HC Deb 12 March 1819 vol 39 cc978-81

The House proceeded in the further hearing of the Matter of the Complaint against the hon. Wyndham Quin: and Mr. George Mansell, Mr. Daniel Gabbett, and Mr. Richard Smyth, were severally examined; and Mr. Carew Smith was again examined and directed to withdraw. Sir George Hill said, he rose in order to move that a witness, formerly examined, be called in and examined as to a question of privilege. Mr. Goold was accordingly called in, and thus examined by the Speaker:

Have you seen Mr. Grady jun. to-day? —I have.

Did any conversation pass between you and Mr. Grady jun. relative to your examination of last night?—There did.

State to the House what that conversation was?—Within the last ten minutes, or a quarter of an hour, I was standing in the room, which I believe is called the witnesses room in the presence of Mr. Roche, Mr. Gabbett, and Mr. Richard Smyth, when this gentleman, the petitioner, came into the room, and he addressed me by name, and said, "Mr. Goold, I want to speak with you;" I took off my hat in the most respectful manner possible, and told him that he must excuse me, that in this inquiry I conceived it would be indelicate for me to speak to him at all. He then said, "I must speak with you." "Then, sir, as you insist upon it, I shall leave the room;" on which he immediately said these precise words: "You spoke, in your evidence disrespectfully of me last night, and if in the evidence you are to give to-night, you presume to say a word disrespectfully of me, I shall kick you about the streets." I immediately quitted the room, and nothing further occurred; I took no notice in the world of it; I hope I kept my temper—The witness was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Wynn

thought the only way was to call in Mr. T. W. Grady. He was accordingly called in, and thus examined by the Speaker.

The House has been informed that you have held a conversation with Mr. Goold, who is a witness at the bar of this House, yesterday, upon the subject of his examination of last night; have you had any conversation with Mr. Goold, and what was that conversation?—I had.

State to the House what passed?— Certainly; I stated to Mr. Goold that I had heard that he had made use of my name very wantonly; I requested of him not to do so any more, for that if he should do so, I should be under the disagreeable necessity of taking notice of it; of kicking him.

Did Mr. Goold make any reply to that statement?—None whatsoever.

That is all that passed between you?— That is all that passed between us.— Mr. Grady was directed to withdraw.

Mr. Wynn then moved, 1. "That Thomas William Grady, having used insulting language to a witness attending this House, and having threatened him with personal violence on account of evidence already given by him, and which he may hereafter be called Upon to give at the bar of this House, has thereby been guilty of a high contempt of this House, and of a gross breach of its privileges. 2. That the said T. W. Grady be for his said offence taken into the custody of the Serjeant at arms attending this House, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."

Sir R. Wilson

said, it was quite manifest that Mr. Grady's conduct proceeded from youth and inexperience. He considered Mr. Goold's conduct as he had always been accustomed to consider insults. It must be apparent to the House, that he was extremely inexperienced, and a youth of a weak character. He hoped, therefore, that they would regard with indulgence an indiscretion in which no contempt or breach of privilege had been contemplated.

Mr. Bankes

said, the question was not what indulgence the youth and inexperience of Mr. Grady might claim, but what was necessary for the purposes of justice. Having said this, it was only necessary to add, that justice required the protection of an infirm old man, against the petulance of a young one.

The resolutions were agreed to nem. con. Then Mr. Carew Smith was again examined. After which,

Sir R. Wilson

stated, that he had no other witness to call in support of the petition, but the petitioner himself. As the petitioner, a young and inexperienced man, was necessarily much agitated by having fallen under the displeasure of the House, and by the apprehension of being sent to Newgate, he should move that the farther consideration of the matter of charge be adjourned to Monday.

Mr. Canning

asked, whether the hon. member, meant not to proceed in the examination of the petitioner till he was allowed to kick the other witnesses?

Sir R. Wilson

acknowledged that the petitioner had committed a great fault of which the House was obliged to take notice, though he hoped that a severe reprimand might have answered the ends of justice; but what he meant now to assert was, that he should not do justice to the public, to the House or to the petitioner; if he suffered the examination of the petitioner to proceed when he was in a state of agitation.

Mr. Canning

said, the petitioner had been committed to the custody of the Serjeant at arms to secure another witness against his outrage. The hon. member had assumed that he was also to be sent to Newgate, though no such proposition had been mentioned in his heating.

Mr. Wynn

thought the House bound to declare and make known, that its witnesses should not be insulted. Those who with him had read the private letters in this case, would know the necessity of proceeding cautiously, and of showing the determination of the House to resent any attempt to violate its privileges in the person of its witnesses. He thought at the conclusion of the proceedings it might be advisable to pass some resolutions to that effect, for which there were not wanting precedents.

Mr. Peel

trusted the House would deal leniently with the offence of this young man. It was not to be forgotten that, though standing in the situation of a petitioner against a member of the House, he had heard grave facts stated against himself. It was to be remembered, too, that his father had been recently committed to Newgate; so that, taking all circumstances into consideration, the House might act with leniency, without forming an inconvenient precedent.

Lord C. Churchill

said, that his opinion being that the petitioner would not give his evidence with self-possession while in custody, he should move, "That Thomas William Grady be now brought to the bar, in order to his being reprimanded and discharged."

Mr. Lambton

and sir Robert Wilson concurred in the motion. Mr. S. Wortley and Mr. Courtenay objected to it, as unjust to Mr. Goold, and as not likely to render the witness more collected, or more fit to deliver his evidence.

Mr. Grattan

said, the case of Mr. Goold was very hard. He had been called over from Ireland to the great prejudice of his private business, and while delivering his evidence as a man of honour, he had been attacked by a young man with the grossest outrage. It was the duty of the House to alleviate the feelings Of Mr. Goold, and to protect him in the discharge of his duty.

The motion was negatived. After which, Mr. Goold was again examined. Mr. Lambton being of opinion that further evidence must necessarily be brought from Ireland, to settle a point which at present was inexplicable, and which implicated the credibility of the two principal witnesses, moved, "That Thomas Lambert, servant of Mr. Carew Smith; Sarah Lyons, servant of Dr. Smith; and Hugh Riley, servant of Mr. Goold; do attend this House on Thursday 18th March." The motion was agreed to, and the further hearing of the matter of the complaint was adjourned till Monday.