§ Order for Attendance of Mr. Charles Edmund Grissell and Mr. John Sandi-lands Ward, read.
§ MR. SPEAKERLet the Sergeant-at-Arms state to the House whether Charles Edmund Grissell and John Sandilands Ward are in attendance?
§ MR. SPEAKERWill you state what measures you have taken to secure the attendance of Mr. Grissell?
The Sergeant-at-ArmsThe Order of the House for his attendance was served by the Messenger who usually serves the Orders of the House, on Tuesday, and he was informed that Mr. Grissell had gone abroad. The Order was given to Mrs. Grissell, who said she would telegraph to her husband. I have received a telegram this morning from Boulonge-sur-Mer in these words— 1101
Boulonge-sur-Mer, Graham's Hotel,Bourdeaux.To the Sergeant-at-Arms. Grissell sent away. Doctor's orders. Not well enough to travel.
§ MR. SPEAKERHave you any further information from Charles Edmund Grissell?
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI do not know, Sir, what view the House may take as to the telegram that has been read from Mr. Grissell; but I must confess that, to my mind, it does not appear to be at all satisfactory. There is no medical certificate; there are no details that are intelligible, and I think that, under the circumstances, we have no other course open to us than to proceed with regard to Mr. Grissell as neglecting to obey the instructions and Orders of the House. I do not think I need delay the House by entering into the case of Mr. Grissell. As I mentioned yesterday, and as is recorded in this Report, the Select Committee appointed by the House to investigate the matter, have reported that they are
Unanimously of opinion that Mr. Grissell, in asserting that he could control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, and the offer he made to do so, was guilty of a Breach of the Privileges of the House.That having been reported, and Mr. Grissell having been ordered to attend in his place in the House, and his not having appeared, but having merely sent a communication which, I think, the House cannot regard as satisfactory. I shall beg to move—That Charles Edmund Grissell having been ordered to attend the House this day, and having neglected to attend, be taken into custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERMr. Speaker, I am sorry my noble Friend the Member for the Radnor Boroughs (the Marquess of Hartington) is unable to be in his place to-day; but I do not think that many words are required from me in seconding the Motion of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me that it will be the almost unanimous feeling of this House that the only course we can adopt is the one that has been suggested by 1102 the right hon. Gentleman. If we are to consider our Privileges at all, we cannot take this telegram into consideration, as it is certainly not sufficient excuse; but we are bound to see that the Orders of the House are complied with.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Charles Edmund Grissell having been ordered to attend this House the day, and having neglected to attend, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERSir, I rise to Order. I observed that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that Mr. Grissell had failed to "attend in his place." Now, I want to know—[Cries of "Order!"]—when an hon. Member of this House is charged with any offence against the House, he is ordered to attend in his place: but that, I submit, is not the case in regard to a person who is not a Member of this House. I therefore call upon you, Sir, to set us right on this point.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERI am very sorry if I used the expression referred to by the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford; if I did use it, it was, of course, a mere slip of the tongue.
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENI wish, Sir, to make one or two brief observations on the question now before the House; or, rather, I wish to elicit information from someone better informed on the subject than myself as to whether Mr. Grissell, if he awaits the conclusion of the present Parliament in some secure retreat abroad, will not be entirely safe from any further pursuit from this House? If that be so, I venture to think that the advice which I was presumptuous enough to give on the first occasion when the matter was brought before the House will, after all, turn out to have been the right advice—namely, that when any person is accused of a Breach of the Privileges of this House he should at once be summoned to the Bar of the House, and then, if adjudged guilty, be committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, when the House will proceed as it thinks fit. It appears to me that what the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposes is, that we should cook our 1103 hare before we have caught it, and, I would venture to suggest that this departure from the old precedent is unwise, and that, if we had followed the old precedent, we should have caught our hare in the first instance, and then we might have best determined how the hare should be cooked.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Ordered, That Charles Edmund Grissell having been ordered to attend the House this day, and having neglected to attend, be taken into the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrants accordingly.
