§ Mr. Andrew Johnstonsaid, that a gross and unprovoked attack having been made upon him in some of the public journals, he begged to put a question to the hon. Member for Hastings, who had been intrusted with a petition bearing on the case. He wished to know when the hon. Member intended to bring forward that petition, in order that he might have an opportunity of replying to the allegations contained in it in his place? He hoped, as the petition conveyed a serious charge against him, that the hon. Member would present it without delay.
§ Mr. Elphinstonesaid, that a petition had been consigned to him by an individual, referring to some peculiar circumstances that arose in relation to the hon. Member for St. Andrew's and his constituents.—Since the petition came into his hands he had had an interview with the petitioner, who authorized him to abstain from presenting it, provided the hon. Member would consent to refer certain documents, which he would mention, to gentlemen whom the hon. Member had himself chosen as arbitrators in the case to which the petition related. He was willing to present the petition notwithstanding, if that should be thought the better course, although he feared it might be found to be rather irregularly worded. The documents which he ventured to suggest to the hon. Member to refer to arbitrators were, first, a statement published by the electors of St. Andrew's; and second, an affidavit sworn to by—
§ Mr. Humewas sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but must observe, that unless the hon. Member meant to conclude by presenting the petition, there was no question before the House.
§ Mr. Elphinstonewas ready to present the petition as a matter of form, and would read it, if the House wished.
§ Mr. Andrew Johnstonsaid, that as an extraordinary attack had been made upon him in his public character, he trusted the House would extend its courtesy to him in the 221 same manner as had been done in the case of other hon. Members on different occasions, and afford him an opportunity of meeting the charge.
§ Mr. Elphinstoneobserved, that he had already previously informed the hon. Member that he intended to lay the matter before the House. He would now proceed to read the petition, offering no comment on its contents. The petition was from Robert Anstruther, Esq., of Third Part, in the county of Fife, and the petition set forth, that Mr. A. Johnston had been elected for the borough of St. Andrew's, and had publicly pledged himself to resign his seat in case a majority of his constituents required it. The following was a copy—
[Considerable confusion occurred here, several members exclaiming, "The prayer; read the prayer of the petition."]
§ Mr. ElphinstoneThe prayer of the petition was, that the House would be pleased to take into consideration a matter so gravely affecting the honour of a Member of the House.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that he doubted very much whether this was a petition which the House could entertain. The hon. Member had been elected by his constituents to represent their interests in Parliament, and it was for the hon. Member alone to consider what was his duty in that situation. When the regular opportunity of another election was afforded, then would be the period for the electors to express their opinions on the subject.
§ Mr. Humerose to order. A Member stated that his character had been assailed and asked for an opportunity to defend himself. The House ought to give the hon. Member the opportunity he claimed.
§ Mr. Williams WynnHow could the House entertain a petition which asked it to inquire into allegations affecting the honour of a Member? If the House were to admit this principle, the whole of its time might be taken up in such investigations, especially if everything which any petitioner thought likely to affect the honour of a Member were to be inquired into. It appeared to him that this was not a matter in which the House had jurisdiction, and therefore he was averse to proceeding further with it.
§ Mr. Humesaid, that the right hon. Member for Montgomeryshire seemed entirely to have forgotten the part he took in the case of Mr. Walsh, which occurred at 222 an early period of his (Mr. Hume's) Part liamentary life. Mr. Walsh was considered guilty of a moral, but not of a legal offence, having, under particular circumstances, defrauded an individual of Exchequer bills, and the House expelled him, the right hon. Gentleman having himself brought in a bill on the subject. It was true that he (Mr. Hume) was one of the sixteen who had opposed that proceeding, on the ground that if the House constituted itself a censor of the moral conduct of individual members, there would be no end to such matters.
§ Mr. Williams Wynnobserved, that the hon. Member for Middlesex spoke in total ignorance of the circumstances to which he had referred. In the case of Mr. Walsh there was this little previous circumstance (omitted by the hon. gentleman,) that Mr. Walsh had been indicted at the old Bailey, and was convicted by a jury; but the sentence was remitted on a technical ground, it being matter of doubt whether Exchequer bills were or were not articles the embezzlement of which was felony under the then existing law.
§ Mr. HumeThe sentence on Mr. Walsh had been reversed, and therefore there was no charge against him, as far as the law was concerned, he was merely exposed to the imputation of moral guilt.
§ Mr. Elphinstonethought that there could be no fairer course than to lay the document before the House.
§ Mr. Methuenrose to order. The House ought not to constitvte itself a judge in such a case: it was a matter between the hon. Member and his constituents.
§ Mr. Robinsonthought it was due to the hon. Member for St. Andrew's, either that the petition should be withdrawn or that the hon. Member should have an opportunity of defending himself. As far as his experience extended, hon. Members, when accused, had always been allowed to vindicate themselves. It was a question of feeling and discretion, however, on the part of the House, for, he admitted the discussion to be altogether irregular.
§ Lord John Russellunderstood that the hon. Gentleman proposed to bring forward the petition with a view to obtaining some decision on the subject, but he agreed with the right hon. Member opposite that this was a question upon which the House could come to no decision. It was a question between a representative and his constituents with regard to certain statements which he was supposed to have made to 223 them. He recommended the hon. Gentleman not to bring forward a petition of this kind on such grounds, especially as he did not appear to be prepared with any specific motion on the subject.
