. Lord Folkestonemoved the order of the day for taking into further consideration the Petition of James Paull, Esq., complaining of undue tampering with the witnesses summoned to give evidence before the committee, about to be appointed to try the merits of the late Election for Westminster. [See in vol. S, the proceedings of the 26th of February and the 2d of March.]
§ Mr. Sheridansaid, that by the forms of the house, a witness could not stay in the house during the examination of the witnesses. He had summoned Mr. Paull as a witness, but he begged to state that he had no objection to his remaining at the bar the whole time of the proccedings—The counsel for the petitioner were then called in, and
§ Mr. Plumeraddressed the house as follows:—"Mr. Speaker; I now proceed to discharge the duty which, under the indulgence of the house, I have been permitted to reserve for this day, in stating the petition of Mr. Paull and the evidence in support of it, and, sir, with every grateful acknowledgments to the house for the indulgence I have experienced, I must, at the same time, state to the house the inability I am under to profit entirely by it. The very voluminous body of evidence and the inability of access to it till a very late period, have prevented my adverting to many of the circumstances which have been stated. I shall, therefore, content myself with addressing only general observations, except on particular parts of the testimony which we are able to collect as most important on the subject: and, in discharging this duty, I shall, on every consideration, most rigidly abstain from every topic which does not directly belong to the duty imposed upon me. I shall endeavour to discharge that duty,as briefly as I am able, from every consideration of duty and of respect to the house, as well as other considerations with which it is, unnecessary for me to trouble you.—Sir, I shall in the first place, state what are the allegations contained in the petition, and then briefly remind you of the evidence you have heard in support of it; and, on this subject, I am persuaded, whatever judgment the house may finally think proper to pronounce with respect to this petition, I hope I am not too sanguine in expecting, that whatever difference of opinion 24 may prevail on other parts of the subject, yet on one there will be no difference of opinion; namely, the sincerity of the individual who has presented this petition to the house—the sincere and honest belief of the truth of its contents. I do not expect any credit to be given from any Personal consideration either to any thing I state, or any thing stated, by the individual for whom I have the honor to appear, but I am persuaded every gentleman will see, that a petition of this nature could not have been addressed to the house in common prudence, if there had not been a sincere and honest belief of the truth of its contents; because, it could not possibly answer any purpose of benefit to the individual who has exhibited it, prematurely to bring under the consideration of this house the merits of that case by which he will be able to support a petition hereafter, to disclose all that he had, or a part of what he had to bring forward upon another occasion, with the probability, .not of having it more advantageously discussed, but he must be fully aware that the wisdom and judgment of this house would infallibly discover it to be so, and that the consequences could. be only ruin and disgrace to him and to his cause; that the contest must be pursued here with every disadvantage to himself, where his opponent, being of necessity a member of the house, has every opportunity given him to discuss and to question throughout the whole of the proceedings, while he, the other litigant party, is not permitted to stand in the same situation; that every possible advantage, therefore, would be derived front these circumstances on the one side, and every disadvantage on the other, by prematurely bringing this under consideration was quite obvious. Why, then, was this done? For what purpose was the petition presented? For what purpose was this inquiry brought under the consideration of the house in this novel shape? Why was it done? Surely, no one will be at a loss to recollect why it was done, when they recollect what was the situation of the petitioner—under what circumstances he stood. This petition was presented after an application had been made with success, to postpone the hearing of the petition which he had previously presented, and for which, he was making preparation, by having served various witnesses with the highest authority to compel their attendance and to ensure their attendance. After he was thus engaged in preparations to bring forward his cause, expecting it to have been heard on the 24th of feb., he had 25 intelligence given him, upon which he thought he might securely rely, that practices had been made use of by various persons whose names I will presently state—that practices prevailed to a very considerable extent, which threatened the loss of several of his witnesses, and which were addressed, from day to day, with the hope of endeavouring to persuade others to deprive him of that testimony, at least of a part of it, which was afterwards to support his cause.—Now, sir, laying aside all personal considerations end considering this petitioner as merely in the character of a party having presented a petition to the house, which was in progress to being heard—which stood for hearing—which he had a right to prosecute, complaining of his having been deprived of the right to a seat in this house, on behalf of himself and a number of electors, who, to the number of 4 or 5000, had given him their votes upon the occasion, what was it his duty to himself, to them, and to the house to do, if he thought this charge was well founded; if he had reason to believe that these practices did actually prevail; what was the duty he owed to the house, to himself, to his constituents, I might even say to the individual who is accused, but to bring it forward where it was sure to be fairly, impartially and thoroughly discussed, in order that it might at least be seen, whether the suspicions that prevailed abroad upon this subject were well or ill founded?—What was it incumbent upon him to do more than, if he brought it forward, to bring it fairly forward, and, in the first place, for that purpose to put his cause into the hands of the most respectable solicitors there are in the profession, and I am persuaded that I shall be fortified by the knowledge of every member of this house who knows those gentlemen, that in all the profession there cannot be found gentlemen who stand higher, of purer honour, of greater respectability, and more unblemished character than Messrs. Williams and Brooks, and their clerk, Mr. Powell, who are engaged in the business. More honourable and more respectable persons do not exist in the profession. I hope the house will forgive me, if I presume thus to testify in their behalf; because, if, on a subject of this nature, from any accidental causes witnesses appear on any account to be less deserving of credit, a degree of blame and disgrace may appear to attach to those who are concerned. I do not know whether that May not comprehend all that are concerned on this side, and I 26 therefore have been particularly desirous to present myself upon the occasion and to bear my share of blame upon the subject, at any inconvenience to myself, rather, than shrink from the discharge of my professional duty on behalf of any person for whom I may be employed.