Sitting of 7 March 1828

SUSPENSION OF A JUDGE IN INDIA.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that seeing an hon. member connected with the Board of Control in his place, he wished to call his attention to the reported removal or suspension of a judge in India. The alleged offence of the learned person said to have been thus disposed of was, that in the course of delivering a legal opinion, he had mentioned something, as if he contemplated the probability of the time arriving when the East India Company's charter might not be renewed. Now, he thought there could be no doubt that any man was justified in stating, without meaning to question the supremacy of the East India Company, that by law their charter expired at a certain time. Indeed, if any man should take upon himself to state that the charter would be renewed as a matter of course, that would be illegal; it would be doing what the Crown and the Parliament could not do. Mr. Justice Blackstone had laid it down to be one of the few things which the Crown or Legislature could not do, to bind themselves down as to what they would do at a future time; yet here was a judge, because he had chosen in argument, to contemplate the possibility of that which he (Mr. Brougham) earnestly wished might prove the fact; namely, that the Company's charter would not be renewed, at least not without great curtailment of their monopoly, and a corresponding extension of the rights of the subject, instantly suspended from his judicial functions, If the statement, the
1056
substance of which he had given to the House, and which had appeared in the public prints was true, it was impossible, he thought, that the House should not take up the matter. He hoped, however, that his mind would be relieved from the impression made by the statement, by hearing that it had no foundation in truth.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, it was impossible for him to declare that the statement in question had no foundation whatever. He could only say, that no intelligence of the suspension of Mr. Courtenay Smith had reached the Board of Control. He would, however candidly state, that information had been received of an explanation having been called for from Mr. Smith of the expression alluded to. Further than that, he knew nothing on the subject.
Mr. Broughamwished to know by whom that explanation had been called for? In this country a judge could not be called to give an explanation of what he had said, except to the Court of Appeal. It was perfectly well known that any person connected with Government in this country who shall presume to call upon a judge for an explanation of what he had said, might be impeached and removed from office, besides suffering other penalties.
Mr. Courtenaysaid, that the explanation had been called for by the vice-president of the Council.

PUBLIC CHARITIES.
Mr. Secretary Peelobserved, that on a former evening an hon. member had put a question to him with the view of eliciting some information respecting the labours of the commission appointed to inquire into the abuses of charities, and at the same time the hon. member expressed an opinion, that the reports made by the commissioners were inoperative, and, as it were, a dead letter. At the time the question was proposed, he had stated his impression, that in every instance in which the commissioners thought it desirable that the attention of the Court of Chancery should be called to any charge of abuse, the Attorney-General had directions to attend immediately to their wishes. Upon inquiry he had found that such in fact was the arrangement. In order to prevent unnecessary correspondence, it had been arranged between the Secretary of State and the commissioners, that the latter should have the power of making direct application to the Attorney-General; who in his turn was authorized

1057
to institute proceedings immediately. In 1824, he had moved for a return of the number of counties to which the commissioners had extended their labours, and the number of causes which had been instituted by the Attorney-general in connexion therewith. He thought the best course he could pursue was, to move for a return of a similar nature respecting the period which had intervened from 1824 to the present time. An hon. member had on a former evening objected to the expensive nature of the Reports which had proceeded from the commission; but he should have recollected that the commissioners were obliged to go into great detail; it being the object for which they were appointed to produce a permanent record of the funds of each charity, in order that it might be seen that they were fairly applied. He was of opinion that extensive benefit had resulted from the labours of the commissioners and the Attorney-general. The right hon. gentleman concluded with moving for a return of the nature he had stated.
Mr. Broughamseconded the motion. There certainly was, he said, in many commissions, a great tendency to slumber in their proceedings; although appointed for temporary purposes, they enjoyed a good revenue, and did little work, just enough to serve as a pretence for continuing their appointment. That observation, however, did not apply to the commission in question. He concurred in what had fallen from the right hon. gentleman respecting the reports of the commission. What parliament wanted was a registration of the rights of the poor, a distinct declaration of the objects of the various charities in the kingdom, in order that every person who had a right under the endowments, might at once be able to claim it. The cheapest mode of registration was by means of the press. Many hundreds of copies of the commissioners' reports had been spread over the country; and in various places, portions of those reports had been reprinted, to make all mankind acquainted with the contents. He considered the reprinting of parts of the reports a very judicious proceeding, and was desirous that some plan should be devised for doing it more frequently. Of this he was satisfied, that the labours of the commission had caused the correction of many abuses which had arisen in charities; frequently, he would admit, from ignorance, but very often
1058
from unworthy causes. When, in travelling over different parts of the country, he saw houses rising connected with charitable estates, which bore the date, not of 1720, but the more recent one of 1821, he could not avoid guessing that their erection was not unnaturally connected with the inquiries of the commissioners. He bore no responsibility on his shoulders with respect to the appointment of commissioners. Some of the appointments were, he thought, very injudicious, but altogether, in the performance of their duties, they had fully answered his expectations: nay, they had exceeded them. He trusted he should have no more objections to the voluminous reports of the commissioners, because he considered it absolutely necessary that they should include statements of great detail. Those reports contained much curious and interesting information for the historian and antiquary. This species of information was frequently selected for the use of the public at large, and published in a detached form.
The motion was agreed to.

CATHOLIC CLAIMS.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he held in his hands a petition which he trusted would receive the serious attention it deserved from the House, as well from the importance of the body from which it came, as the matter it contained. It was a petition from the general body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and had attached to it the names of the leading advocates, as well Peers as Commoners, of that body. They prayed the House to erase from the Statute-book a law, which was alike discreditable to Catholics and Protestants, as it made it imperative upon the former to state, and the latter to sanction the statement, that the Roman Catholic religion was damnable and idolatrous; thus denouncing a great, portion of the empire. The petitioners further stated that such a declaration was unchristian and illiberal, pointing out as outcasts a great portion of the people of Ireland. They prayed the repeal of all tests, oaths, and obligations, which operated in producing the disabilities under which they at present laboured with respect to seats in the Councils of the empire. It was unnecessary for him to add, that he entirely concurred in the prayer of the petition. He hoped the very respectable body who had intrusted their petition to his care would not consider him guilty of the slightest want of zeal in

1059
their cause, if he declined entering into the merits of their case at present. He declined doing so, because he thought that the two questions as to ineligibility to parliament, and disqualifications for certain public offices, could not be separated; or, if they could, it must be to the disadvantage of both.
Ordered to lie on the table.