§ MR. SPEAKERUnderstanding from the Sergeant-at-Arms that John Sandi-lands Ward is in attendance, I will ask whether it be the pleasure of the House that John Sandilands Ward be called in? Is it your pleasure that John Sandilands Ward be called in? [Cries of "Aye!" from all parts of the House.] Let John Sandilands Ward be brought in.
§ [The following is the entry in the Votes relating to the subject:—]
§ "John Sandilands Ward was then called in, and was addressed by Mr. Speaker in the following terms:—
§ "John Sandilands Ward; Your conduct in connection with the Private Bill relating to the Tower High Level Bridge has been subjected to patient and full inquiry by a Select Committee of this House. That Committee have come to conclusions, which are clearly summed up in the last two paragraphs of their Report to the House, in the following terms:—'Your Committee are unanimously of opinion that Mr. Grissell, in asserting that he could control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, and in the offer he made to do so, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House. And they are unanimously of opinion that Mr. Ward was cognisant of, and assisted Mr. Grissell in the matter of, this offer, and was likewise guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House.' I have now to state on behalf of the House that the House is willing to hear what you have to say upon the matter."
§
John Sandilands Ward thereupon tendered the following explanation of his conduct:—
1104
Mr. Speaker,—Sir, I wish to say to this honourable House, if the House in its great kindness will permit me to do so, That I have read the Report of the Select Committee appointed in this matter, and that I am much distressed at the concluding paragraphs of the Report of that honourable Committee, which imply a disbelief in my repudiation of all knowledge of an improper intention on the part of Mr. Grissell when I called upon Mr. Hooker. Now, I beg to state to this honourable House that I am a Solicitor of some nine years' standing; that I have a large and highly respectable practice, and my clients are persons of means and social position; that my connection with Mr. Grissell has been purely professional; that I understood, so far as the slight conversation I had with him on the subject enabled me, that he—being a connection of the late firm of Grissell and Peto, large wharfingers on the Thames and great contractors—had some special means of acquiring information in connection with the matters then before your honourable Committee; that he in no way told me, nor did I inquire, what those means of information were, or what would be the course he would take in support of his notion that he could influence such Committee; that after introducing my client I had no further communication either with Mr. Hooker or any other persons parties to the Bill or connected with the matter directly or indirectly; that my interview with Mr. Hooker, upon which the allegation against me is based, occupied not more than half a minute, as he himself has sworn. The rapidity, therefore, with which the words alleged to be spoken must have been uttered, and the fact that this hurried interview took place in your honourable House—Mr. Hooker having been called from the Committee Boom to see me, and being most anxious to return—may, I earnestly submit to your honourable House, account for the discrepancy in the evidence on this point; that when I subsequently saw my client and was informed by him that he had signed the letter drawn up by Mr. Cockell, which disclosed a manifest impropriety, I at once told him that he had acted foolishly and ridiculously. I venture to submit to your honourable House the striking improbability of the proposition—that I, a professional man, in large practice as a Solicitor, should voluntarily seek another firm of Solicitors, themselves officers of your honourable House, in order to propose to them a transaction which on the face of it would be in the highest degree censurable and a breach of Privilege. The slenderest consideration of the relative position of Mr. Hooker and myself would, I humbly submit, lead to the conclusion that to do such an act as this I must either be a person having no character or social position of any sort to lose, or a man who had taken leave of his senses. I, therefore, on this point, further venture to say, and I entreat the indulgence of your honourable House while I do so, that Mr. Hooker is entirely wrong in his remembrance of the exact words that were used at the momentary interview so often referred to. I wish also to state with the most unbounded respect to this honourable House that, deeply as I deplore the conclusions of your Committee, so far as that Report refers to myself, I must, in the satisfaction of my conscience, urge upon
1105
your honourable House that nothing was further from my thoughts or intentions than that by any act of mine I should infringe the Privileges or in the slightest degree endeavour to diminish the respect and esteem in which this honourable House is universally held; that I should look upon any act which proposed to impeach the known character for incorruptibility which attaches to all proceedings of your honourable House as an offence which, if it were possible for it to succeed, would be a misfortune to my country, and to all representative institutions. In conclusion, therefore, I wish to say that whilst my conscience acquits me of all improper intentions, and whilst my friends and clients, and all who know me, will believe in this emphatic assertion, yet am I here to-day at the Bar of your honourable House ready to bow to its decision—whatever that decision may be—but impressed with the hope that your honourable House will give due consideration to the solemn statement which I now make that I am the victim of a cruelly unfortunate misapprehension.