—Sir, I take the liberty of saying it is of infinite importance, not only to the individual, but to the public, that the persons who deserve the character of honest men, should receive it; because it is of the highest importance, that causes and petitions should be in such hands, rather than that, by their falling into the hands of others, practices should take place which it is not easy to detect. This was the comfort of the person for whom I appear, and whatever representations there may be to the disadvantage of it; whatever judgment gentlemen may be disposed to pass on the evidence they have heard, there is not a single tittle of evidence, much as the witnesses have been pressed, and properly pressed, by questions addressed to them from every quarter; there is not one single tittle which shews that the conduct of the petitioner, from the first moment he was made acquainted with the suspicions respecting the subjects of this charge, was any otherwise than would have been observed by the most honorable man living; having first cautioned the witness who disclosed these facts to him; guarding him not to speak any thing but the truth, and by no means to overstate the truth; having on no occasion offered him any money, or any inducement whatever, not distinctly to disclose the fact, and every subject relating to it. I hope, therefore, I stand fair thus far with the house, that the conduct of the petitioner was from the peril either of losing his testimony or preferring his complaint to the only competent authority to receive it; for it would not have been respectful for the petitioner to have carried his complaint any where else. If there were just grounds to carry a complaint any where, it could be no where but to this house, and it could be conducted only in the way it has been, up to the point I am now stating—Sir, permit me to observe in the next place, what are the charges contained in this petition, and what is the evidence in support of it. The petitioner states, that he was a candidate at the last election for the city of Westminster; an unsuccessful candidate in consequence of which he had presented a petition to this house, complaining of an undue election, and praying that that subject might be taken into consideration; that that 27 stood for trial on the 24th of Feb; that that was afterwards postponed till a more distant date, and that intelligence was given to him that persons were actually at work to deprive him of his testimony, to induce persons to go out of the way, and particularly to dispossess him of important documents by which he hoped to support his cause. The petition has fairly and distinctly stated, not in general terms only, who were the persons that had been guilty of this practice; but the names of the witnesses that were sent, or attempted to be sent, out of the way, and the particular circumstances attendant upon the transaction.—Sir, it is particularly stated in the petition, that one William Drake was, and still is, a material witness summoned on behalf of your petitioner; that the said Drake having, on or about the 10th of this instant Feb., &c. ["Mr. Plumer here read an extract from the petition ending, "and added, that when they had succeeded in putting it off, such persons should have money to go out of the way to prevent their being summoned."]—Now, sir, these are the allegations contained in the petition, which I hope the house will excuse me for having thus specifically read, for the purpose of shewing how specific notice is given to these persons of the charges against them, and the nature of the evidence to be brought.—Sir, in support of this petition, you have heard 8 witnesses examined, the witnesses named in the petition, and if they are deserving of credit, upon which subject undoubtedly the house are to decide, but respecting whom it was quite impossible for those who produced them to know, otherwise than that their testimony on paper, or all the account which could be discovered of them was favorable to the testimony they were to give; and such, as induced all those who heard them, truly and honestly to believe the truth of their statement—if their account is deserving of credit, the charge is fully, distinctly, and pointedly proved. It is proved in terms, in the very terms of the petition; you have heard those 8 persons actually substantiate the charge against all the individuals who are the subjects of it; they have distinctly told you, that in the early part; of the month of Jan., and particularly in the beginning of Feb., after these witnesses and different persons had been served with a speaker's warrant to give their attendance on the 24th of Feb., Mr. Burgess, who was the solicitor of the sitting member, his agent and manager, proved to be such, and em- 28 ployed by him throughout the whole business—Mr. Burgess, who had actually employed a gentleman of the name of Wallis under him, and another person of the name of Gallant, three persons, one employed by the sitting member, and the two others employed by Mr. Burgess in the election business, and paid by him for what they did upon the subject of it, they are all three of them proved by these witnesses, six in number, to have been actually employed.—Mr. Burgess in his own person, and also Wallis and Gallant in aid of each other in applying to these witnesses, whom they knew to be at that time served with a speaker's warrant to attend upon the committee, they having express notice of that, and therefore being bound in all fairness, and according to all practice, to abstain from any personal conference or examination of any of them, have proceeded actually to take down their testimony, to get an account of the evidence they were hereafter to give, and knowing perfectly well the nature of that testimony, and how fatal it would be to the cause in which they were engaged, have addressed to these several witnesses topics of argument and propositions, for the purpose of inducing them to withhold that testimony, that they did distinctly inform them of the intention to postpone the hearing of the petition; that it was the intention to apply for that purpose, and that when that application should have been made with success, the consequence would be to leave no longer in force the several warrants with which they had been served—that one of them in particular, Mr. Wallis, possessed himself actually, of the speaker's warrant, got it into his own possession, and represented to several of the witnesses, how truly, how justly, and how properly those whom I have the honour to address, know, without my particularly dwelling on that part of the case, but represented to them, that they were no longer under obligation to attend the future trial of the petition, but might in future absent themselves and keep out of the way, offering money for that purpose, inducements to them severally to keep out of the way, to prevent their being forthcoming at the time of the trial of the petition.