§ The adjourned debate, on the case of Mr. Thomas Moore Keith was resumed.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that that Committee had come to the resolution, that John Pilgrim and others were guilty of absconding to avoid being served with the Speaker's warrant; and that the said John Pilgrim, having at length been served with the Chairman's warrant, was prevented attending the Committee by being arrested on a charge of embezzlement, made against him by Messrs. Sewell, Blake, Keith, and Blake, under very suspicious circumstances. He (Mr. Hume) believed there was no objection to the House taking the proper and usual course on this occasion; he therefore begged to move that Thomas Moore Keith be taken into custody by the Sergeant-at-arms, and that the Speaker do issue his warrant for that purpose.
§ Mr. Williams Wynndid not think it desirable (though he was aware there were precedents in favour of such a course) that 1251 the House should act merely upon the opinion of a Committee. The House had the evidence before them; it was, therefore, competent for them to adopt the decision of the Committee, and upon that decision they might proceed.
§ Mr. Humemoved that the Report of the Committee be read.
Report read accordingly, and on the motion of Mr. Hume it was agreed to.
§ Mr. Scarlettdid not doubt that the majority of the Committee came to a decision upon the most conscientious grounds; still there was much contradictory evidence before them, sufficient indeed to create a division in the Committee. He felt it his duty to remind the House of the extremely unfavourable position in which a person was placed who was brought before a Committee of the House of Commons. A disadvantage of such a tribunal was, that the defendant was submitted to an examination and cross-examination. On looking over the evidence before the Committee, he could not find any to substantiate the offence which Mr. Keith was reported to have committed. He was reported to have instituted a prosecution against Pilgrim, to induce his absence from the Committee; but there was no evidence of the fact.
§ Mr. Cutlar Fergussonsubmitted, that as the House had agreed to the Resolution of the Committee, it was not competent for Mr. Scarlett to go into the evidence to show that Mr. Keith was not guilty.
§ Mr. Scarlettdid not mean to impugn the decision of the Committee; his object was to show that that decision was not formed upon evidence of fact, but of words; and Home Tooke had said that it was true words were things, but they should be well proved by unsuspected testimony. Mr. Keith made a journey to Calais to make certain inquiries of Pilgrim respecting frauds alleged to have been committed by him (Pilgrim). The evidence of Mr. Wood, who accompanied Mr. Keith to Calais, was in complete contradiction to what Pilgrim deposed as to what passed at Calais. Surely, Mr. Keith's and Mr. Wood's evidence, together, ought to outweigh that of Pilgrim alone. He submitted, therefore, that the evidence of Pilgrim thus contradicted ought not to have been believed.
§ Mr. Aglionbybegged pardon of the hon. and learned Gentleman, but without wishing to prevent him from urging these things, he would put it to the House whether this was the time to do it. The question now before the House was, that Keith should be taken into custody. It followed, as a matter of course, that having committed a breach of the privileges of the House he should be taken into custody. If the hon. and learned Gentleman should afterwards think proper to argue upon the evidence in mitigation of punishment, he should then be able to meet him.
§ Mr. Scarlettdid not wish to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but the decision of the House on the question before them might affect the liberty of the subject. Nothing, therefore, could be of more importance. The effect of the arguments he wished to urge might be the difference between Mr. Keith being committed to Newgate, and his being discharged. Mr. Keith laboured under many disadvantages, some of which he had already stated. Another disadvantage arose from the peculiarly unfortunate manner in which that Gentleman gave his testimony; though he believed, that it was given in a manner perfectly consistent with a desire to tell the whole truth. Under all these circumstances he thought that Mr. Keith ought not to be committed to prison, but that he should be reprimanded, and discharged.
§ Agreed to.
§ Mr. Scarlettmoved, that Mr. Keith be reprimanded by the Speaker, and discharged.
§ Mr. Aglionbysaid, that the hon. and learned Member for Norwich had misunderstood a very large portion of the evidence. He did not wish to press hard upon the individual, but still something was due to justice and to the public, when a case of guilt so clearly established came before the House. Besides, it was not competent for the hon. and learned Gentleman now to argue that Mr. Keith was not guilty of the charge made against him, because the House had already declared that he did aid and abet in pre- 1253 venting the attendance of Pilgrim to give evidence before the Committee. The proper period when that charge should have been disputed was, when the evidence was taken before the Committee, whose resolution the House had adopted. The decision of the Committee was not, he admitted, on all points unanimous; but there was not the slightest dissent expressed against the resolution which alleged the guilt of Mr. Keith. He might most justly say, that, as to that gentleman having aided in getting Pilgrim out of the way, there was no difference of opinion whatever in the Committee.
§ Lord Stormontsupported the amendment, in order that Mr. Keith might be enabled to go down to Norwich, to prefer the bill of indictment against Pilgrim on the 1st of August.
§ Mr. Lawregretted the resolution at which the Committee had arrived, as having the effect of prejudging a case which would come before a criminal court. He must express a hope in concurrence with the liberal spirit of the noble Lord (Stormont) that no sentence of imprisonment would prevent Mr. Keith from appearing as a witness on the trial of Pilgrim, as he was bound to do by his recognizances.
§ Mr. Williams Wynnobserved, that there could be no difficulty in the House making an order permitting Mr. Keith to be taken down to Norwich, in the custody of one of its officers to give evidence on Pilgrim's trial.
§ Mr. Hawessaid, the conduct of the Committee was justified by the evidence. He would recommend the friends of Mr. Keith to urge his case ad misericordiam, rather than by impugning its decision or the evidence on which the report was founded. There was not much reason to praise Mr. Keith's veracity while the charge against Pilgrim seemed merely got up as a device to prevent his being examined by the House.
§ Lord Stormontcould testify to the high character and placed great confidence in the testimony of Mr. Keith. He could not sufficiently deprecate the resting the case on the testimony of such a man as Pilgrim. The Committee in fact gave at once a verdict in favour of an accused, and stigmatized at the outset the veracity of an individual who was subsequently to be examined as a witness on the trial.
The question carried.—The Speaker to 1254 issue his warrant to commit Mr. Thomas Moore Keith to Newgate.