LICENSING SYSTEM.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he held in his hand a petition from a person named John Yule, late the keeper of a respectable inn in Halifax. The petitioner complained of the conduct of certain magistrates. He gave the names of those magistrates, but be (Mr. B.) would forbear mentioning them; if, however, the case which the petitioner stated was true, then he thought it the hardest that had ever come within his knowledge, and at the same time strongly illustrative of the caprice with which licences were granted or withheld. The petitioner stated that, in May, last year, he took a lease of a respectable inn, in Halifax, at a yearly rent of 85 l, and that he made a deposit of a considerable sum of money in advance; that last Easter he appeared before five licensing magistrates, three of whom were opposed to a renewal of his licence. When called in he was told that his licence was lost: he aked why? and the answer he received was, that the magistrates never gave reasons. He challenged inquiry; he called for the testimony of any person who could shew any irregularity on his part; he stated that his house had never been open after ten o'clock at night, save on a fair, or a market day; that on Sundays his house was never open during church-time, and frequently it was kept closed during the whole of Sunday. But all would not do; the magistrates said they had made up their minds, and would give no reasons on the subject. One magistrate who was standing by felt indignant at such conduct, and said that the proceeding was illegal, and then used a stronger term to the same effect. The magistrates, however, carried it their own way, and in the end the petitioner was left a ruined man; his capital was expended in the repairs of the house, the expense of the lease, and other necessary outlays; that lease was still on his hands at an enormous rent—the house being no longer that of a licensed victualler. The petitioner was a married roan, with a family; he had
1060
two aged parents to support; in addition, his sister, who had assisted him in his business, was a widow, and with her six children, entirely dependent upon him. The petitioner laid his case before two respectable barristers, friends of his, who go the Northern circuit. His two learned friends, without assigning their reasons, told the petitioner, that he had no legal remedy, and therefore it was that he had applied to that House.—[Mr. M. A. Taylor was here observed speaking to Mr. Peel, and Mr. Brougham paused for a moment]. He then said, he was willing to wait until his hon. friend, the member for Durham, had got his answer, and he would then go on. He was extremely sorry to interrupt private conversations, but he must proceed. The petitioner threw himself on the mercy of the House, and prayed an investigation into his case. If the statements in the petition were true, it was the hardest case he had ever met with.
Mr. M. A. Taylorput it to the House, and to the hon. and learned gentleman himself, whether he was justified in calling him to order for holding a conversation with the Secretary of State. Did the hon. and learned gentleman wish him to call at the right hon. Secretary's office, when he could ask a question of him in the House with so little inconvenience?
Mr. Broughamexpressed his surprise at the use of those distant expressions, which were not very seemly between such old and intimate friends; but his hon. friend, if he would permit him to call him so, must be aware that it could not be pleasant for him to be kept on his legs longer than he intended. It was not for himself that he felt, but for the House, which he was detaining. He knew not how much longer his hon. friend's conversation might have lasted if he had not, by his expostulation, called down the vials of his wrath. Besides the hon. member for Derry was just beginning another conversation that might have lasted as long again.
Mr. M. A. Taylorsaid, he could not help retaining the impression that the remonstrance was most unnecessary and uncalled-for.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he was glad to find that he was himself singular in the opinion that it was necessary.
Ordered to lie on the table.

EAST RETFORD DISFRANGHISEMENT BILL
Mr. Lumley Mr. Lumley moved, "That Jo-

1061
nathan Fox, now a prisoner in Newgate, be brought to the bar of the House, in order to his being discharged."
Mr. Alderman Waithmanthought the House was bound to protect its rights and privileges. Those privileges, like all their other rights, they were bound to exercise for the public good. He believed that, if this individual had not been committed, not a word of truth would have been got out of the other witnesses. It was idle to talk of their ignorance. Those low Yorkshiremen were possessed of as much cunning as any hon. member in that House-But, if they were to bring' this man up to be discharged, surely they would take care that it should not be without a reprimand.
Mr. Stewartsupported the motion for the discharge of Fox.
Sir C. Burrellalso thought the motion ought to be agreed to.
Mr. Baringsaid, that, if ever there had been a case for the interference of the House, it was that of the individual in question, whose conduct had been such as; to render it absolutely necessary to commit him. In his opinion, there would be no harm in allowing Fox to remain in Newgate until the termination of the inquiry relative to East Retford. However, if the I House thought differently, he was content that the individual should be called to the bar, and discharged, after receiving a proper reprimand.
Mr. Secretary Peelthought the resolution of the House the other night was quite necessary, because the object of the witness seemed to have been the wilful concealment of the truth; and when the House had once shewn a determination to punish an individual who had so offended, they could not so trifle with their proceedings as to extend almost as a matter of course their lenity to him, merely because he came the next day and petitioned for their indulgence. He therefore wished this motion had been postponed; but as it had been made, and the petition was a proper one, he would give his consent to its prayer, amending it only by adding the condition, that the individual be brought up on Monday instead of that night, and that he should then receive a reprimand from the Speaker. He trusted that, if the worthy alderman had any prejudices against Yorkshiremen, he would not display them on the present occasion. The witnesses who were to be examined that night came from the town of East Retford,
1062
and with all deference to the topographical knowledge of the worthy alderman, he begged to inform him that East Retford was not in Yorkshire but in Nottinghamshire [a laugh.]
Mr. N. Calvertdid not object to the motion as amended, but should like to put the same witness again under examination, to see what effect his punishment had had on him.
Mr. W. Smiththought the punishment too slight, considering the grave nature of the offence.
Mr. Cromptonstated, as an apology for the witness, that he was in ill health when he was called to the bar.
Mr. Tennysonobjected to the re-examination of Fox, lest it might be said that his evidence had been obtained by the application of a sort of torture.
The Motion as amended was agreed to. After which, the House went into a committee on the bill, Mr. R. Gordon in the chair.
Mr. E. C. Brownwas called in, and Mr. Tennyson proceeded to interrogate him. In your examination of the 4th of March, you stated that you knew in some of these elections, there were above forty electors at East Retford who would not take money. I will now put into your hands the lists of the burgesses for 1818, 1820, and 1826. Will you mark off, in any of those lists, the forty names you have alluded to.
The witness retired with the lists, when
Mr. Wynnsuggested, that as the witness had in his former examination, merely given his opinion, they had better not dwell on an answer so given, but go into the evidence of the particular fact sought to be established.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, he wanted to shew how far the fact would, or would not, justify the witness's opinion of there being forty who would not take bribes. If the names were marked, then the opinion could at once be brought to the test.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, that the witness was not called upon to give an opinion against the guilty, but in favour of the innocent.
Mr. Wynnsaid, that still they must have positive instead of secondary evidence; of what use, then, was the delivery of a mere opinion.
Sir J. Wrottesleysaid, that even with the supposition that forty refused to take bribes, it did not follow, from a mere

