HC Deb 20 February 1807 vol 8 cc932-7
Mr. Sheridan

rose, pursuant to notice, to move that the order for the appointment of a committee to consider the petition upon this subject should be discharged, with a view to move for the further postponement. The right hon. gent. was so much of opinion, from what had passed when last this question was before the house, that a motion for further postponement would be immediately assented to if required, that he confessed he heard with considerable surprise of the intention to oppose the motion, particularly on the part of the noble lord (Folkestone), by whom a similar proposition was last submitted to the house. Had he happened to have stood in the predicament of being unable to bring forward such a motion, he really thought that the noble lord would have been ready to propose it himself. At least he felt that he should be warranted, from the noble lord's former language and conduct, in relying upon his readiness to second him in this proposition. Of the grounds of this reliance, and the justice of his opinion, the house would be able to judge from a short review of the history of the case. When the petition before the house was presented, which was about the 23d of December, the first or second day after any petitions could be received, the noble lord announced the desire of the petitioners that the earliest day possible should be appointed for the bal- lot, and that they were ready at once to go before a committee. Accordingly the 13th of January was appointed. But, notwithstanding the declaration of the noble lord, and the publicly proclaimed resolution of the petitioners, he received, not many days afterwards, a note from the noble lord, stating, that it was through a mistake he presented the petition so soon, and that the parties were not ready to go into the investigation on the day originally appointed. The noble lord, therefore, requested his consent to a further postponement, as a matter of personal accommodation to himself, and a matter of justice towards the petitioners, who would otherwise suffer through his error. Having had an acquaintance with the noble lord, he was certainly disposed to accommodate him, but yet he felt himself bound, before he complied with the noble lord's request, to consult the opinion of his friends, and they decidedly objected to the delay required. However, when he came down to the house upon the day appointed for the motion, the noble lord applied to him again: and again asking his consent to the motion as a personal favour, he did grant it. So far as he had gone, he believed the noble lord could not say, that what he had stated was not strictly true. But as to the conversation which took place the day the noble lord's motion of postponement was agreed to, he held in his hand a document which contained it. He knew that he could not distinctly allude to the evidence he had adduced, because according to the orders of that house, strangers were understood to be excluded. But somehow a memorandum of what was said on the day alluded to, did find its way into print, and certainly it was detailed with considerable accuracy. In looking over this memorandum, it would be seen that all the arguments advanced by the noble lord made against his motion, and of course it was a very natural inference that the motion owed its success to something else. That something was his concurrence; and he recollected very well, as it appeared from this memorandum, that he mentioned, at the time, his apprehension that the 24th of Feb. would go too near the circuit, which would render a farther postponement necessary, as his counsel would be out of town. Such was his statement then, and it was only upon the express condition that farther delay would be acceded to, if necessary, that he gave his assent to the noble lord's motion. This he could aver from his own memory, but there were not less than 20 or 30 gentlemen present, who also heard the noble lord, and who could bear testimony to the noble lord's observation. The noble lord did state upon that occasion, that when he mentioned the 24th of Feb. he was not aware that the circuit was so near, and that if that day should in consequence become inconvenient, there could be no objection to a farther postponement. This declaration the noble lord was understood to have made by several friends near him. The house, he had no doubt, would agree with him in thinking, that when the petitioners urged the noble lord to move for the former postponement on the ground that they did not wish for the trial on an early day, that the noble lord was not aware of the resolution relative to a speedy trial, which these petitioners had just before published, and in all probability the noble lord was equally unaware of this circumstance, that the counsel for the petitioners did not go any circuit, while those retained on his part did. But of this the petitioners were fully apprised, and they would fain urge him to trial without the advantage of his counsel. It might be asked, why he did not make this proposition of postponement somewhat sooner? He would candidly answer, because, as he stated before when this subject was under consideration, he really did not think the petition would be persisted in, but from what he had heard of their proceedings within the last few weeks, he was led to believe that his opponents were much more sanguine, even than he suspected, and that they were resolved to persevere. Upon the whole, however, the right hon. gent. could not persuade himself to suppose that that house would call on any gentleman to enter upon such an important investigation, stripped of the aid of his counsel; and he could not help observing that the attempt to take advantage of him this instance, was not a very liberal return for the manner in which he gave way to the noble lord's motion upon a former occasion.