§ MR. SPEAKERIs it the pleasure of the House that John Sandilands Ward do now withdraw? [Cries of "Aye!"] John Sandilands Ward will now withdraw.
John Sandilands Ward thereupon withdrew.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMr. Speaker, the House has now heard the statement of Mr. Ward. As far as I can collect from that statement, Mr. Ward confines himself to asserting that the communications which he had with Mr. Grissell were of a purely professional character; that he was not at all aware of the nature of the proposal which Mr. Grissell intended to make to him; and he further states that the recollection of Mr. Hooker on this matter was wrong. Well, now, Sir, I observe that the Select Committee had these points put before them; I observe also that the Select Committee, who had the power of examining witnesses on oath, and who went very fully and thoroughly into this question, having heard, as I take it, very much the same defence brought forward by Mr. Ward as that which we have now listened to, came, after full consideration, to the conclusion that the statements made by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cockell were true, and that the counter-statements made by Mr. Ward and Mr. Grissell were false; and under these circumstances they came unanimously to the
Opinion that Mr. "Ward was cognizant of and assisted Mr. Grissell in the matter of this offer, and was likewise guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House.1106 Under these circumstances, Sir, I do not feel that I am compelled, or that it would be at all consistent with the wishes of the House, that I should pretend to go over the ground which has been gone over so well by the Select Committee. I assume that, nothing new having been stated by Mr. Ward—nothing having been stated by him that was not before them in the examination that has been conducted by them—the House will be prepared to stand by the decision and the Report of their Committee. This being so, I consider that we have nothing before us but to consider what is the proper course to take with reference to an offence which we must consider to have been committed against the Privileges of this House. Of the magnitude of that offence I feel fully convinced I need say nothing. It is one of those matters upon which one only weakens the gravity by enlarging upon them. Therefore I will content myself by moving—That John Sandilands Ward, having been cognizant of, and having assisted Charles Edmund Grissell in, the matter of his offer to control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House.If the House should arrive at this conclusion, it will then be my duty to make a further Motion as to the manner in which Mr. Ward should be dealt with. I think that it would be the most convenient course that I should confine myself, in the first instance, to making a Motion declaring Mr. Ward to have been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House before proposing to the House any Resolution with regard to the course to be taken subsequently.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That John Sandilands Ward having been cognizant of, and having assisted Charles Edmund Grissell in, the matter of his offer to control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
§ MR. GOSCHENPerhaps, Sir, it would be for the convenience of the House if one of the Members of the Select Committee which has investigated this matter would state whether there is anything new in the statement which has been made at the Bar of the House by Mr. Ward. It would, I think, be satis- 1107 factory to this House to know that the point which Mr. Ward has raised has been previously considered by the Select Committee and dealt with by them.