1063
opinion, that all the other electors were guilty.
Mr. Stewartsaid, that if it were competent for one witness to mark off forty names as innocent, it would be equally competent for another to mark off as many more who were in his opinion guilty—a course both irregular and inconvenient.
Mr. Fergussonargued, that as it stood on the minutes that forty voters would not receive bribes, it was fit to ascertain who those forty were, and whether they deserved the character for purity which had been given them.
Mr. Batleyreminded the committee, that the witness had said, that sir H. Wilson was determined not to give a single penny, but to stand on his hostility to the Catholic claims.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanwas in favour of pursuing the inquiry. The witness's declaration in favour of the forty burgesses was only matter of opinion, the value of which might be judged of by the various means in the power of the committee.
Sir E. Knatchbullremarked, that the committee could not act upon the mere opinion of the witness after it had been given.
Mr. Calcraftcontended, that the opinion of the witness could not influence the vote of a single member, nor add at all to the weight of the testimony the hon. gentleman was scraping together to disfranchise the borough of East Retford. The assertion of the witness was, that there were forty burgesses who would not take bribes, and he was told to go out and mark them in the list, without being able to say from his; own knowledge whether such and such a man had taken a bribe. To take such evidence was only to incumber the minutes, and indulge curiosity without furthering the ends of justice.
The witness was recalled. He stated, that he had marked seventy names in the list of 1826, of persons who would not have received a bribe. He spoke from his own knowledge, because, when he told sir H. Wilson's voters that he would give them no money, they replied, that they would support him notwithstanding, on the ground of the Catholic claims. He had not said in terms, that sir H. Wilson would give them no money, but that he would do what was right and just, and no more. By the words "right and just," he meant that no money would be given to them.
1064
The number of voters who would not take bribes had been increased by him from forty to seventy, as nearly all who had been sworn in since 1820, were in favour of sir H. Wilson. When he told sir H. Wilson's voters that he would only do what was right and just, they knew that he meant that they would obtain no money. He had not used more direct terms, because he had been told not. They replied, that they would support him nevertheless, and hence he concluded, that they would not have taken bribes. If a candidate told the electors that he would do what was just and right, witness did not believe they would understand that those words meant that he would make the customary payment of election money. Witness had told the electors so, on the part of sir H. Wilson; but he believed the electors understood him to mean that sir H. Wilson would vote against Catholic emancipation. Many of them had promised to give their votes to sir H. Wilson if he would pledge himself to vote against the Catholic question. Twenty-three of the electors who voted for sir H. Wilson at that election, received no election money. None of them had complained of not being paid what they were promised. What witness said to the electors was, that sir H. Wilson would do what was just and right, and no more. There are 219 voters for East Retford, of whom seventy, witness believed, had not taken the election money. He did not know whether the practice of paying this money was usual. He did not believe that if the Catholic question had not produced so much excitement among the electors, so many of them would have declined to take the money. Sir H. Wilson was the popular candidate with the resident electors. There were 104 residing in the town. Sir H. Wilson polled twenty-nine votes. There were forty-two electors to poll when the election closed, of whom twenty-nine were for him. The general answer witness had when the votes were refused was, that they were already promised. Fifty-one electors had been admitted since 1820. The witness was asked, why he had omitted in the former part of his evidence to add the words "and no more," in the statement of what he had said to the electors on behalf of sir H. Wilson? His reply was, that he had always made use of the additional words. The short-hand writer read the evidence, which was contrary to the witness's state-