—Questions were put to the witnesses, "for what purpose were you to keep out of the way? Were you conscious of any crime you had committed; of any wrong you had done, that should induce you to absent yourself?" No! Was that the cause of their being desired to keep out of the way, to protect 29 themselves, or to guard against the detection of any crime committed by themselves?—Read the evidence:—the testimony they have given is, that their evidence has been taken down; that it was discovered that they could detect what had been done during the election; the fictitious votes which had been given; the bribery and corruption which had been committed; the instances in which persons had been induced to give repeated votes at the election. These persons being found capable of giving testimony upon such a subject as that, that was the motive, and not any crime committed individually by themselves; and, therefore, they might with perfect safety, and with perfect truth, answer the questions put, and yet that makes no difference as to the probability of the inducements which were addressed to them, not for their own security, but for the security of those who might be hurt by the testimony they were hereafter to give.—Upon this part of the case, as well as upon other parts, undoubtedly the cause which I have to support labours under considerable disadvantage; because I am under the necessity of considering it in this stage of the business, abridged as it must of necessity be, and excluding from the consideration much of the testimony which would be confirmatory of the account thus given; because, with great propriety, the house have confined the enquiry to the endeavouring to remove out of the way written or parole testimony, without entering into the merits of any thing Which passed in the election. You have, therefore, very properly stopped us from going into evidence of the actual practices and the transactions during the election, or of the knowledge of these persons of the contents of that important document on which I shall presently observe. You have necessarily excluded, therefore, all that collateral testimony and account which might be given on that part of the case, and which would confirm or refute all the account thus given of the attempts to keep these witnesses out of the way.—The materiality of their testimony; the importance of it; the nature of it; you are all unable Particularly and distinctly to, know; because, of necessity, the case must be deprived of any consideration of that part of the subject; and I forbear to state any part of that on which you cannot receive evidence. But, it is enough for me to state, if their testimony might be material; if their testimony was proper to be received, and the credit to be given to it fit to be considered 30 by a proper tribunal, it is nothing to say they are not witnesses who would be believed; the object of this petition is to prevent the deprivation of testimony. The opportunity of presenting to a proper tribunal that testimony, and surely, at the same moment you exclude the materiality of that testimony, and prevent its being properly examined, it will not be said it is very incredible, that such an attempt should be made, and much less that it is impossible, because the witnesses would not have been credited or cannot prove that which is material. We had a right to have their testimony heard; we had a right to have these witnesses forthcoming; we had a right to keep them untainted, and not visited by the opponent patty at the time they knew they were under orders-to attend on the future tribunal to hear the merits of the case. Therefore, undoubtedly, the conduct of these persons, the solicitor of the sitting member and of Mr. Wallis and Mr. Gallant all employed under him; beginning in the month of Feb. holding out the expectation of the postponement and laying hold of them—to address this, argument (whether well or ill founded) was undoubtedly, I should submit, a species of conduct which would receive no sanction or authority from this house.—Sir, in addition to that, you hear that in the early part of the month of Feb., namely, on the 10th of that month, soon after the solicitor and the persons employed under him had been thus work with the several witnesses—you find, what I am sorry to be under the painful necessity of stating and of bringing directly home to the principal gentleman who is the subject of the charge, by direct positive proof that on the 1Oth of Feb., 14 days only before the hearing of the cause, the witness was sent for by a message to attend at the house of Mr. Homan in Frith Street, soho whom does he meet there? Mr. Homan; Mr. Johnston, a person concerned with Drury Lane Theatre, and a Mr. Edwards, a former servant of the sitting member, and now a box-keeper at Drury Lane theatre. These 3 persons there assembled ply him with liquor, address conversations to him upon the subject, and then remove him upon the day in a hackney coach to the house of Mr.Edwards, and at Mr. Edward's house he there positively states that he met Mr. Sheridan himself; that he had a conference with Mr. Sheridan on the subject that he there distinctly disclosed to Mr. Sheridan that he had an order from the speaker to attend as a witness against him, and not- 31 withstanding, that at the house of Mr. Edwards, to which he was accompanied by Mr. Johnston, at that house he had a conference with Mr. Sheridan, who there entered into conversation with him upon the subject of his future testimony. That witness, who says that he had been in habits of friendship and near alliance with Mr. Sheridan before, and, that he had been acquainted with him to 5 years together, and had been honoured with the greatest marks of, his confidence that one gentleman could give to another—has told you, that he was held, in close conference for a considerable time at the house of Mr. Edwards.