§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLESir, the statement made by Mr. Ward at the Bar of the House turns upon exactly the same point as that which he made before the Select Committee—namely, this—whether in the original communication made by Mr. Ward to Mr. Hooker the word "control" was used by Mr. Ward, or the word "influence." According to the evidence, Mr. Grissell undertook to say that he could control the decision of the Committee, or that he could influence the decision of the Committee, and that for a consideration he was prepared to do so. When he gave an interpretation of that term—namely, the term "influence," the interpretation sought to be put upon it was, that by evidence, or by information, Mr. Grissell could influence the Committee's decision. Such an interpretation, however, was clearly contrary to the circumstances of the case, as they were detailed in the evidence taken before the Committee, and, strictly speaking, it was hardly possible that this could have been the meaning of the term. But whether the word "influence" or the word "control" was used, I conceive that such a charge as that was equally a charge against the Privileges of this House, and that it would equally, in either case, have affected the character and the conduct of the Committee. I am not prepared to say that the Committee would not have arrived at precisely the same conclusion as they have arrived at, supposing they had believed that the word "information" was used. [Cries of "Influence!"] I beg pardon; I am not prepared to say that their conclusion would have been otherwise as regards the Privileges of this House if they had believed that information was the term used as the means by which either control or influence was to be exercised over the minds of the Committee. But the circumstances of the case, according to the evidence of all the other witnesses, necessarily show that the word "control," and not "influence," was demonstrably made use of by Mr. Grissell, at all events, and, as I believe, by Mr. John Sandilands Ward also. With regard to the other matters which transpired before the Committee, I do not 1108 understand that any question is raised by Mr. Ward respecting those matters. I do not wish to press unduly against either Mr. Ward or Mr. Grissell; but this I must say—that the character of their evidence, their demeanour before the Committee, and the inconsistencies they ran into with reference to the substantial matter before the Committee were, to my mind, quite inexcusable. In what way the House will think it right to deal with the matter after the apology—it is not an apology—but after the submission Mr. Ward has made to the House, that is a question for the House to determine; but as to the single question now before the House whether a breach of the Privileges of the House has been committed, I have no doubt in my own mind, and I believe that the other Members of the Committee have also no doubt in their's, that such is the fact, as proved before them.
§ MR. W. E. FORSTERI think, Sir, that in this case also there really can be only one feeling in the House. What we have before us is this fact—that there was reason to believe that a very grave breach of our Privileges had been committed—one as to which it was impossible, with due regard to the character of the House and the dignity of the House, we could avoid investigating with the view of finding out whether the assertion made was well-founded or not. A Select Committee, having the full confidence of this House, has most carefully looked into the matter. They have come to the conclusion that the person who has appeared at the Bar of the House has been guilty of a breach of Privilege. You, Sir, have asked him to make his explanation, and it appears that the explanation he has made is precisely that which he brought before the Committee. We have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Select Committee (Mr. Spencer Walpole) that no fresh statement has been made by Mr. Ward, and we have also his declaration that the Committee unanimously came to the conclusion that the defence which has now been repeated before us, and which was made before them, was one to which they could pay no attention. It appears to me impossible that the House can take any other course than to assent to the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ MR. MITCHELL HENRYI should like, Sir, to address a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Select Committee in reference to the word "information," which he used just now. Did he mean "information" or "influence?"
§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLEI ought to have used the word "influence."
§ MR. H. B. SHERIDANI should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether the statement made by Mr. Ward before the Committee, that his conversation with Mr. Hooker lasted only 30 seconds, is borne out by the evidence, or not? The right hon. Gentleman said, in submitting his Motion just now, that Mr. Ward had been answered by the evidence of Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cockell. It strikes me that he may be wrong in that. I have not read the evidence—I have not read the whole of the evidence—but I have read some of it, and I elicit from what I have read, and what I have heard from the Members of the Select Committee, that it was only Mr. Hooker who impeached Mr. Ward, and that the interview was held between Mr. Hooker and Mr. Ward, and with no other person, in regard to this matter. Am I to understand that the right hon. Gentleman is right when he states that Mr. Ward's statement was answered both by Mr. Ward and Mr. Cockell? It appeared to me that Mr. Ward never saw Mr. Cockell; that the only interview he ever had with anybody in connection with the matter was that which he had with Mr. Hooker, and which he says lasted only 30 seconds. I wish to know if that be a correct interpretation of the time—that the interview lasted only 30 seconds in the corridor?
§ THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Sir HARDINGE GIFFARD)Perhaps the House will allow me to say a word on this subject. The hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan), who has spoken just now, was quite right in his statement of a matter of fact. According to the evidence taken by the Committee, the interview he speaks of lasted half-a-minute—I do not think Mr. Ward said "30 seconds." The expression is one of those colloquial phrases which one does not use with any notion of exactness—the interview lasted about half-a-minute. I think, however, it would be inaccurate to say that that was the only 1110 evidence before the Committee to justify the conclusion they have drawn; because Mr. Ward's evidence, the entries in Mr. Hooker's book, and a great variety of circumstances which it is not necessary to go into now, go to confirm, in a very great measure, the clear statement of Mr. Hooker, and that made by Mr. Cockell. There can be no doubt that the whole question before the Committee, as raised on Mr. Ward's behalf, was the same as he has raised at the Bar of the House to-day, and what I understood, and what the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Sheridan) desired to know, was that Mr. Ward made before the Committee exactly the same statement he has made to-day, that what he did was to say he had a client who could secure the decision of the Committee on the Private Bill. Mr. Hooker's evidence showed that there was an express statement that, for a consideration, Mr. Ward had a client who could influence or control the decision of the Committee. I think that that was what the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Spencer Walpole) intended to say—that Mr. Ward had said that he had a client who could influence or control the decision of the Committee. I quite concur with my right hon. Friend, that the use of the word "control" or "influence," when taken in connection with the rest of the sentence, would be comparatively immaterial. The broad proposition was that, for a corrupt consideration, Mr. Ward's client would be able to determine the decision of the Committee, and that the Committee would be influenced by such consideration. That was the proposition, and that is what we believe was established by the evidence.
§ MR. PEMBERTONI only desire, Sir, to say a few words. We have not only the evidence of Mr. Hooker as contradicting that of Mr. Ward, but there is other testimony on which the Committee felt bound to act. It is perfectly true that Mr. Hooker was the only person with whom Mr. Ward had any communication on the subject; that is quite true, but that was by no means the only circumstance or evidence which influenced the Committee in coming to the decision they did. In the first place, Mr. Ward stated, that he made no note of the conversation at the time. Mr. Hooker, on the other hand, made a very full note, and that, immediately after 1111 the conversation, he communicated the purport of it to Mr. Cockell. Mr. Cockell communicated that statement to Mr. Littler, one of the counsel engaged for one of the parties concerned in the Bill, and it is a very remarkable fact that both the statements of Mr. Cockell and Mr. Littler entirely confirm the use of the word Mr. Hooker asserts that Mr. Ward employed—that is to say, that he had a client who could control the decision of the Committee. And not only this, but a reference to Mr. Ward's books, certainly, in the opinion of every Member of the Committee, entirely confirmed the statement made by Mr. Hooker, and they are entirely inconsistent with the statement of Mr. Ward, that the communication was a mere harmless communication in reference to someone who could get additionl evidence. I believe the opinion of the Committee to have been that the statement that the communication was an offer of additional information on the merits of the Bill was entirely an afterthought, and I do not believe that any Member of the Committee, or any Member of this House, who has read the evidence, would have come to any other conclusion than that to which the Committee have come.