1065
ment. The explanation he gave was, that he had seen the words in the public papers, and thought he had used them. Being pressed to answer the question, whether, if a candidate or his agent was to say he would do what was just and right, the electors would not understand him to mean that he would give the election money? witness said, he believed the majority of the voters would understand that the candidate meant the election money. If sir H. Wilson had entertained the suggestion of giving the election money, what proportion of the electors would you have told him would have received it? I should have said three-fourths. From the conversations witness had with sir H. Wilson, he believed that that gentleman never did intend to give a single shilling.
Mr. Richard Hannamwas re-called to prove, that Leadbeater was one of those he had seen paid in 1812, at the Angel-inn. Witness was cross-examined by Mr. Denman, to ascertain whether he had not been accused of keeping some money intrusted to him? He answered very positively in the negative. At the Angel-inn Pickup had the money and paid it. Witness never touched a farthing of it: one man who had not attended there, was under the mistake that witness had his money, but such was not the fact: no money was intrusted to him to be distributed; it was not true that the electors had objected to his being employed as an election agent, because they alleged he had withheld any money from them. He had only paid one man himself, and that had been within a few days afterwards. He believed that the payments for the election of 1812, were all completed in 1814. It was well known that he was the agent of Mr. Osbaldeston in 1812, and he had pointed out to Mr. Pickup who were likely to be the friends of Mr. Osbaldeston. There was not a farthing deposited with the witness for the purpose of making payments. He had been clerk to the magistrates of the district for twelve or fourteen years. Mr. Clark was the partner of Mr. Vaughan, and the former had been connected with a celebrated will-cause that had been tried some years ago. Buxton was not paid because he was so intolerably drunk, otherwise he could have had his money, if he had come down for it. The witness had signed a paper that had been brought to his office for the purpose of obtaining the removal or extension
1066
of the enfranchisement of the borough; Ire had signed it because he thought it right; and he did not believe that there was a man in the town who did not think so. He had not discovered any of the secrets of his employer, nor would he do so. He had never given information about Mr. Osbaldeston's election till he had been summoned by the House, and he certainly would not have come if he could have helped it. Mr. Gregson had come down on the subject, and had written him a note: until he received it he knew nothing of him. In consequence of that note he went over to him at Barney Moor, and told him who had been paid. This took place before the matter had been brought before the House, for the first time, in the shape of a petition. All that he had disclosed to Mr. Gregson was, that the freemen had been paid as usual. He had not been offered any advantages for those disclosures, nor did he know for what he had been sent down. Ever since the election of 1812, it had been notorious that many of the freemen were corrupt: and he did not believe that any of the candidates had refrained from giving them money, with the exception of one, and he did not expect that he would ever stand again.
By Mr. Crompton.—Have you ever received any penalties that have been levied under the game laws? I have.—Did you put those penalties into your own pocket? No; I have paid them over to the clergyman of the parish, and to the proper authorities.—The borough of East Retford was situated in the hundred of Bassetlaw. If the right of election was extended over the whole hundred, there would be seventy-four townships, or parishes included in it. There were many noblemen and gentlemen in the hundred who would have influence, owing to their estates. If the number of voters should be 1,200, there would be a great number of them under the political influence of the Duke of Newcastle.
By Mr. Davenport.—If you were told a person had said to the freemen that he would do what was right and just, what should you understand by it? That he would pay them the forty guineas.
The witness was ordered to withdraw.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, it now became his duty to introduce a question of considerable delicacy, on which he wished to have the advice and assistance of the com-