—Now, Sir, it is said this witness has by his demeanour created that general impression to his disadvantage, that no credit is due to what he states; that his appearance has betrayed him, and shewn the strongest marks of his resentment and vengeance and of indignant feelings towards the individual against whom he is giving testimony. Sir, I should only beg leave to observe that this gentleman is no friend of Mr. Panl—is no acquaintance of his—he is a perfect stranger to him, and if there be any thing exceptionable or improper in his conduct, all he knew of him was, that he was nearly allied to the sitting member; that he had long been honoured with his acquaintance; that he had been in the strictest intimacy with him and visiting in his house; that was all he knew of this gentleman, except that he appeared to be an officer, in a gallant profession, in which he had lost a limb—at least it was so represented to him, that he knew nothing of him, but what was apparently honourable and right, except that he came with strong feelings of resentments respecting which very resentment I shall be glad to ask, whence does it arise? Does it not of itself import prior intimacy, and that degree of injury that has stung the individual to manifest all that resentment? How can you account for it otherwise? What has actuated the individual to that resentment?, Let it operate as it ought to do to induce you to receive his evidence with considerable suspicion, with great jealousy, to watch the testimony he gives; but how can any body account for the indignation of this young man? For his feelings of warmth? If the individual was a perfect stranger to him? If he had never been in habits of intimacy with him, or conducted himself in a way to provoke that resentment? How are those feelings to be accounted for? To what cause are you to refer all that gentleman's other feeling, if it is not to be ascribed to the cause I 32 have stated?—He has positively stated the circumstance of his alliance to that individual and his acquaintance with him for 5 years together. He has stated his constant employment during the late election at Westminster, in which he is confirmed by the circumstance of the frequent letters that passed: nay, Sir, I think that receives confirmation even from the question put by that right hon. gent. himself; for I do remember the question being put, not indeed to him, but to the, second witness; Weatherhead, in these terms, "Were you not introduced to me by Mr. Drake as a clergyman?" The answer to that is immaterial on the present occasions He says he told him it was a mistake, and that it was his brother; but the use I make of it is this, and the house will then see, whether it is worthy of their grave and serious consideration. With all humility, it appears to me to contain pregnant proof of prior intimacy and acquaintance—how could Mr. Drake introduce any body to that right hon. gent. if he was a stranger him? How could he have access to him? How could he be accompanied to his house to introduce any body if he was not in habits of intimacy and acquaintance with him? This is a question put to him by the highest authority—and it carries the highest proof that some degree of intimacy at least subsisted between them.—A particular account is given by the witness on the subject of this meeting, and that I may not in the least misrepresent him, I will read it. You will find that he gives this account, that he had been long in habits of acquaintance and connection with him; that he had hopes and prospects held out to him of promotion and promises of money, in which he had been disappointed; that he had still been en active and zealous friend to the right hon. gent, during the late election, but that at, the close of the election he felt himself neglected—personally insulted by the domestics of the right hon. gent., and stung, undoubtedly, with resentment, and feeling a resentment to that right hon. gent. he was induced to do what I do not mean to state as a proof of the honour or propriety of this gentleman to betray his friend, and communicate intelligence to his opponent of the knowledge, that he had of what ,practices had been going on during the election.—Now, sir, I do not in the least mean to conceal that the testimony of a witness standing in that predicament, a person who betrays his former patron and friend, nearly allied to him, and who gives intelligence of practices in which he has been personally 33 concerned ought not, on that account, to be received with considerable suspicion—he is an accomplice, and his testimony ought to be received with suspicion, but I beg leave to state, that the testimony of accomplices under more unfavourable circumstances is continually received, and many have lost their lives upon testimony open to every possible observation that can be bestowed upon this; he states fairly the account of it upon his own testimony; he gives the narrative how he was originally connected with the right hon. gent. for 5 years together, and then he says "I supported Mr. Sheridan during the whole of the time of the election, and brought up many votes for Mr. Sheridan, and was in the habit of seeing him 4 or 5 times a day." He then relates the circumstance of his going to Homan's house, having wine there, and afterwards going to Edward's, &c.— He is then interrogated with respect to the letter he represents Mr. Sheridan as having been desirous of obtaining, and he gives a narrative, and the short account, respecting the letter is this: It is proved by this witness, and by the next who was examined, that prior to the election, a letter had been signed by Mr. Sheridan in favour of a person of the name of Emanuel Harris, recommending him to supply the fleet with different articles in which he dealt, upon the occasion of his obtaining votes and his voting himself during the election; that that first letter was in the hand-writing of the witness, Drake himself, was delivered by himself a few days prior to the election into the hands of Mr. Sheridan, that he did himself annex the letters, M. P., leaving a blank for the signature, and that upon his delivering it to Mr. Sheridan, he received it back from Mr. Sheridan with his own signature to it.—The evidence that was given by Mr. Drake respecting the two letters, one that preceded and the other that followed a few days the commencement of the election, will be found in different parts of the testimony of that witness: he was examined upon that subject in chief and afterwards pointedly by the house, and, particularly in a pointed and rapid manner by an hon. member of the house on the subject of these letters, and the prompt and immediate answers given, to thole questions pushed one after another rapidly on him on the subject of those letters had, I own, to my view, greatly an appearance, excluding all probability, of a manufactured or a made stoty; for that any person of any ability much less an individual 34 like him, unaccustomed to courts of justice and to being examined, should be able so rapidly to give distinct answers as to time, place, and person, and every circumstance connected with it, does appear to me to have a very great degree of probability connected with it.—I fear I shall not be able to extract from this volume I have in my hand every part of the testimony respecting the letter, but I hope the house will excuse me if I should not be able to do it immediately; they will excuse me if I should occupy any great portion of their time after what has passed in reading it. "When I went to Mr. Sheridan with this letter, I said here is a man, &c. which Mr. Sheridan who is "present cannot deny."—He then states applications by the other persons who are mentioned in the petition, Homan, Edwards, and Johnston; and then he goes on to say, "I then told Mr. Sheridan. I had "been summoned, &c."