§ Mr. Broughampresented a petition, which had been sent to him from Ireland by an individual of the name of George Rowan, of whom he had no knowledge, nor of the facts which he stated in his petition. He had a painful duty to perform in presenting this petition, inasmuch as it reflected upon the conduct and character of a member of the House. He should therefore do nothing more than move, that this petition be brought up.
The petition was accordingly brought up and read:—It stated, that, the, petitioner had been dismissed from a 1254 Situation which he held in the Excise means of a conspiracy which had been formed against him by W. M.E. Twiss and others; that W. M. Twiss had been appointed to the situation which the petitioner had filled, by the interest colonel Crosbie, his father-in-law that in consequence of some defalcation in big, accounts, W. M. Twiss had been dismissed from it, and that he had recently been reappointed to it, though he was confined at the time for debt in the Marshalsea prison at Dublin, and was seeking the benefit of the Insolvent Debtors act. It accused colonel Crosbie of having taken a bribe of, 1,000l. to secure this appointment to Mr. Twiss, and also charged him with receiving, on several, distinct occasions, money for the patronage at his disposal.
§ On the motion, that the petition be laid on the table,
§ Colonel Crosbieaddressed the House in a low tone of voice. He said, it was true that Mr. Twiss, who was his son-in-law, had obtained, through his interest, the appointment of collector of the Excise, but that it was false that he had received for it any sum of money whatever. He likewise denied, in the most positive and unqualified manner, that he had ever received a farthing for the situation to which he had got his nephew appointed. He could only say, that the charges which the petitioner had brought against him were false and unfounded, and that he would adopt every means in his power to compel him to make redress for bringing them so publicly forward.
§ Mr. Crokersaid, that, to a certain degree, he could corroborate the statement of the hon. gentleman who had just sat down Mr. Twiss, with whom he had become acquainted whilst going the circuit in Ireland, had recently called upon him, and had applied for his good offices in recovering the situation from which he had been removed. He had told Mr. Twise that he would make the requisite inquiries in Ireland, and, if the answer was satisfactory, would employ what interest he had in his behalf. He had made those inquiries. The result of them had been satisfactory; and the consequence was that Mr. Twiss re-appointed to his situation. Mr. Twiss brought him no recommendation from colonel Crosbie no nor indeed, from any other person, He thought it right to add, that he had the slightest communication with colonel Crosbie on this subject.
Mr. Wynnasked, whether it was right that a petition should be laid on the table, which charged a member of the House with an offence for which he was indictable in a court of law. If such a petition were suffered to lie on the table, the House must, for its own credit, as well as for that of the hon. member accused, enter into an investigation of the charges it contained. As the ordinary tribunals of the country were competent to entertain the accusations of the petitioner, he thought that there was no occasion for the House to take them up. He therefore suggested to his hon. and learned friend to withdraw the petition.
Mr. Brovghamsaid, that after the distinct, unequivocal, and unreserved manner, in which the charge had been denied by the hon. member opposite, he was bound by every principle of justice and humanity to believe that the allegations in the petition could not be sustained, and he could have no hesitation in withdrawing the petition, as it would be open to the petitioner, if lie still persisted in the charge, to renew his petition in the next session. In the mean time, an opportunity would be afforded the petitioner of considering the serious responsibility he incurred, if he brought a false charge against a member of that House, and the punishment which would, in that case, await him for a breach of the privileges of parliament.
The petition was then withdrawn.