Lord Folkestone

wished that he could return the compliment which the right hon. gent. had thought proper to bestow upon his accuracy; but he differed from him entirely as to his report of the conversation which took place on a former day. So far from the right hon. gent. having expressed a wish for further postponement, he had treated the proposition at the time as an omen of the petitioner's total abandon- ment of the case. Without referring to any of the newspaper reports brought forward by the right hon. gent. he had no hesitation in positively asserting that he never made any such pledge or promise of agreeing to farther postponement, as that stated by the right hon. gent. But he would go farther. He denied that the right hon. gent. so understood him at the time of the discussion, or so understood him since. But the right hon. gent. was not more inaccurate in his text than in his preface, particularly relative to the private note. For he denied having ever asked the right hon. gent.'s consent to his motion. He merely sent him a line, as he thought himself bound in courtesy to do, apprising the right hon. gent. of his intended motion. But he would deem it very improper indeed to apply for the leave or concurrence of the right hon. gent. As to the observations made by him upon the subject of the circuit, he did not recollect, nay, he was certain, that he did not utter, one word that could warrant the conclusion drawn by the right hon. gent. He merely said that the propriety of farther postponing the ballot in consequence of the approach of the circuit might become matter for subsequent consideration. But he made no pledge, nor did he think the right hon. gent. either then or since believed him to have made any pledge upon this subject. The noble lord, after re-stating the manner in which he was led into the mistake of presenting this petition sooner than the petitioners wished, and commenting upon what he called the 'right hon. gent.'s perversion of the fact,' declared that he did not know until the preceding day, who were the counsel employed on either side, and concluded with expressing a hope that the house would not countenance a motion Supported upon such light grounds, and brought forward only four days before the day fixed for the ballot.

Lord Howick

thought the house should be always jealous of motions of this nature, and decide upon them with the utmost impartiality. With regard to what had passed on this subject on a former occasion, he could not hesitate to say that the impression upon his mind, from what the noble lord had said, was precisely the same as that stated by his right hon. friend. He would enter into no contest with the noble lord as to accuracy of memory, or as to the precise words he used: but most certainly he understood the express condition of his right hon. friend's assent to the motion was this, that if the circuit should interfere with the day then named, the noble lord would concur in a farther postponement. It was under these circumstances, for the house to consider, whether his right hon. friend had made out such a case as entitled him to the indulgence for which he applied.

Lord Folkestone,

in explanation, again denied that he made any pledge.

The Attorney-General declared, that having heard the noble lord, the last time this subject was under consideration, the impression upon his mind, from what the noble lord said, was precisely the same as that which his noble friend who spoke last entertained. Without at all implicating the noble lord, whom he conceived as much above joining in such a thing as any man in that house, he could not help observing that the circumstance of naming the 24th of Feb., a day which it was known would be so near the circuit, had very much the appearance of a statagem on the part of the petitioners. For they were not unaware that the two able counsel, Mr. Serjeant Lens and Mr. Scarlet, who were retained for his right hon. friend, would be on the circuit, while their eminent advocate, Mr. Plumer, would be in town.

Mr. Perceval

could not speak with confidence as to the words used in the conversation which took place when this subject was last before the house, for his attention to it was not so diligent as to justify any reliance on his memory. But, from the general impression on his mind, he could not say that he understood the noble lord had made any such pledge as that referred to. Nor did the right hon. gent. (Mr. Sheridan) appear to him to have at all pressed any point at to counsel; for he spoke rather in an air of triumph, as if he relied on the total abandonment of the petition, and that the house would hear no more of it. The absence of counsel on the circuit he thought very insufficient ground to allege for the postponement of a question of this nature; for upon that ground all the petitions before the house might be postponed.

Mr. Peter Moore

regretted that the liberality of his right hon. friend should have prompted him in a former instance to consent to the postponement of this measure. But he recollected well the condition upon which that consent was given, although this condition seemed now so entirely forgotten by the noble lord. With regard to the petition, if the petitioners would forego the aid of their counsel, he was sure his right hon. friend could, unaided by any counsel, have no hesitation to go to trial at once with them, notwithstanding all the confidence of their boasting, all the activity of their enquiries, and all the acrimony of their contrivances.

Lord Folkestone

contended that the learned gent. (the attorney-general) was not warranted from any part of the conduct of the petitioners, in imputing to them any description of fraud or stratagem.—After some farther conversation, the house divided; for Mr. Sheridan's motion 167; against it 12; majority 155. The order for a ballot was then fixed for Tuesday the 14th of April.