—He is then asked, by the house, "did Mr. Sheridan say anything? &c."—A question is put to him by the house respecting the letter; he is asked particularly, "are you sure that you "either, read the letter? &c"—He is then interrogated about his acquaintance with Mr. Harris, and he states how he became acquainted with him?—He is then asked, "who advised you to destroy the first? &c".—He is then asked whether he hart ever declared that he would have money from one side or the other, which he denies—he says, "I never did in my life."—There are other passages respecting the signature of this letter, but I hope I have shewn you that the account I originally,gave respecting this letter, having been thus delivered to Mr. Sheridan, add received back from him with what the witness took to be his signature was correct; and surely it will never be argued, that if a letter is delivered to Mr. Sheridan in blank, if the witness was not actually present to see him put his name to it, but if he received it back with a signature purporting to be Mr. Sheridan himself, that is not sufficient to fix the right hon. gent. with the act itself, more especially when it is also fixed by the witness, which it is in both instances, to be the signature of Mr. Sheridan himself—Mr. Weatherhead was interrogated about the letters; he saw, I believe, both the letters: he spoke of the signature of one having seen it wet, and he judged it to be the signature of Mr. Sheridan. He was particularly interrogated whether he had ever said any thing as to its 35 being a forgery; he said no: and that the reason that one was substituted for another was, that the first had received a blot from being folded, and that it had M. P.; the putting M. P. being improper when the parliament was not assembled, and that the man was desirous of having a letter with a fairer signature, and also having the words "Treasurer of the Navy," which were actually put to the second letter to give more authenticity to it.—This is the account of these two witnesses, on the subject of this letter; in addition to which, Mr. Weatherhead has proved, what it did seem to me if Mr. Weatherhead is entitled to credit.—I state this with all the humility which belongs to me; leaving it entirely to the judgment of the house to pronounce on the credit of the witnesses. I can only judge of the testimony before me, and it is my duty to state that testimony to the house. I say again, if Mr. Weatherhead is entitled to credit his testimony alone goes a considerable way towards substantiating the charge before you; for it is positively proved, that he actually saw on the 19th of Feb. at the house of Mr. Sheridan, Drake the witness, and Mr. Sheridan sitting close together, and as he describes it "elbowing each other close together in the act of private conversation in a low tone of voice not to be overheard by any body else." He says that that continued for some period of time in the room. Did that conversation pass, or did it not?—Weatherhead declares it did—if it did, how could that conversation be passing, circumstanced as Drake then was, when he had in the early part of the month, or even perhaps in the latter end of Jan., but certainly in the early part of Feb., not only been actually served with a speaker's warrant to attend as a witness, but on the 10th of that month of Feb., actually communicated to Mr. Sheridan himself, that he was under summons to attend at the hearing of the petition on the part of Mr. Paull, when Mr. Sheridan had said to him, "leave that to me." Nine days afterwards, within 5 days of the hearing of the petition, which was to be heard on the 24th, Mr. Sheridan is seen at his own house in close conversation with Mr. Drake, sitting close together, and in some conversation which was not to be heard by any body else. if that fact be true, does it not confirm the testimony of the other witness; and is it consistent with any possible account of the denial of all intimacy or acquaintance with that witness, circumstanced as that witness was, which 36 excluded, as it seemed to me, every possibility of conversation which could not be distinctly heard which had not reference to the subject?—But, sir, it does not rest there. This witness positively states the actually seeing the letters delivered into the hands of Mr. Sheridan—he saw them when they came back with the signature of Mr. Sheridan wet; he proves also, that Mr. Sheridan at this meeting on the 19th of Feb. addressed a conversation to him, personally, on the subject of these letter., and that at the close of that conversation he made to Mr. Weatherhead a request, which I own I feel an extreme difficulty in referring to, in any other way than as a direct confirmation of the whole account thus given on the subject.—That Mr. Sheridan said to him, do you and Mr. Drake come to me tomorrow at two o'clock.—This was after the private conversation with Mr. Drake; after interrogating him on the subject of the letters and enquiry of Mr. Weatherhead, another witness under summons to attend, he asks him, are you actually employed on the other side?—he says no then, says he, do you and Mr. Drake come to me tomorrow at two o'clock. For what purpose were they to come the next day to Mr. Sheridan?—Why were they to be invited to come? In what way can that possibly be explained consistent with the representation of no connection subsisting between these parties. —Sir, this, together with the other evidence I have stated of the other persons employed; the solicitor, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Wallis employed by the solicitor, Mr. Gallant, who was employed under them during the election, the proof of the conduct of Mr. Homan in Frith-street, the proof of Mr. Edwards and Mr. Johnston's applications on the subject of these letters and of the witnesses, constitutes the testimony lying before you in proof of this petition, in verbis, in terms, by the. 8 witnesses who have been examined at your bar.—I have now, sir, discharged my duty to the house by stating the petition and stating the import, I hope fairly stating, the nature of the testimony adduced in support of it. I have cautiously abstained from entering upon any one topic that is not directly connected with the subject before you. I will not detain the house one moment with any recapitulation or any observations on the subject. I leave it entirely with the house to pronounce their judgment upon it. I am persuaded that it will be a wise, a just, and a proper judgment, that they will attentively read the 37 evidence for themselves, with opportunities of seeing it and of examining it better than it has been in my power to obtain; they will weigh it, and finally give that judgment which is best calculated to vindicate their own honour and dignity, and which will be satisfactory to every person by whom that testimony shall be hereafter read. I beg pardon for detaining the house so long, and return my humble thanks to the house for their patience."
