for him only to follow up the unanimous resolution of the House by the usual motion in such cases. He therefore moved, that Jonathan Brundrett be for his said offence committed to his Majesty's gaol of Newgate.

Mr. Barham suggested, that it may be a sense of professional duty towards the person who had employed him, that caused the silence of the witness the courts of law allowed great latitude in this respect, and though the witness may have erroneously applied the principle, here some consideration was due to the habitual force of a professional obligation. It was besides a fact well known to most of the members in the House, that great exertions were in almost every case of contested election made to obtain the writ, with a view to fix the day of the election as it may suit the convenience of the party possessing it. It was a species of hypocrisy that he could not join in, to know and avow out of doors, that such a practice universally prevailed, and to cry Oh horrible! and Oh monstrous! as if it was a most outrageous calumny, when such things were mentioned within doors. If the practice was felt to be in itself an abuse, or to be liable to abuse, it would be more becoming the wisdom of the House to apply a general remedy, than to punish any individual trespass with extreme severity. He thought it would be sufficient punishment to commit Mr. Brundrett to the cus to ly of the Serjeant at Arms. VOL. 1.-1807,

The

The Chancellor of the Exchequer contended for the right of the House, to investigate all the proceedings with respect to the writ. If the witness persisted in his refusal to answer, he may, in so doing, be ambitious to raise his profession character: but that ambition was no reason why the House could restrain itself in the investigation which its constitution and character prescribed, nor in the exercise of the means it possessed of rendering that inves tigation effectual. The question was perfectly legal, and the excuse offered was totally insufficient.

Lord Howick observed upon the generality of the practice of taking out writs, with a view to the convenience of the parties taking them out, in giving them a discretion to fix the time of the election. Some general remedy ought to be applied. Three Parliaments ago the writ for Northum berland had been offered to him, with a view that he should consult his convenience in the use of it. He declined the offer, desiring that it should be transmitted to the returning officer, and intimating that if any improper delay occurred, he would complain to the House of it. He would ask the Secretary of the Treasury (Mr. Huskisson), if there were not other instances also of this favour in issuing the writs. When the sheriff of Westmoreland sent for the writ for the borough of Appleby, for the elec tion by which he now held his seat, he found it was issued to another person, who used it according to his own convenience: let the abuse be removed by a general remedy, and not by ineffectual severity in a particular instance. Mr. Brundrett stood rather in the light of a person questioned as to his being implicated in a criminal act, than as a mere witness. If he were not a party, but questioned merely as to the crime of his employers, the professional principle ought to protect him.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, the witness had already acquitted himself by immediately handing over the writ. An attorney was not protected from answering, where he himself was a party.

Mr. Bathurst and Mr. Yorke, on a review of all the circumstances, voted for the motion.

Mr Huskisson defended the treasury from the imputation of interfering with the issuing of the writs.

Lord Ossniston asserted, that on his applying for the writ for the place he represented, he was told that it was delivered at the treasury.

Lord

Lord Howick imagined the honourable secretary of the treasury would better understand the hint he had thrown out, if he inquired what had been done in the case of the writ for the University of Cambridge.

Mr. Sharp, from his confidence in the veracity of the. honourable member (Mr. Jeffery), and from the contumacy of the witness, felt himself bound to vote for the motion of committal.

Mr. Montague spoke to the same effect.

Mr. W. Smith candidly confessed, as he believed most members conversant with contested elections might do if they would, that he had himself made an arrangement to get out a writ early for the advantage of a friend of his; but, on the application, he found that the opposite party had been still more active and successful (a laugh). He hoped a general remedy would be provided by an obligation to issue the writ only to the returning officer. He deprecated the severe punishment of an individual case in the present general practice. He thought a committal ought now to take place: but the the excuses that had been offered would be irresistible grounds of liberation as soon as a motion to that effect could be made.

Mr. Montague supported the motion.

Dr. Lawrence ho, ed this di cussion would lead to a general remedy of the evil complained of, and that not only a fair issue of writs would be the consequence, but also a fair and impartial intimation of intended dissolutions, instead of a partial communication to a favoured set after the departure of the post on a Saturday, allowing that set the advantage of a priority of two days on the canvas.

Mr. Dent said a few words in vindication of the messe ger of the great seal, the officer concerned in issuing the

writs.

Mr. Smith, in explanation, said, he did not mean to say any thing to the disadvantage of that officer: but merely to state the impropriety of the general usage in these matters as it stood at present.

The question being put, it was ordered that Mr. Brundrett be committed to Newgate.

Mr. Jeffery then moved, that Mr. Lowten be called in, havi g first stated, that on hearing at the crown office, that the writ had been taken out by Mr. Lowten's clerk, he had gone to Mr. Lowten's chambers, who refused to tell him to whom it had been sent, but said very rudely, Y y 2 that