§ Lord Marshamrose and said, that he stated on a former day, his intention of submitting to the house, this day, the manner in which he would proceed upon this subject. It was then his intention, he said, to examine witnesses at the bar on the part of the late sheriffs. But since that time, he understood those gent. had altered their mind, and did not mean to call any witnesses. In order, therefore, to give the house time to form the fullest opinion upon the evidence before them, on this subject, he trusted it would not be deemed inconvenient, if he moved to postpone the farther consideration of the business till Tuesday next; conceiving as he did, and as he was convinced the house must, that a deliberate decision would be an object much more desirable than any expedition that could be accomplished by deciding this night. He therefore moved, "that the farther proceedings on this subject be postponed till Tuesday."
§ Mr. Foxrose, not he said to object to the day proposed, but to state, in a few words, his own opinion as to the mode of proceeding suggested by the noble lord. The noble lord had said it was not the intention to examine any witnesses at the bar on this subject: but he trusted, whenever that house was called on to exercise a jurisdiction, a criminal jurisdiction too, that it would found its decisions on evidence which it had itself heard, and not merely upon the evidence heard by others elsewhere. If, indeed, as he understood, from the noble lord's intimation, the late sheriffs had no objection to admit the evidence before a committee against them, certainly there could be no objection, on the part of the house, to accept that evidence as part of the grounds for its own decisions. But not calling evidence as to any thing already proved before a committee, and calling no evidence to their exculpation now, were, in his own mind, two very distinct considerations. He was decidedly of opinion, that if any matters had come to their knowledge for their own exculpation, even since the decision of the committee, it would be perfectly open for them to bring forward such evidence.
§ Lord Marshamanswered, that when he 169 last mentioned this business to the house, he supposed it to be the intention of the sheriffs to examine witnesses, in their exculpation, at the bar: but having had an interview with their counsel since, he understood it to be their determination not to examine any witnesses at all. The object of his motion to-night, therefore, was to give those gent. full time to make up their minds as to the nature of their ultimate defence, that they might have no cause whatever to complain of being taken by surprise.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, hot to make any objection to the noble lord's motion, nor to delay the house now by any argument upon the subject itself. He rose merely to express his sentiments in the first instance, respecting a principle avowed by the hon. gent, ever against him (Mr. Fox), namely, that the house, when called on to exercise its jurisdiction on this subject, should not be satisfied with the evidence taken elsewhere, but should examine evidence for its own satisfaction. Against such a principle he begged to protest, in the first instance, as contrary to the established usage of parliament, always before, and ever since the passing of Mr. Grenville's act in the year 1770: Previously to that time, it was the constant usage of the house, in deciding upon matters respecting contested elections, to form its judgment upon evidence taken before its' committees, and not to examine evidence to the same points at its bar. The Grenville act created the first alteration in the law and usage of parliament upon this head; and it must be recollected, that a. principal alteration made by that act was, that the committees for investigating such questions must be chosen by ballot, must examine all evidence on oath, and must themselves be sworn to act and decide justly, to the best of their opinion. The house then surely, would not be less inclined to accept the evidence taken before a committee so solemnly bound, now, than they would be to accept evidence before a committee not so bound, previously to the passing of the Grenville act. The precedents only in which the house did act in any degree at all different from this principle, were the Shoreham case, the Liskeard, and the Great Grimsby. In the Cricklade case some such proceeding was proposed, and the house adjourned the consideration of that case from time to time, in order to 170 search for precedents, but came to no final decision. His motive for troubling the house at all, on the present occasion, was au earnest wish to uphold the character and privileges of parliament, and to guard against any innovation which, might tend to alter its established forms of proceeding, or diminish those powers it had always enjoyed and exercised. He had no objection to concur in a motion, having for its object to give those gent. further time till Tuesday, to make up their minds; but his object was not so much the accommodation of individuals, as to maintain the privileges of the house itself.
§ Mr. Francisthought, that evidence, ought, in every judicial proceeding, to be heard before the judges. This would be a great satisfaction to the house; and be was at present inclined to think that gent, could not, in honour and justice, decide upon a penal case without hearing evidence at the bar. He hoped, therefore, that before Tuesday, the house would deeply reflect upon a question which, independent of the present case, was in itself of so much importance.—The order, of the day was then postponed till Tuesday next.