§ Mr. Sheridanprotested, 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. S.) 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, that which had been only asserted, and that too by witnesses who had been nearly commited 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 Brooks, 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 should be glad if it should appear so. But when he examined his witnesses, there would appear, he believed, such a system of baseness, corruption, and subornation of 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 the evidence where Drake had stated, that he had been employed by him (Mr. S ) to get the letter from Harris, had forgot to mention that the witness had afterwards stated, that he had offered £30 of his own money to get the letter-from Mr, Paull. His own money! He wished it 38 might not turn out to have been the money, of other people. He really pitied the poor wretches who had been called to to the bar, but wished that the charge might not be carried to a higher quarter. The counsel, too had observed upon the statements 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 Weatherhead 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 had heard no more of them till they were observed on the 24th of Feb. in a hackney-coach with Mr. Paull. He was ashamed of his own credulity in having given any credit to what these persons said, but he had called at the Admiralty, and found that Weatherhead had been dismissed for scandalous conduct by captain Trollope, and that his name was marked R. M. having presented forged certificates for a lieutenancy. There was a gross false-hood in the petition, where it alledged that the consideration of the election petition stood for the 24th of Feb., whereas it had been originally appointed for the 13th of Jan.
§ Mr. Percevalobserved, that the right hon. gent. had 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, 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 petition glad been postponed from the 24th of Feb to the 14th of April. This was true, and no intention appeared of denying that it had been in the first instance fixed for the 13th of January.
§ Mr. Sheridansaid, that he had a great respect for the counsel; but still though that he ought to have been somewhat more liberal. If the allegation it was at least a 39 pitiful prevarication. He moved that Frerick Homan be called in.
A long conversation then took place with respect to the propriety of examining Mr. Homan, he being implicated by the allegations of the petition. However, on the motion of Mr. Perceval, it was carried, that the allegations against Mr. Homan were not well grounded; and he was, therefore, admitted as a comperent witness.
Mr. Frederick Homan examined by the House
"Were you present at a meeting between Mr. Sheridan and Mr. Drake, on the 9th or 10th of Feb.? The 19th I was present.—At a meeting at Somerset Place? Yes.—Did Mr. Drake come upon any request of Mr. S., or did Mr. Drake apply to you? Mr. Drake called upon me on the 19th Of Feb. in the evening. He told me, he had returned from the country that evening with Mr. Weatherhead; that he had been in a chaise to Hampshire; that he was going to set off at 4 the next morning, to take possession of a cottage be had purchased in Hampshire, and wished to see Mr. S. that night; I told him, I was to dine with Mr. S., and should engage he should see Mr. S. at 7 or 8 o'clock. I went to Mr. S's. to see him; after I had been there some time, he came in with Mr. Weatherhead, whom he introduced as a clergyman. Mr. Weatherhead and I, and Mr. Ward, sat in the parlour at Mr. S's. for some time ; we had general conversation; at length Mr.S. came in from, I believe, the house of commons, about 8 o'clock. When Mr S. came into the room to be saluted, Mr, Drake and. Mr. Weatherhead were sitting at some distance from him, and Mr. S. took a chair, and sat at a considerable distance from Mr. Drake; there was room for More than 2 or 3 chairs between the chair on which Mr. S. sat and Mr. Drake. There was a general conversation alter Mr. S. came in, on some motion he had Made in the house that night, or that he had given notice of a motion. Mr Drake told Mr. S., he had been in the country, in Hampshire, and had been hunting there with Mr. Cobbett. I staid there the whole time; there was no conversation could have taken place without my hearing it, and Mr. Ward, who was present, Some time after Mr. Drake came in or Mr. S. came in, he asked who that gentleman was in the corner; Mr. Drake said he was a particular friend of his, a shipmate of his, Mr. Weatherhead; I replied, he is a clergyman; Oh! said Mr. S., you served as chaplain, I 40 suppose, along with Mr. Drake; no, sir, says he, not as chaplain! Oh! Oh! says Drake, immediately correcting himself, it is his brother is a clergyman, this is not a clergyman. Mr. S. certainly made no offer; there could have been no offer made to Mr. Drake that evening, as stated in the petition. On the 19th of Feb., I remained in the room with Mr. S. till Mr. Drake and Mr. Weatherhead left the house. On going up stairs to Mr. S's dining-room, he said he believed that Drake was a very great liar; that he did not suppose that he had been hunting with Mr. Cobbett, for that he believed that Mr. Cobbett would not take notice of such a fellow, and that he would not be concerned in such a business with such a rascal; and, says he, that story is like the story of the Thisbe brig which he has got: he is a damned liar.—Had the conversation, as to Mr. Drake's having been with Mr. Cobbett in Hampshire, begun previous to Mr. S's. coming into the room and in what way did Mr. Drake state himself to have been in Mr. Cobbett's house? The conversation began with Mr Drake stating himself to have been hunting in Hampshire with Mr. Cobbett, before Mr. S. came into the room, but it continued after Mr S. came into the room: Mr. Drake said, that the only way to get to Mr. Cobbett's house was through his stables and a very dirty yard; that he lived in a mere pig-stye.—Did you ever hear Mr Drake say that he must leave town in order to take the command of the Thisbe sloop, or the Sisbe sloop, and that be was under orders from the Admiralty? On Tuesday the 10th of Feb., I remember being in company with Mr. Drake. Mr. Drake told me that he was appointed to the command of the Thisbe sloop; sometime afterwards he said that it was a brig; and that if Mr. S. would apply to the Admiralty, he had no doubt they would permit him to stay in town a few days, if it was to serve his cause.—When Mr. Drake said he must go out of town the next day; did Mr. S. tell Mr. Drake he must stay in town, and desire him to call at Somerset House the next; and did not Mr. S. state that that he, Mr. Drake, must on no account be absent when the speaker's warrant required his attendance? Mr. S. certainly did.—Did Mr. S. ever utter one word like holding out any reward or inducement to Mr. Drake, or Mr. Weatherhead, whatever? Never in my presence,—Were you present at the examination of Mr. Harris by Mr. Justice Grabam? I was present,—Was Mr. Weatherhead pre- 41 sent? No.—Did you know that when Mr. S. sent Harris to be examined by Mr. Graham, he sent a special message, by Mr. Johnston and yourself, that Mr. Graham should get possession of the letter pretended to be signed by Mr. S , have it sealed up and marked, and give notice to the speaker and Mr. Paull's solicitor that it should be forthcoming to the house.—What was the message Mr. S. sent by you and Mr. Johnson to Mr. Graham? Mr. S. desired Mr. Johnson to request Mr. Graham would keep the letter, seal it, and let Mr. Paull's solicitor know that the letter was in his possession, in Mr. Graham's possession; after his examinations had been taken, to keep the letter, and not to let it go into the jew's hands any more.—Did Mr. Harris shew any reluctance to accompany you and Mr. Johnson to be examined? No, Mr. Harris went with great seeming pleasure: he wished that his character should be cleared up; as some people said he had obtained the letter in an improper manner: he wished that every investigation should take place; and he gave his testimony very fairly and candidly as it appeared to me, without any reserve."
