tioned. It was said, that the case of the petitioner against the hon. W. Quin, could not be tried without the assistance of the present petitioner. How did this appear? The case against the hon. W. Quin stood as an alleged interview between him and Mr. Carew Smith, while Mr. Grady the father was at Boulogne, and on a minute of what passed during that interview. The case, indeed, mainly turned on the question, whether that minute received the sanction of Mr. W. Quin; and on this, Mr. Grady the father could throw no light. But when the House was told that the petitioner against the member for Limerick, was a young, inexperienced man of 23 years of age, and that therefore the assistance of his father, Mr. Grady, senior, was necessary to enable him to make out a case, they would recollect the manner in which the petitioner had dwelt upon the importance of the office of clerk of the peace, to the administration of justice, which this petitioner, who was described as incompetent to conduct his cause, had filled for fifteen years! If the fair investigation of the charge against the member for Limerick could be shown to depend on the liberation of the petitioner, he would consent to his liberation; but till that was shown, the House would not do justice to itself if it agreed to the motion. the petition, since Thomas Grady, the father, was not a petitioner against the hon. member, nor a witness on the petition. The breach of privilege consisted in this that the letter contained a direct threat of using the authority of parliament to extort the grant of a lucrative office from the custos rotulorum of the county of Limerick. He spoke under correction; but he imagined that, even in the case of an ordinary court of justice, if its process had been used for the purpose of extorting money, that court would consider such a proceeding as a contempt-that is one of that species of offences which every court had the power of correcting by summary process. The House of Commons necessarily had the power of punishing every offence which tended to bring its proceedings into discredit. The next point was, whether there was sufficient testimony of the sending of that letter. He confessed he could not put the testimony of the hon. member for Limerick so entirely out of the question as the hon. mover had done. If the letter was not written by Thomas Grady, the father, it was a most atrocious forgery. Was the House prepared to believe this? But as a point which would throw light upon the question, who was the author of that letter, he would ask the hon. member who presented the petition, by whom was the list of witnesses which had been given into the table written? Sir R. Wilson said, that he had received that list from the petitioner, Mr. Grady the elder. Mr. Courtenay said, that he had compared that document with the letter in question, and it was manifestly in the same hand-writing. He would indeed appeal to the hon. mover, whether he could have the slightest doubt that the letter was written by Mr. Grady. On the justice of the House the petitioner had therefore no claim. He had now to remark on the appeal which had been made to their mercy. It was, however, to be remarked, that the petitioner did not put his case on that ground. The allegation of the petitioner was, that the House had not decided on sufficient evidence. Now, though he had no wish to make petitioners, whether innocent or no, abjectly prostrate themselves before the House, yet it was rather too much that his liberation should be claimed as an act of mercy, when the justice of the decision was ques Mr. Bootle Wilbraham said, that nothing which he had heard that evening had had the smallest effect in altering his sentiments on this case. All Mr. Grady sat forth in his petition was, that he had been committed on insufficient testimony, that of the member for Limerick; and that there was no proof of the letter having been intended for him, inasmuch as the superscription was lost, and his name was not mentioned in it. These declarations impugned the decision of the House, and were not calculated to excite their mercy. That the letter was meant for Mr. Quin was clear, since in one part of it, the petitioner said-" I offer you advice; I advise you to restore my son to his office, of which you have deprived him." This could only refer to the hon. member for Limerick, who had displaced the petitioner's son. Convinced that the petitioner had both written and sent the letter in question, he would oppose the motion. Mr. N. Calvert had read the printed papers containing the evidence of Mr. Grady, and he felt called upon to say, that the swers of that person were most unbecoming the station he had filled of a barrister and a gentleman. He should therefore vote against the motion. House: perhaps he did not look upon them as quite so sacred or important as many gentlemen; they were, however, no doubt, of considerable value, though now and then employed for bad purposes, and sometimes put into odious exercise: they were, however, intrusted to the House, not as a scourge, but as a protection to the people. In order to be better prepared on this subject, he had visited Mr. Grady in Newgate, and was happy to state, that his situation was as comfortable as circumstances would admit; at first his condition had been much worse. With regard to his nearsightedness, he could bear testimony, that the fact was as Mr. Grady had represented it, and that there was no foundation for the severe remarks that had originated in the actual defect of his vision. When Mr. Grady read, he was obliged to put the paper so near to his eye, that there appeared no space between the eye-lash and the paper. Since