1067
mittee. It had been stated in evidence by I Jonathan Fox, that in 1818 or 1819, he had received the sum of 2,800 l. from a gentleman who was at that time a candidate for East Retford, and had at present a seat in the House. That money was to be distributed amongst the voters; and it appeared that Fox entered an account of its expenditure in a book; which official voucher he had subsequently given up to the gentleman by whom the money had been advanced. Now, it would not only be important, as forming part of a regular chain of evidence, to call that gentleman, and to examine him, for the purpose of ascertaining whether that voucher was still in existence; but it was still more important to take that step, for the purpose of removing any unfavourable impression with respect to their proceedings, that might be entertained by the public, who were anxiously watching these proceedings. Because, when it was seen that they had examined, with a great deal of just severity, persons in a subordinate station of life, whose poverty had tempted them to offend against the law, it became a matter of manifest importance, that an individual of rank, even though he were a member of that House, should not be passed over in silence. They were bound, in the discharge of their duty, to place that gentleman at the bar, in order that they might have the benefit of his examination. It ought, at least, to be made known to the world, that if persons whose poverty exposed them to temptation were brought before the House, they would not overlook individuals who were equally, if not more criminal, since they supplied the means by which honest indigence was tempted. Under ordinary circumstances, he might feel a good deal of delicacy in advising such a course; but any feeling of delicacy which he might entertain on the subject, was entirely obliterated, by the part which the hon. gentleman to whom he alluded had taken on this occasion. The evidence given before the committee, and the matter contained in the report, proved what is the conduct of the hon. member had been in these election transactions. As this was the case, it was to have been expected that the hon. member would have sought in silence, some consolation for the course he had pursued. When, therefore, he coupled this circumstance with the expectation which the community had a right
1068
to entertain, that they would administer even-handed justice between the poor and the rich, or if any difference were made, that it should consist in more severely scrutinizing the conduct of persons moving in a higher sphere than they would the actions of individuals who were not possessed of rank or fortune, he deemed it a duty incumbent upon him to move that the hon. gentleman to whom he alluded, should be examined at the bar. This was nothing more than an act of justice towards that hon. gentleman, who would thus have an opportunity of clearing himself from the imputations which had been cast upon him by the witness Fox. The hon. gentleman then moved, "that Samuel Crompton, Esq., formerly member for East Retford, and now a member of this House, be called to the bar of this House, to give evidence touching the East Retford election."
The Chairman.—The question for the committee to consider is, whether, if the hon. gentleman be called to the bar, he will feel disposed to answer any questions that may be put to him, and if not, what power the committee possesses to enforce answers? The case of calling a member of the House to the bar is not, I believe, a very common one: but instances have occurred where members who were called upon to be examined before the House of peers have refused to answer certain questions. My impression is, that the hon. gentleman may also refuse to answer.
Mr. Wynnsaid, it was in the power of the committee to demand answers to such questions as might be put to a member.
Mr. Cromptonsaid, he did not mean to say any thing at all on this question. He did not think it was necessary. He felt ashamed of nothing that he had done. As to what the hon. member for Colchester had said about his conduct, he would make no observation on it. He had been elected for this borough in 1812 and 1818; and, if that House determined to call on him for information, he hoped it would be found that he never had swerved from the right line of duty. But this he would say, that he never would come forward at the mere wish of the hon. member for Colchester, to enter into any explanation. It must be a better man than the hon. member for Colchester who would bring him to disclose his private affairs. [Cries of order.] He would not be examined by that hon. member.
Mr. D. W. Harveyrose to order. The hon. member for Derby had chosen to state, that while he was willing to be examined by other persons, he would not allow himself to be examined by the hon. member for Colchester.
Mr. Crompton.—" I won't—I won't."
Mr. D. W. Harvey.—I say this, that if the committee come to the resolution to examine the hon. member for Derby, or if any other hon. member shall be examined, I, as member for Colchester, will interrogate that man, and it will not be in the hon. gentleman's power to prevent me.
Mr. Wynnsaid, the hon. member would certainly have a right to examine any witness at the bar.
Mr. Calcraftsaid, that his hon. friend (Mr. Crompton) evidently spoke under the impulse of very strong feeling. He should therefore recommend to the committee, that, in the state of excitation under which his hon. friend laboured at that moment, the question should be adjourned, and his hon. friend's examination taken at a future day.
Mr. Cromptonsaid, he never would dispute the power of the House; but he would say, that he never would be examined at their bar until it was made an order of the committee. He would not, at the nod or beck of any individual, come forward to disclose his private affairs. He was perfectly ready to bow to the decision of the House. They were deliberating upon a very important question, on which they were justified in procuring all the information they could; but he would not be bullied into any thing by any individual; and to that individual he would say, "When you are ready to lay open all the transactions of your life, and let the public judge of them, am I ready to do the same" [cries of "hear," and "order."]
The Chairmansaid, he must again suggest to the committee, that no member could be examined contrary to his inclination.
Mr. Wynnsaid, he had never before heard that any member of that House possessed within it, a privilege which exempted him from such examination, if it were the pleasure of the House to require that he should undergo it. The case was very different in respect of applications of this sort proceeding from the other House; for nothing was more reasonable than that one branch of the legis-
1070
lature should extend its protection over one of its own members, in reference to any jurisdiction exercised by the other. That was a privilege (the party being examined only upon his personal consent) which was essential to the relative independence of the two Houses of parliament. But assuredly the House of Commons was competent to put one of its own members upon his examination.
Mr. D. W. Harveysaid, the hon. member for Derby had misunderstood him if he had supposed him to say that he would exercise any personal interference. He had spoken merely as a member of the House. But in answer to what had fallen from the hon. member for Derby respecting the transactions of his life, he would tell that hon. member, that if he chose to move for an inquiry into all the transactions in which he (Mr. Harvey) had been engaged, from his cradle until the present moment, he should be ready and willing to go into the inquiry.
Sir R. Wilsonsaid, there was an evident misunderstanding on the part of the hon. member for Derby, in supposing that the hon. member for Colchester had attempted to exercise any improper jurisdiction. But a question had arisen, as to whether the House had the power of examining one of its own members against that member's inclination. It appeared to be the opinion of some, that a member, if he pleased, could protect himself under his privilege. Now the best way of settling this question, would be to move, "that the hon. member for Derby be examined in his place."
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he was sorry that the hon. gentleman who had proposed that Mr. Crompton should be examined, should have prefaced his motion by the observations which he had made. It was true that that hon. gentleman had not said that he would exercise any [improper jurisdiction; but then it would have been better if he had abstained altogether from making any reference to the share which Mr. Crompton had taken in this investigation. An observation which the hon. gentleman had made, appeared to him to justify the warmth which it had excited in the hon. member for Derby, he meant the observation that whatever delicacy he (Mr. D. W. Harvey) might have felt in moving, "that the hon. member for Derby should be examined," was removed by the part which that hon.

1071
member had taken in the investigation. It was not his wish to throw any difficulty in the way of the hon. member for Derby being examined, if the House wished that he should be examined; but he really thought it would be better to postpone that examination, when it was considered that the hon. member was under a degree of excitement, from which he ought to be entirely free, when undergoing any examination, but more especially the examination of the hon. member who had occasioned the excitement.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanconcurred in the propriety of postponing the motion until it could be considered with better temper.
Mr. D. W. Harveyassured the hon. member for Derby, that he did not mean any thing disrespectful when he proposed his examination. He thought that if that hon. member had been silent, it would have been more delicate; but as that hon. member had taken part in the discussion, he thought it as well to examine him. He had stated to several hon. members, before the occurrence of this evening, that it was his opinion that both Mr. Evans and Mr. Crompton ought to be called to the bar of the House.
Mr. Cromptonsaid, he conceived the hon. member to have censured him for taking a part in the examination.
Mr. Tennysonsaid, that in his opinion, there had been evidence enough given on the subject last session. Under these circumstances he had no intention to call on the hon. member for Derby. He had other witnesses whom he could call if the House pleased, but he considered his case to be fully established, and was ready to close it at any time. It was no longer his case, but that of the committee.
The motion was withdrawn, and William Leadbeater was then called. Alderman Waithman desired the evidence which this witness had given on a preceding occasion, in which he denied having received any money, to be read. The evidence was read, and the witness examined by alderman Waithman.—He recollected having given that evidence, meant to abide by it; persisted in it. Had said that he never received money in the presence of Mr. Hannam, and would now abide by that. Mr. Alderman Waithman desired Hannam's evidence to be read, in which he stated that Leadbeater had been paid in his presence. The evidence was read accordingly
Mr. Alderman Waithman.—What have you to say to that evidence?—Witness.—I positively deny it. I still persist in the evidence I gave. I am innocent of it; Hannam was then called in and identified Leadbeater.
Mr. Alderman Waithmanthen moved, that it was the opinion of the committee that Leadbeater having been guilty of gross and wilful falsehood, be committed to Newgate.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that although he had no difficulty in inflicting the other evening that punishment upon a man who had, in an examination before the House, committed wilful perjury, yet felt some doubts as to the propriety of pursuing the same course in a case where a witness was merely contradicted by the testimony of others, and that testimony not confirmed by any other incontestible evidence.
Mr. Benettsaid, they could not have stronger testimony against any man, and thought it necessary to the dignity of the House that he should be committed.
Mr. Twisssaid, the witness might not be speaking the truth, but the House had not heard the evidence which might be produced on his part to disprove what was said by his accusers.
Mr. Benettexpressed his surprise that the learned gentleman should have any doubts upon the subject. The evidence of two respectable witnesses was all that was required to hang a man for felony, and yet the House paused upon that testimony in a case like the present.
Mr. Twissrepeated his assertion, that the witness might be able to disprove what was asserted by other evidence, and that he ought to be allowed the same time and notice for that purpose as a criminal put upon his trial.
Mr. Alderman Waithmansaid, that the testimony of Leadbeater had excited suspicion before he was confronted with Hannam and Newton, and the House ought to recollect that he was the son of the bell-man, who distributed all the money.
The Attorney-generalsaid, he had no difficulty in stating, that the evidence of two was preferable to that of one, still he did not see that this witness could be committed on the evidence of two other parties, without having an opportunity afforded him of proving his statement. This was always the case in prosecutions for perjury. He recommended that the