Cross-examined by Mr. Warren, on behalf of the Petitioner.
"What is your situation in life? I am of no profession at present.—Are you a gentle man, living on your means? I have been concerned in the flour business in Ireland, have property in Ireland; I do not say that I am concerned in the flour business at present, but that is the only occupation I have been concerned in.—How long have you left off that business? I left it off when I found it unprofitable, about 12 months ago. —Do you know Drake's father? I know, a person whom I believe to be Drake's father; I cannot say whether he is Drake's father or not, I have rho reason to doubt it.—Did you ever write to a person whom you suppose to be Drake's father? I did.—Did you believe him to be Drake's father when you wrote to him? I did.—Do you state now that you only suppose him to be Drake's father? As to supposition I do not know, I have no reason to doubt his being Drake's father.— Where do you live? At 29, Knightsbridge. Did you ever see live in Frith-street? I did.—Did you ever see Drake in Frith Street? Yes.—Did any conversation take place on the subject of a letter to Emanuel Harris? Yes.—State what that was. On the 10th of Feb. Shrove Tuesday, Drake came to my house. The day before that, the investigation had taken place before Mr. Graham, 42 the magistrate. That evening he called on me, I asked him if he had written a letter, and got it signed by Mr. S., as was stated by Harris in his examinations; he said that he had given Harris a letter, but that Harris was a very great rascal, and a fellow not to be depended on, and made use of some very improper language; at the same time he told me he had got the letter, and that Mr. S. gave it Harris: I told him that Harris had stated in his examinations, which were taken by Mr. Graham, that Drake obtained a sum of money for a letter for Harris, that Harris gave him a sum of money for the letter which he obtained for him, signed by Mr. S., and he said it is not material about Harris, he is a very great rascal, but he dare not appear, he is afraid of me; I have written two letters to him this week, desiring him to keep out of the way, and not to appear. I told him certainly, that in writing those two letters it appeared to me he had injured his character very much, in desiring a witness, who had been served with an order to attend this house, to keep out of the way; and as to the other letter, I said, I suppose it is of no consequence, but your letters will injure your own character. I told him that. He then said that he did not care, that he would get the letter; that Mr. S. had used him very ill; he had been dancing after him many years, and made him many promises; and that he was offered money by the other party, and that he was determined to give Mr. S. up.—Did you say to Drake, it would be a good thing if he could get that letter from Harris? No.—Did you say any thing about getting the letter from Harris? NO.—When did the acquaintance between you and Drake begin? That evening.—Was there any wine drank that evening? Yes—Much? No, not much. Mr. Drake told me that evening that he could drink 6 bottles of claret without affecting him; and I.told him, as an Irishman, I had no objection to take a bottle of wine with him. He told me he was an Irishman, but a few days afterwards his father told me he was not an Irishman.—At this first meeting between you and Drake, you sat down and took wine together? Yes.—Did any further conversation take place between you and-Drake?. Nothing material took place, that I recollect.—How came yon to write a letter to Drake's father? On going to to Mr. S. s. house another gentleman who was there, and I, advised Mr. S. to have Drackeand Weatherhead both brought before Mr. Graham, the magistrate; and to 43 try if we could not make out a conspiracy between the 3; and I wrote two notes to Mr. Drake's father, to induce him to come to that meeting, in which we intended to bring him to the magistrate.—Had you any communication with Mr. S. on the subject of those letters; did he know that they were written? No, Mr. S. never knew that I wrote to him,or any other person, I believe, except those concerned.—Did be know of it? I never mentioned it to him.—Did Mr. Graham know of it? No, he did not.—At the meeting at Somerset House on the 19th of Feb., who was present? Mr. Drake, Mr. Weatherhead, Mr. Ward, Mr. Sheridan, and your humble servant.—Do you mean to state that you heard no conversation upon the subject of money, between Mr. S. and Mr. Drake, at that meeting? Certainly not, and no such conversation could have taken place.—Did not Mr. S. say, I believe Mr. Drake, you are poor, and I have it now in my power to place you in such a situation as will make you comfortable? No, nor nothing like it.—Were any other letters written to Drake's father besides that you have mentioned? Not by me.—Do you know of any other being written to Drake's father? No, I do not.—Did not you appoint a meeting between Mr. S. and Drake at his own house? I wrote to him for that purpose.—Whom did you write to? I wrote to Drake's father; I dare say you have the notes there.—I just asked whether you knew of any other letter besides the one you have mentioned? I wrote two notes.—Besides the letter? I wrote no letter to him.—I understood you to state, that you had written a letter to Drake's father? I wrote two notes to Drake's father.—Did not Drake go from your house to Edwards's, to meet Johnson? I do not know where he went to from my house; I did not accompany him.