he had risen, the letter to which the gallant general had alluded, had been put into his hand; it was addressed to the highest authority in the House, but unfortunately, as had been observed, to the only individual who could not communicate its contents. He begged leave to read it, as it showed that Mr. Grady had been actuated by no improper or unbecoming feelings at the time he wrote the petition, which had been objected to as disrespectful. The hon. gentleman then read a letter addressed to the Speaker, in which Mr. Grady stated, that he had observed by one of the public journals, that an hon. member had given notice of an intention to oppose his discharge, on the ground that the language of his petition was disrespectful: he begged to observe, that any defects or inaccuracies were quite unintentional, without the remotest design of questioning the right of the House, or the justice of its order: the petition had been drawn up at a time when his mind, from fatigue, was not in a state to perform its ordinary functions; he had at that time undergone fourteen hours dreary confinement without repose. He assured the Speaker, Mr. Bennet observed, that he should not have offered himself to the notice of the House, if he had not been anxious to do his utmost to bring it back to the line of duty and discretion. He was persuaded that there were not two lawyers to be found in the kingdom who would give it as their opinion that Mr. Grady had been guilty of any offence. It was of no consequence to this question whether the allegations in the second letter were true or untrue; that on which the commitment had been grounded, spoke of the supposed misconduct of a member of parliament; it was put merely hypothetically, and no man with the right use of his understanding could construe that into a breach of priv ege. Supposing the facts stated to be well founded, all honest men would join heartily in the opinions which the writer had expressed. A member who had so misconducted himself, would merit the severest censure the House could inflict; but on the contrary, if it were proved that a foul conspiracy subsisted, the chastisement of parliament was equally due to the authors of it. The real and only question was, whether the letter produced by Mr. Wyndham Quin was or was not a threat. He begged to state most distinctly, that in his judgment the letter of the 19th of October was not meant as a threat. The fair construction of it was no more than this"I have known you for fifteen years, and our intimacy has gradually increased; you have removed my son from an office he has long held, for political reasons; retrace the steps you have so unadvisedly taken-recollect that you are about to commit a high political offence-replace my son, and I, in consideration of our friendship and your incautiousness, will do-what for no other human being in similar circumstances I would do-I will drop this matter:-my object is not revenge, but justice, and I will not expose that profligacy which I am confident you yourself will repent." Such was the natural interpretation candid minds would put upon the letter, and even the hon. member had so considered it in his reply: this was upon the supposition that no offer had, in the first instance, come from Mr. A. Quin. A great deal had been said about the sacred privileges of the that it had never been his intention to infringe the privileges of the Houseprivileges which he was well aware, were the bulwarks and safeguards of the British constitution. The letter then represented that the writer's son, a young man totally inexperienced, was called upon within the course of nine days, under heavy penal consequences, to bring forward and establish his cause, and that he had nobody about him capable of giving him advice or assistance in a situation of no ordinary difficulty. The letter was received with many cheers, and Mr. Bennet sat down, after observing that he was strongly persuaded, that had the decision of the House been delayed for only twenty-four hours, it would not have thought it proper to send Mr. Grady to confinement. the practice of the House, to d charge any individual whom they had committed for breach of privilege, without an humble apology, and an expression of contrition: even their own members had been compelled to follow the same course. He knew many instances of inconsiderate applications of that nature, which had always failed; and the doctrine he was enforcing, he had heard laid down by the late Speaker from the chair. That Mr. Grady was the writer of the letters, was as plain as any Mr. Bankes thought it was impossible fact ever made out to the satisfaction of his for the House not to have acted as it had understanding, and he should put it to the done. How the two hon. members, who candour of the members who made and had moved and seconded the motion, seconded the motion, whether either of could doubt that the letter constituted a them could have any doubt of it. But breach of privilege, was to him astonish- Mr. Grady himself, by quoting a letter ing. He believed one of them had been from the member for Limerick, in his in the House when the first resolution had petition of the day before, clearly acpassed nem. con. That was before it had knowledged a correspondence had been been attempted to fix the writing and carrying on for some time between them, sending on Mr. Grady. The hon. mem- and thus contradicted his own evidence ber might surely have that night formed a at the bar, because he had there denied a correct opinion on the nature of a letter having written any letters to that memwhich had been read no less than three ber. The letter referred to, of the 2nd times. But, besides