1073
man should have an opportunity of meeting the testimony against him. He never would consent to a man's being committed by that House upon mere suspicion. The ordinary rules and principles of justice must be attended to, if the honour and dignity of the House was to be upheld.
Lord John Russellobserved, that the House was not bound in its proceedings by the same strictness of rule which governed a court of law. It was to be recollected, that although a man accused before parliament of perjury had not the same advantages of defence that he would have in a court of law, the punishment inflicted upon him in case of conviction was considerably lighter. Unless the House acted with decision, it would be impossible for it to obtain the truth. If persons like the witness, were assured of the forbearance of the House, they had only to deny stoutly every thing that was alleged against them, and it would be impossible either to have the facts ascertained, or guilt brought home to the offending party.
Mr. G. Bankessaid, that the House would do well to be extremely cautious in its proceedings; since a hasty decision, whatever might be the quantum of personal suffering inflicted upon the individual, had the effect of casting indelible disgrace upon his character. In a court of law, the judge told the jury, in summing up the evidence, that if there was doubt in their minds they must give the prisoner the benefit of it. Now, in this case he had doubts, and he could not bring himself to vote for the motion.
Sir J. Wrottesleywas of opinion, that the assimilation of the House to a court of law was totally untenable. The object was, to obtain truth by simple and comprehensive examination, and to substitute common sense for legal subtlety. It was abundantly clear, from the evidence, that this man had received election money upon three several occasions. He did not see how it was possible for the House to shut their eyes to the notorious fact, and should certainly vote for the motion.
Mr. Twisscontended, that no man ought to be declared guilty upon any charge without having an opportunity of being heard in his defence. This was principle of common justice, not peculiar to courts of law, but recognized by every tribunal in the world.
Mr. Wynnthought there was sufficient
1074
evidence to support the resolution. When false evidence had been given, the dignity of the House required that they should take notice of it.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he could not concur with the noble lord, that because the House inflicted a less heavy punishment for perjury than would be inflicted by a court of law, it was on that account the less bound to be governed by the same principles of law and justice. Though the physical suffering inflicted by a sentence of the House might be comparatively trivial, it was to be remembered that by that sentence the character of an honest man, and even a man in the highest station of life, might be blasted for ever. Though the evidence before the House might warrant a moral conviction, it did not seem to him sufficiently clear to send a man to Newgate upon. It was just possible that the witnesses who deposed to the fact of Leadbeater's having received money, might have an interest in what they stated. The lists only proved that there had been an intention to pay him, not that he had been paid: the individuals who spoke to his having been paid, were those to whom money had been intrusted for his payment; and the House would observe that as these were transactions in which no receipts were given, the payment or non-payment must stand upon the allegation of the individual. He confessed that he was disposed, before Leadbeater was committed to Newgate, to call in the witnesses who had contradicted him, and re-examine them.
William Leadbeater was again called to the bar; when the chairman told him that there was strong evidence to induce the committee to doubt whether he had not been stating falsehoods. He gave him that caution before he entered upon his re-examination. The witness was then examined by Mr. Peel; in answer to whose questions he stated, that he had voted at the last election; that he had heard election money mentioned at East Retford; that he did not know what it meant; that he had been induced to vote for sir R. Dundas, because he had been canvassed for him and preferred him; that he had never asked his brother whether he had received election money; that he had never heard of such a person as Pickup; that he had never seen him at an inn at East Retford; that he should

