Mr. Lockhartsaid, that he rose with considerable pain and reluctance on the present occasion, as the motion which it fell to his lot to make, deeply affected the honour and reputation of a Member of that House. The circumstances were attended with considerable notoriety, and were briefly as follows: an elector of Stafford, a Mr. Peter Batty, had applied to a member of that House, desiring to know how he should obtain the discharge of a marine, and had been told, that, on giving fifty guineas to the hon. member, the business should be effected: this practice was understood to be perfectly legal and common, and the sum desired was given. Some time after, an application was made respecting the discharge of the marine, and the hon. member said, that the money had been transmitted through the regular channels, and that the man would be immediately discharged, which, however, was not the case, and on more minute enquiry, it was found that the fifty guineas, instead of being applied to the purposes for which they were intended, were paid in discharge of an account to a grocer at Wimbledon! Upon this, the person who had intrusted this sum to the hon. member had preferred an indictment against him in the Epiphany session, 1809, in the county of Surry, but the hon. member did not think proper to appear to the indictment. The elector of Stafford had then applied for a warrant to 463 several justices of the peace, in Surry, and to lord Ellenborough, who refused to grant it, for fear of infringing the privileges of that House. Thus situated, deprived of all redress through the ordinary channels of justice, Mr. Batty had drawn up a Petition to that honourable House, the prayer of which was, that an order might be issued to the hon. member to appear, and if the House in its wisdom did not grant that, that it would afford such other relief to the Petitioner, as might seem expedient. After what had gone abroad on this subject, and the investigation which was likely to take place, he felt no reluctance in stating, that the member implicated in this charge was Mr. Richard Mansell Philipps, one of the representatives for Stafford. He had had some communication with Mr. Philipps, and had been told by him, that he had directed his attorney to enquire into the business. He hoped the hon. member had taken such steps as were incumbent upon him; but as nothing had been done, he felt it his duty to bring it before the House. He had searched the Journals for the purpose of ascertaining whether the privileges of the House extended to the protection of the hon. member, but he could not find any exemption from process of indictment for offences; and in the year 1641, (certainly not a very propitious period to refer to), upon a report made to the House of Lords, they came to several resolutions, one of which was, that the privilege of parliament was not to extend to cases of breach of peace, or to any thing done out of parliament: and subsequent to that period, it appeared from the best authors, most of whom were summed up in the admirable work of Mr. Justice Blackstone, that no member could claim exemption for an indictable offence, or for any libellous publication. There, therefore, could exist no difficulty on the mode of proceeding in point of privilege; but, if the statement in the petition were true, there existed some difficulty from the opinions delivered by law authorities out of doors, that the privileges of the House intervened to prevent the administration of justice to the party aggrieved.
§ The Speakerobserved, that as the hon. member had brought forward a very grave case, deeply affecting the reputation of a member of that House, who was absent, it would be more regular, before the petition was presented, to give an opportunity to that member to be present, by appointing 464 a day for bringing the subject forward.
Mr. Lockhartapproved of the suggestion of the Speaker, and moved, "That Mr. Richard Mansell Philipps be required to attend in his place upon tomorrow se'n-night;" which was agreed to.