the writing and send- of November, was indeed a very proper ing of the letter, it was his opinion that one, to show the temper in which the any court of justice would have committed member for Limerick wrote at that pean individual to prison for giving testi- riod; but containing the expressionsmony in the manner Mr. Grady had done. "you say I have given you mortal offence;" Much was said on the hardship of com- and again-" some long and rather angry pelling an individual to criminate himself; letters have passed between us;" and it but he appealed to every gentleman pre- also incontestably established the fact of sent, whether on any charge against the the petitioner writing and sending letters. editor of a newspaper, or any other person, Besides, the hand-writing of the petition it was not the uniform course to summon corresponded with that of the letters, so the individual accused to the bar, and that there could be no doubt but the ask him, was he or was he not the writing was brought home to Mr. Grady. person who did so and so? With regard Much stress had been laid on the alleged to the opinion expressed by the last disadvantage under which the son would speaker, that the first letter to the mem- labour in not having the assistance of his ber for Limerick contained no threat, father in conducting what was called “his all he should say was, that, knowing the cause;" but was the present a cause like excellent understanding possessed by that that between two private individuals, to hon. gentleman, had any one told him be managed by advocates? No; it would beforehand that he would arrive at such a be carried on by the House, availing itconclusion, be could not have credited it, self of the persons summoned as witand he should leave that part of the case to nesses; of whom it ought to be recolcommon sense and common reason. As lected Mr. Grady, the father, was not to another part of the same gentleman's one. It had been well observed, that the observations that no two lawyers in Eng-present case had nothing to do with the land would have considered the letter enclosed to the member for Limerick to constitute a libel, it was to be recollected that a member of the House, a lawyer of no common authority (Mr. Brougham), had already pronounced it to be libellous, and had with great particularity described the manner in which it was so. It was not charge against the member for Limerick. It was curious that a young man of the age of 23, so long in the discharge of the duties of an office of acknowledged importance and responsibility, should now be found so incompetent. The House were therefore to put all that ground of liberation out of consideration. At the more appropriate to his unfortunate situation. Such a petition would, he had no doubt, have the effect of procuring the release of Mr. Grady. same time, he had no objection to the House paying every reasonable attention to another petition of a proper description, nor to their deciding on the case with mercy as well as justice. Sir R. Wilson observed, that though Mr. Grady, jun. had nominally held the office of clerk of the peace for fifteen years, he had discharged the duties of it by deputy. Mr. Alderman Wood thought that there were great shades of distinction in breaches of privilege; some were of a very offensive kind, and some comparatively venial. All the members present knew that breaches of privilege were committed every day; if they doubted it, they had only to turn their eyes to the gallery, and they would see individuals in the act of committing breaches of privilege; many of those in the habit of speaking would be very sorry, too, if such breaches of privileges were put an end to. As to the conduct of Mr. Grady at the bar, he was not aware that Mr. Grady had then committed any offence, though he had told him in Newgate that the fair manly way would have been to have admitted the letter at once. The worthy alderman then appealed to the member for Limerick, whether, if the prisoner were not released, a wrong impression might not be made on the public mind? It would do no injury to his cause to consent to his release, and would prevent all idle clamour. That the accommodation in Newgate had been much improved could not be denied; but then it was still Newgate; and if any hon. member were sent thither, whatever might be his accommodation, he would certainly wish for a speedy release. The prisoner was a barrister, aged, and the adviser of his son, who could not proceed without him. Under all these circumstances, the worthy alderman implored the House to consent to his release, as the prisoner had already been sufficiently punished. Mr. Martin, of Galway, declared, that from his knowledge of the petitioner, he was fully disposed to render him any service in his power; and with that view he thought, that the best thing he could do would be to recommend the hon. gentleman to withdraw the present petition, and, availing himself of the temper of the House, to suggest to the petitioner the propriety of drawing up another petition, more agreeable to that temper, as well as Mr. Peter Moore said, he was one of those who had voted for the commitment of Mr. Grady, but he done so without being fully aware of all the circumstances of the case. He now appealed from his vote when ill-informed, to his vote when well informed upon the matter; for if he had understood as much from hearing the letters read, as he had from seeing them in print, he should not have come to the conclusion which he had upon a former evening. He did not conceive that the case against Mr. Grady, on the question of intentional breach of privilege, was at all made out; and he believed that