1075
not know him if he were to see him now; that it was last month that he was at Hannam's office, when Hannam produced the list of voters; that he was not near enough to the paper to see the names; that Newton was not in the room; that he went to Hannam's about magistrate's business; that Hannam began talking about the list, and told him with a smile that his name was upon it; that he had no curiosity to ask Hannam what his name was on the list for; that Hannam did not ask him if he had received any money; that he did not now know what election money meant; that he could not guess at all what it meant; that he might have heard something about twenty guineas; that he could not tell what that meant; that he did not know that that sum was to be paid to the voter who voted for the successful candidate; that he did not expect that sum; that he did not know that any voter had had it; that he did not know that it would be wrong to take it; that he did not know there was any secret about it; that he had never heard at Retford of the expression; "just and right;" that if any candidate had said so to him, he should not have known what it meant; that he was not aware that his name was in the list which had been delivered in by Mrs. Thornton; that he had had no dealings with her husband; that he had never received 21 l. from him; that he had never heard him talk of election money; that he did not know that there was any other William Leadbeater than himself in East Retford; that he had never found a packet which he did not expect; that he had never heard of such a thing; that he had never heard of packets having been left at the houses of voters; that he knew most of the burgesses of East Retford; that none of them ever mentioned such a thing to him, &c.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw, and the question was put—" That William Leadbeater had been guilty of gross and wilful falsehoods in his evidence given before the committee." On a division, there appeared—for the motion, 106; against it 15; Majority 91.
The House was then resumed. Mr. Gordon reported the resolution, which was agreed to; and it was ordered that for the said offence, Leadbeater be committed to Newgate. The House having again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Tennyson said, that he had concluded his case; and moved, that if counsel were
1076
in attendance in behalf of the borough, they should be called in.
Mr. D. W. Harveyagain pressed for the examination of Mr. Crompton on Monday.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, that if, on Monday, the hon. member for Bletchingley thought his case deficient, and if it should appear that the House had the power to compel Mr. Crompton to give evidence, whether inclined to do so or not, then he should have no objection to such a proceeding; but he could not allow it to be considered as a matter of course.
After a few words from Mr. Calcraft, Sir R. Wilson, Mr, G. Bankes, and Mr. Wynn, Mr. D. W. Harvey gave notice, that he should move on Monday, that Mr. Crompton be called before the committee.
Mr. Denmanwas then admitted to the bar; and addressed the committee in be half of the burgesses of East Retford, The learned counsel having concluded his speech, the House resumed, and the chairman obtained leave to sit again,

CATHOLIC ASSOCIATION.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, he wished to ask a noble lord a question, which was connected with those observations which he had ventured to make to their lordships on a former evening, relative to the Roman Catholic Association. Before he asked, however, an explanation upon that point, he could not help, when he observed, in the reported proceedings of that Association, that a letter had been read from a noble lord (Duncannon), a member of the other House of Parliament, making a few observations with respect to the conduct of that noble lord. If that Association was bad in itself, it became infinitely worse when it was made a channel of communication to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, and when those political spirits, whom he could call no better than demagogues, made use of the authority with which they were thus clothed. The letter was too long to trouble their lordships by reading the whole, but he had selected one paragraph from it. The letter stated, "for lord Lansdowne, Mr. Tierney, and lord Carlisle, I am prepared to assure you now, as I did on a former occasion, that they and their friends were most anxious the question should be brought on, and that it would have had, as it always has had, all the support that as individuals they could have given to it. For this opinion, I can have no objection, now or at any other time, to have my name used. On the formation of the late government, I thought it my duty, as an Irishman, to give such advice to my Catholic countrymen as I thought most to their interest to pursue. I thought the agitation of that question, at that time, proposed, as it was attempted to be done, by the bitterest opponents of the Catholics, would have embarrassed the formation of the government, and I recommended a postponement of
1050
that question; but you will do me the justice to recollect, that I stated distinctly then, that it was only for that moment; and, indeed, if I could have proposed any thing further, I must have been insane to suppose that the Catholic people of Ireland would ever consent to such a disgraceful proposition. I will, however, say no more on this subject, leaving it to you, if you think fit, to set it right, as I really think it due, both to lord Lansdowne and the Catholics, that it should be rightly understood. The present posture of affairs is a hopeless one, as I really think the government as at present constituted, almost worse than lord Liverpool's. Mr. Lamb, indeed, has the best intentions towards Ireland, and lord Anglesea goes with the same intentions; but what can be hoped for from any such government, after Mr. Peel's speech last year, in which he took to the Home Secretary the complete control of Ireland." Thus it appeared that those noble lords above-mentioned had authorized the stating to the Catholics of Ireland, that if they had been able, they would have brought forward the Catholic question; but when their intentions respecting that question had been asked at the time they formed part of the government, they stated they would not bring it forward at that time; and he would assert, that, if they made that declaration to the people of Ireland through this Association, such a proceeding was clothing it with an authority of a highly improper character. The reading of that letter was followed by a speech from Mr. O'Connell, so absurd as to be undeserving of notice. After him, however, a gentleman got up and said, that he was desired by lord Clifden to state that the marquis of Anglesea regretted exceedingly the unfortunate expressions which he had used on a former occasion, with respect to the Catholics of Ireland. Now, he doubted not, that if the noble marquis intended again to make a recantation of his opinions on that question, their lordships would have known it by his proxy, or by some other mode. He could not believe that the noble marquis had authorized the noble lord opposite to make a declaration of his sentiments to the Association, neither could he imagine that that noble lord had made such a statement without the consent of the noble marquis, yet here it stood reported. He thought, therefore, it would be of