§ MR. GRAYAs a Member of the Committee, and as one thoroughly realizing the gravity of the decision which the Committee came to, I feel bound to say that I certainly could not have concurred heartily with that decision were the case against Mr. Ward based solely on the evidence of Mr. Hooker. We had the conflicting testimony of these two gentlemen, and we had to judge to which of them was due credibility. We weighed the entire evidence which came before us, and we found that Mr. Ward contradicted himself, that he omitted to state material facts, and that his evidence really was discreditable judged on its own merits. On the other hand, we found that the evidence given by Mr. Hooker and Mr. Cockell was thoroughly consistent, and borne out by all the circumstances of the case; that the entries in the books of Mr. Ward rather tended to show that he had a knowledge of the affair than otherwise, and it was after weighing the evidence upon its merits that we arrived at our conclusion. Although we did not arrive at it without 1112 great pain, I do not think any hon. Member who has read the evidence through will think that we could consistently with our duty have come to any other decision.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Resolved, Nemine Contradicente, That John Sandilands Ward having been cognizant of, and having assisted Charles Edmund Grissell in, the matter of his offer to control the decision of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, was guilty of a breach of the Privileges of this House.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERMr. Speaker, the House having now arrived unanimously at the conclusion that Mr. Ward has been guilty of a breach of the Privileges of the House, it becomes our duty to consider what course the House should pursue with regard to this gentleman. There are two courses which might be taken; either to commit him to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or to reprimand him for his conduct. I think, having reference to the character of the offence, it is one which could not be treated by a simple reprimand. The proceedings to which Mr. Ward has been a party were of a character different altogether from that class of breaches of Privilege with which we sometimes have to deal. I allude, of course, to those cases in which language of an imprudent, or of an offensive character has been used; language which is apologized for and submitted to the mercy of the House. In this case, a step has been taken which might, if it were passed over, and if it were treated as of comparatively little importance, be allowed to imply that the House was not jealous of that which is the most important of its characteristics—I mean the unquestionable honour of the House. The proceedings of Mr. Grissell are obviously, on the face of them, absurd, and that is the only kind of defence that could be made for them, or the only extenuation that could be pleaded. But this is a case in which it is not sufficient to say that the offence is one of an absurd character; it is one which, if we do not treat it in such a way as to mark our sense of its gravity, might lead to misconception as to the determination of the House. Therefore, Sir, I shall move—
That John Sandilands Ward be, for his said offence, committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly.
§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That John Sandilands Ward be, for his said offence, committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)
MR. C. BECKETT-DENISONBefore the Resolution is put, Sir, I wish to say one word. It is this—that there will be no difference of opinion whatever as regards the Motion which has just been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. That we shall be unanimous on the point is perfectly certain. But there is this other consideration—thatthe grave offender in this matter is Mr. Grissell, who has retired from without the jurisdiction of this House, and, for anything we know to the contrary, he may remain in contumacy for any length of time. Then comes the question, if he should adopt that course, and if he should defy your Warrant, what will be the result? The result, I imagine, will be, that the force of the Warrant will be spent the moment that Parliament prorogues; it can be renewed in the next Session, and again the man may remain in contumacy, defying the House, and receiving no punishment whatsoever. If that be the case—and I am quite ready to be told I am wrong in the assumption—if that be the case, then comes this question for the House, is the lesser offender to receive the punishment which you cannot inflict upon the greater offender?
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENI wish to make one remark, Sir, upon the observations of my hon. Friend opposite (Mr. C. Beckett-Denison), which is this—that his observations appear very inapplicable to the question immediately before us. If I understand him rightly he has doubts about punishing the lesser, because we cannot at present catch the greater, offender. It seems to me that if you are to lay down the law that you cannot punish the receiver unless you catch the thief, the object of justice would seldom be met.
§ SIR GEORGE BOWYERTwo persons have offended gravely against the Privileges of this House. One has withdrawn from the jurisdiction of this House and the other is now in custody; or, at any rate, is in attendance upon the pleasure of the House. The fact that one of these offenders has withdrawn from our jurisdiction does not in any 1114 way affect our decision. The House of Lords can commit for a certain term, but the House of Commons cannot; we can, however, deal with the matter when we re-assemble next Session.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Ordered, That John Sandilands Ward be, for his said offence, committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending this House; and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrants accordingly.