the hon. member for Limerick himself had not thought that any breach of privilege existed, until it was mentioned in the House. Mr. Moore then contended, that the case of Mr. Grady was in no one sense of so aggravated a nature as that of Mr. Fuller, the member for Sussex, who, after having been guilty of very outrageous conduct, in the course of which he had been with difficulty prevented from committing a violent assault upon the Speaker was, nevertheless, only put into custody of the serjeant-at-arms, up-stairs, and was discharged the next day, on a note of apology from him being read. Mr. Masterton Ure said :-I think the dignity and consistency of the House materially interested in the decision of this question. On a former night the petitioner was, after an examination at your bar, declared guilty of a high breach of privilege, and in consequence sent to his majesty's gaol of Newgate. The House adopted this measure unanimously, on such evidence as to them appeared proper. The petitioner now arraigns the judgment of the House, and the evidence on which it was founded. We cannot therefore comply with the prayer of this petition, without implying a censure on our own decision. And after the satisfactory manner in which the letters alluded to have been proved, I think the House is bound to refuse the petitioner's liberation. When he comes before the House and states his contrition for the offence, it will then be the proper time to extend the clemency of the House to him. Mr. Lambton said, that considering all the circumstances of the case, he would take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. mover the propriety of withdrawing the present petition, in order that he might communicate with the unfortunate gentleman from whom it proceeded, upon the expediency of drawing up another petition, in the style and spirit of an apology, for what was considered a breach of the privileges of the House. He had not opposed the vote of a former evening, because he did not wish to put his opinion in competition, with those which had been given on that occasion: at the same time, he did not think that a breach of privilege was not proved; but the question now before the House was, whether the individual was already sufficiently punished. Mr. Alderman Waithman expressed his disinclination to accede to the suggestion of the hon. member on the floor. He would ask, how the House would feel in this case, if the charge advanced by the petitioner's son should turn out to be well founded? It appeared, from what had been stated, that an improper contract had actually been proposed by the hon. member for Limerick, and all the petitioner's letter conveyed was, in his mind, the mere expression of a determination to lay that proposition before the House. This being the case, he could not consider the petitioner's letter to amount to a breach of the privileges of the House, and therefore he should cer tainly vote for the motion. Mr. Hutchinson thought that he should not act consistently, if he were to withstand the wish expressed for withdrawing the motion. What he had in view on this occasion was, to assert a great constitutional principle, and also to vindicate the liberty of the subject. According to the principle to which he alluded, no one was called upon to criminate himself; and it was to be recollected, that without the answers of the petitioner himself at the bar, there was actually no evidence against him, but that of the hon. member for Limerick, who was himself a party ac cused. He had, in the course of the evening, received a letter from the prisoner, in which he disavowed any intention to violate the privileges of the House. Still, in proposing to withdraw the motion, he wished it to be understood, that he could make no pledge as to the nature of the petition which the unfortunate prisoner would deem it proper to draw up in lieu of the one already presented. The motion was then withdrawn. HOUSE OF COMMONS. Monday, March 1. PETITION FROM LONDON AGAINST THE TRIAL BY BATTLE BILL.] A Petition from the Common Council of London was presented setting forth, "That the mode of proceeding by appeal in criminal causes is one of the oldest parts of the common law of this kingdom, and hath been pronounced by those eminent lawyers chief justice Holt and lord Ashburton, to be a most noble birthright of Englishmen, and a great pillar of the constitution; that, as appears to the petitioners, the right of appeal in case of murder hath become of vital importance to the security of the people, as a check on the abuse of military power; and that a legislative abolition of this right would leave it at the discretion of the government to prevent in any case the cause of judicial inquiry, as well as to dispense with the execution of the law; that the continuance of the mode of trial by wager of battle hath tended to prejudice the subject in his possession of this ancient right, and to frustrate and pervert the ends of justice; that the freemen of the city of London, and of divers other the cities and towns of the kingdom, are exempted by their charters from all obligation to trial by battle; and therefore, as wager of battle is not essential to process by appeal, the petitioners respectfully submit, that no argument against its continuance can be founded on the impolicy or injustice of such a form of trial; and the petitioners therefore humbly pray, That the House will take the premises into their serious consideration, and that in any act for removing the trial by wager of battle, the House will not take away from the people of this realm their ancient and undoubted right of appeal in criminal causes." Ordered to lie on the table. |