1051
essential importance, if, by these observations, he should give the noble lord an opportunity to unmask the imposture by which mischievous political spirits attempted to govern Ireland. It was solely for that purpose that he had ventured to address the few observations he had made to their lordships, and he did hope that government would take such measures as would put down, for the sake of the happiness of the country, that most mischievous Association. He hoped the noble lords, to whom he had alluded, would do him the justice to believe that his only object was to enable them to state distinctly what was the meaning of the declarations made at the meeting of that Association.
Lord Clifdenhoped, after the speech of the noble marquis, he might be allowed to say a few words. If the noble marquis had not put a question to him he should, nevertheless, have stated, that he never had authorized the gentleman who had been mentioned by the noble marquis, to make the declaration which he had just heard read. He understood that the proceedings of the meeting had been ill-reported. With respect to the Association, their lordships would recollect, that it was now thirty-five years since, under the shapes of convention, committee, or association, the Catholics had carried on their applications for relief from those laws which the wisest and ablest men in the country contended ought to be abrogated. In 1793, an act passed to put down the convention; and that act was so worded, that had it not been for a special exception in favour of the two Houses of the Irish parliament, they could not have continued to sit. In consequence of that act of parliament, the convention appeared in the shape of a committee, and during the government of the duke of Richmond there was a violent contest with that committee, and he forgot what was the end of it. Then arose the Association, and this state of things would continue until the two countries were identified. There was no choice for their lordships for putting down the Association, but by the strong arm of power, and even then it would rise up in some other shape, like the Carbonari in Italy. Their lordships could not muzzle, crush or strangle six million of people. He was, however, far from justifying the acts of the Association. In many cases he exceedingly lamented them. For the
1052
marquis of Anglesea and for Mr. Lamb he had the greatest respect. There never had gone out to Ireland a governor nor a Secretary more popular, both among Catholics and Protestants. The noble marquis was admitted by all parties, equally disposed to put down the Orange violences in the north, and the Catholic violences in the south, and to deal strict justice between both parties. The great thing was to convince the people of Ireland that perfect justice was to be done them. He greatly lamented that a time had been allowed to pass when it would have been possible to put down the Association. It was, however, stated, that if the claims of the Catholics of Ireland were granted at all, they would still be unquiet. But if that should be the case, they would then find opposed to them both the Catholics and Protestants of England sixteen millions against five or six millions. If forty thousand armed men were sent over to Ireland to prevent the meetings of the society, they might drive the Catholics under ground,—but still the mischief would exist until the Catholic question was set at rest. The settlement of that question was the sine qua non for bringing peace to Ireland. As he had said before, he expected much good to Ireland from the present governor-general, and his secretary. It was also said, that the patronage was to be distributed in a reasonable and just degree. As to the letter which the noble marquis opposite had read, he must confess that he saw nothing in it; although he could not defend the writing to the gentlemen of the Association. He was himself a sufferer through them; though he dealt more tenderly with them than the noble marquis. In Ireland there was a great deal of talent, but he was sorry to say very little discretion; and this Association was often deficient in the latter respect. The publishing of that letter was a very unjustifiable act. The noble marquis opposite had made some remark on the Catholic question not being brought forward last session, by his noble friends near him. The noble marquis should recollect, that the question had been once decided last year, and that its friends had been called to office so shortly after that decision, that they could not have been expected to bring it forward. Had they been a year in office, they would have done so. He gave all due credit to the present government, and especially to the noble marquis who had gone to Ireland,

1053
for a desire to conciliate that country; and, if measures were pursued to prevent all Orange or Catholic excesses, that would be the likeliest method to produce peace there, or at least an abatement of the present feelings of hostility. Their lordships were aware of the monstrous religious hatreds which existed in that country. In Ireland there were Christians acting against every principle of Christianity—the high-church people and Orange party on one side, and the Catholics on the other. He did believe, that there were members of the high Orange party and the Catholics, who were ready to cut each other's throats. He hoped, however, that they were not many who were so disposed. The best method to remove these feelings was by a firm and equal government; and he again said, that to put down the Association, there was only one way, and that was, by concession, under certain regulations—whether by a treaty with the Pope or a provision for the clergy. He knew that that was scouted by the Association, but he cared very little for what they might scout.
The Marquis of Lansdownesaid, he should not have thought it necessary to take a part in the conversation, which had arisen in consequence of the observations of the noble marquis opposite, had not the noble marquis introduced his name in reading a copy of a letter which he had then heard for the first time. After hearing that letter read, and after the observations made by the noble marquis, it became necessary for him to state, that he never authorized any communication to be made, directly or indirectly, to the Catholic Association. He would go further and say, that he never had, and never would. He thought it due to his noble friend whose name appeared at the end of that letter, to say, that he had repeatedly stated to his noble and honourable friends that he thought himself called upon, in consequence of it having been proclaimed in Ireland," that he had endeavoured to induce the Catholics not to petition parliament in the present session, to declare that he had not, either directly or indirectly, made such endeavours or given such advice. He never had thought himself called upon to communicate with the Catholics, through their Association, or any other medium, as to the time at which he might think proper to bring forward their claims for the consideration of parliament.
1054
He had uniformly stated to them, that he considered them at liberty, as a portion of the king's subjects, to bring forward their claims, in the form of a petition at that time which they might think most expedient; and he had as uniformly stated, that whatever might be the course adopted by the individual to whom that petition was intrusted, still he (lord Lansdowne) would exercise his own discretion, as to the time at which he should think fit to found on that petition any motion for their lordships' consideration. Upon this subject he had invariably used his own judgment, and to this principle he would at all times, and under all circumstances, adhere. He might have a petition from that body to present, and if called upon to say when he would bring the great motion forward, his answer would be, that he would give due notice of such an event. When he did so it would be, not because he was required by the Catholic Association, or even by the Catholics of Ireland, but because of his impression as to its effect, not only upon the Catholics, but upon the empire at large. That Association, although composed of great talent, was certainly wanting in discretion, and certainly deficient as to the mode by which they should bring that great talent to bear upon their interest. He had made no inquiries of them, because he did not think them qualified to act. Neither did he think that this great question ought to be dealt, with according to the views or opinions of any body of men, but according to the interests of the public at large. He was far from wishing that the Catholic Association had power: he wished, indeed, that they had not the power of irritating, as they had irritated, by language far from being dignified or wise. He would, however, treat language used under such circumstances with total disregard, rather than give it importance by making it the subject of discussion in that House. A time would soon come when all the talent of that house would be called forth upon that question, in which all interests were concerned; and he hoped that the utmost attention would be given to the subject, because he felt it now, more than ever, their bounden duty to devise some measure for securing the tranquillity and promoting the interest of the country.
The Earl of Rodenexpressed his earnest hope that some measure would immediately be adopted for suppressing

1055
that abominable nuisance, the Catholic Association. It was said it could not be put down, but he should like to see the experiment tried. Whatever difference of opinion noble lords might entertain on the question of Catholic Emancipation, there could be only one as to the evil effects produced by the inflammatory speeches of the demagogues now meeting in Dublin. The suppression of the Association was not only of importance to the safety of the loyal Protestants of Ireland, but to the peace and happiness of the Catholic peasantry. All those who, like himself, were induced to reside on their estates in Ireland, and who endeavoured to improve the condition of those dependent on them, could bear testimony to this fact.