§ The Earl of Durham, in pursuance of the notice which he had given, rose to propose, that their Lordships should adopt some peremptory means of enforcing the attendance of certain persons whose evidence was material to the inquiry under the Warwick Borough Bill now pending before that House. He knew of no precedent to warrant the course he meant to pursue, but the case of Sir William Manners, which appeared in the Journals of the other House of Parliament. In that, case which occurred in 1820, a Resolution was agreed to, stating that the witness had absconded, and then followed the Motion for an Address to the Crown to issue a Proclamation offering a reward for his apprehension, and this precedent he 1360 meant to follow on the present occasion. The noble Earl accordingly moved a resolution to the effect, "That it appeared to their Lordships, that Richard Lapworth, William Oram, and Samuel Dingley, had absconded, in order to evade giving evidence on this inquiry."
§ Lord Wynforddid not rise to oppose the Motion of the noble Earl; on the contrary, he was as desirous as any one that the ends of justice should not be frustrated. He wished that every one who could throw a light upon the question should be examined, but he must at the same time suggest to the noble Earl, that the precedent he had chosen was anything but a judicious one.
The Lord Chancellorentirely agreed with his noble and learned friend, that the precedent was not a good one. Their Lordships were not bound by that precedent; and although he felt the utmost deference for the House of Commons, he still thought their Lordships would be acting wrong if they allowed themselves to be governed by any such precedent as that referred to by his noble friend. He must say, that he could not approve of the course which his noble friend had taken. He had no objection that they should agree to an Address to his Majesty with a view to a reward being offered for the discovery and apprehension of the persons whom his noble friend desired to produce as witnesses; but he certainly had an objection to this prefatory—this, he would say, condemnatory—Resolution, which might turn out to be unfounded, for, non constat, those persons might be able to satisfy that House, that they had not absconded for the purpose of avoiding their Lordships' summons to give evidence on this inquiry. Instead, therefore, of following this precedent he thought it would be much better to so far deviate from it as to pass over the condemnatory resolution altogether; and what he proposed was, that they should examine Mr. Butt, their Lordships' messenger, as to whether the parties alluded to were in attendance, and, if not, then the motion for an Address to the Crown for offering a reward for their apprehension might be proposed; but in no case should such a step be taken until the parties had been called in the usual way by an officer of that House.
§ Lord Wynfordagreed, that they ought to be called in the first instance, and, if they did not answer, then the Address proposed by the noble Earl might be agreed to.
§ The Earl of Durhamwas quite ready to pursue the course which his noble and learned friend (the Lord Chancellor) had suggested. The noble Lord then moved, that their Lordships' messenger, Mr. Butt, be called to the Bar.
§ Mr. Butt having presented himself at the Bar,
The Lord Chancellorasked him if he had been to the residence of Richard Lapworth and the other parties, for the purpose of summoning them to attend to give evidence in that House?
§ Mr. Butt replied that he had. He had left the summonses at their respective houses, but he had not seen either of the parties themselves.
§ Mr. Butt replied in the negative.
§ Mr. Butt returned for the purpose, and on his return said, that he had executed their Lordships' order, but that Mr. Lapworth had not answered.
§ The Earl of Durham then moved—"That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would be graciously pleased to order a Proclamation to be issued offering such reward as he should think fit for the discovery, apprehension, and detention of Richard Lapworth, in order that he might be produced to give evidence on this inquiry in that House."
§ Motion agreed to.
§ Mr. Butt was then directed to call the same manner William Oram and Samuel Dingley. He did so, and having stated that they did not answer,
§ The Earl of Durham moved a similar Address with respect to each of them, which was also agreed to.