—Did not Drake go from your house with Johnson, in a hackney coach, to meet Mr. Sheridan? I do not know.—What was the date of the last note to Drake's father? I cannot say what the date was, but I know it was for the purpose of getting him to appoint a meeting, for the purpose of bringing them to Mr. Graham's; I believe there was nothing more than "Thursday" or "Monday."—Was it not written on Saturday, the 22d of Feb.? I do not know; it might be.—Was it to meet Mr. Sheridan on Sunday? I believe it was.—Where was it to meet Mr, S.? I really do not know whether it was at my house, or Mr. S.'s; but I advised Mr. S. not to bring them to his house, and I am not certain 44 whether it was not my house. Mr. Drake wished me to go to his house, but I did not choose to go there, and also to bring Mr. S. there, to his lodgings.—Do you know whether Mr. S. has a son of the name of Charles Sheridan? No.—A brother? No.—A nephew, or any other relation? There is a person of that name who lives with me; we live together; he is unwell, or he would have been here.—Did not Alex. Johnson and Drake go together from your house? A. Johnson, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Drake, and I believe 2 or 3 more went away together; I cannot say where they went to."
Examined by the House.
"From what part of Ireland do you come, and what are your family? My family are from the county of Westmeath, in Ireland.—Are you any relation to the bishop of Killala? I am a nephew to the bishop of Killala.—Were you present in the room at Somerset House during all the time, during which Mr. S. and Drake were there? I was.—Did you hear all that passed between Mr. S. and Drake? I did.—Were you so situate as to be able to hear every thing that passed between Mr. S. and Drake? was, I was nearer to Mr. S. than Drake was; there was no low tone of voice made use of by the company, and it was impossible for Mr. S to have made any offer to Mr. Drake or Mr. Weatherhead, that evening.—You are certain nothing then passed which you did not hear? Positively.—And you are certain nothing passed between them on the subject of money? Certainly not.—What were the circumstances that induced you to think it desirable that Mr. Drake should be carried before Mr. Graham? From the substance of the examinations that were taken before Mr. Graham.—How came you acquainted with those examinations? I was present when the examinations were taken before Mr. Graham.—What induced you to be present? Mr. S. requested that I would go down with Mr. Johnson and Mr. Harris, who was a Jew (we had a letter to Mr. Graham), and see that his examination was taken.—You not having been employed during the election, what led you particularly to be employed on this occasion? Nothing, but as a particular friend of Mr. S.—Did Mr. Harris produce the letter? I marked it.—What is become of that letter? It is in the possession of Harris, I believe.—Was not one of the objects of the examination, that the letter should be delivered to Mr. Graham, sealed up? Mr. Graham gave the letter back to the Jew; he said he had been 45 served with an order to produce it, and he would produce it.—Did Mr. S. make any promise to Drake, of giving him a place of profit, at that meeting at Somerset House? No.—Did you state to Mr. Graham, the magistrate, Mr. S.'s request, that the letter should be sealed up, and preserved? I am not certain whether I did or not; I think Mr. Johnson did; and Mr. Graham said, he did not think himself authorized to keep the letter, as there had been an order served on Harris to produce the letter.—Mr. S. has stated, that he gave express directions to you to convey it to the magistrate, that he might seal up the letter? He expressed the wish equally to Mr. Johnson and me.—Did you deliver that message to the magistrate? I am not certain that I did; Mr. Johnson was the principal person; he attended the next day, and I did not; I know Mr. S, requested it, but I will not say that I delivered it.—If you did not deliver the message yourself, did you hear it delivered to Mr. Graham in your presence? I do not remember that I did; but Mr. Graham kept the letter that day, and I understand it was returned the next day.—Do you recollect the day when Harris gave the letter to Mr. Graham? Yes; Monday, the 9th of Feb.—What was the evening on which Drake came to your house, and when there is said to have been the conversation about this letter? The next evening.—Did Harris make any difficulty in giving the letter into the hands of Mr. Graham? Harris parted with the letter rather reluctantly, until Mr. Graham assured him it should be safe, and it should be returned the next day; he said he only wished to :have the letter to bring before the house.—How happened it that Drake came to your house on the 10th? He was sent for, and brought to my house.—By whom was he sent for? By a person of the name of Edwards.—For what purpose? To investigate the business respecting the letter, and to learn what I have already stated to the house.—Why did you wish to examine him about this letter? I wished, and Mr. S. also, from the extraordinary statement which had been made, by Mr. Harris, of the business, wished to have it investigated fully; and there was no other way of investigating it than by getting this man to my house, and having witnesses present.—You desired Edwards to bring him to your house? Yes.—Did Mr. S. know of his being at your house?, Yes, Mr, S. wished he should be examined in respect to the letter, in what manner he got the letter."