§ Mr. Roebuckhoped that the hon. Gentleman would persevere; when the hon. Member for St. Andrew's called on the House to afford him an opportunity to refute the charge made against him in his character of a member of that House, it was only fair to hear his vindication, as otherwise the charge would continue to hang over him unless he had an opportunity to wipe off the stain.
§ The Speakersaid, the only question before the House was, whether the hon. Member for St. Andrew's should be allowed to speak upon a petition not yet presented, and to give a full explanation of his conduct.—The House might perhaps not consider the present a convenient opportunity, inasmuch as the petition appeared to be of a nature which could not be received. The House had not hitherto entered into discussions between constituents and representatives; whereas the prayer of the petition required that it should do so in this instance.
§ Mr. Andrew Johnstonthought it due not only to himself, but to the House, to take the earliest opportunity of bringing the Question before it. He was now ready to adopt any course that the House might desire, and would either avail himself of its indulgence now or at a future period: but he certainly felt very anxious to answer this extraordinary charge. He did not ask the favour of a hearing as a private individual, but as a Member of the House, against whom an attack had been made in language inconsistent with the credit and character of a Member of Parliament. He trusted that, as on former occasions the courtesy of a hearing had been extended to Members under similar circumstances, he might now or on the first convenient opportunity be allowed to vindicate himself.
Mr. Prymeunderstood that the question before the House was, that the petition do lie on the Table. ["No, no."]
§ The Speakersaid, that the petition had not been brought up. The hon. Member was proposing to present it when he had been called on to read the prayer of the petition, that the House might see whether it could be received.
Mr. Prymewas going to propose that the debate on the Question should be adjourned till to-morrow, but as he understood 224 that would be irregular, he would throw out a suggestion instead of making a motion, and proposed that if the hon. Member for Hastings would bring forward the petition to-morrow or on a future day, on the Question that it do lie on the Table, the hon. Member for St. Andrew's should have the opportunity of explaining and vindicating his conduct, whatever might be the ultimate decision of the House on the petition.
§ Mr. Shawapprehended, that without any motion or question being before the House, any hon. Member might fairly claim its indulgence to offer any explanation in answer to a charge affecting his character as a Member of the House.
§ Mr. Gillontrusted, that whenever the subject should be brought on, the hon. Member for Hastings would bring up the petition, in order to afford other hon. Members an opportunity of speaking, as well as the hon. Member for St. Andrew's.
§ Mr. Elphinstonemoved that the petition be brought up.
§ Mr. Andrew Johnstonclaimed the indulgence of the House, while he offered a short statement in reference to the petition now presented, and the extraordinary charge made against his character as a Member of Parliament. The petition stated that a pledge had been given by him to his constituents, and that the proof of the pledge was—
§ Sir Robert Peelspoke to order; he could not help thinking that the course the hon. Member was taking was likely to involve the House in considerable difficulty. It appeared to be clearly the opinion of the House that this was a matter in which it had no jurisdiction. It related to a Member who was said to have entered into certain engagements with his constituents, with which engagements, however, the House had nothing to do. If so, he doubted the policy of the hon. Member going into a statement of the matter, especially as the hon. Gentleman might possess an advantage which he himself would probably not desire to avail himself of, in making a statement which other parties could not answer in the same place. If, after an explanation from the hon. Member, the House should refuse to receive the petition, the difficulty would be increased by having heard an ex parte statement. He was, besides, clearly of opinion that nothing could be more dangerous than to establish a precedent calculated to lead the House to constitute itself a judge in such cases. The difference 225 was clear between illegal and immoral acts so clear as to warrant the House in declining to interfere in the case of allegations such as the present. He did hope that the hon. Gentleman would consider well before involving the House in further difficulty; for if the hon. Member made a statement of the transaction, and if, afterwards, the House denied his constituents the power of making a counter statement, the hon. Gentleman would have an advantage over those parties which he might not wish to avail himself of. The hon. Member would have an opportunity of explaining himself, and making his statements to his constituents, to whom it might be much better directed than to the House, which, be it observed, had entertained no charge against the hon. Member. He hoped, that as it appeared the case did not properly come under the jurisdiction of the House, the hon. Member would pause before entering further upon it.
§ Mr. Fowell Buxtonsaid, that the hon. Member for St. Andrew's was only anxious to vindicate himself. The hon. Member felt, in common with those Gentlemen who had looked into the case, that he was clear in honour; and therefore it appeared hard, after reflections had been made on his character, that he was not allowed an opportunity of defending himself. However, if his hon. Friend could not make his defence without taking an advantage over his constituents, he agreed with the right hon. Baronet, that the hon. Member had better abstain from going into the case; but he trusted it would go forth to the public that no statement had been made in that House which could in the slightest manner affect the honour of his hon. Friend.
§ Lord Howickconcurred with the right hon. Baronet, that if the House allowed this proceeding to go a single step further, it would be establishing an extremely bad and dangerous precedent. The hon. Member for Hastings had stated, that the origin of this proceeding arose from a pledge given by the hon. Member for St. Andrew's to resign his seat under certain circumstances, but he trusted that the House would never recognize such a principle. He agreed with the hon. Member for Weymouth, that the hon. Gentleman might naturally desire to discuss the question, but it ought also to be remembered that no charge had been made against the hon. Member in that place. Attacks were made on him in the newspapers, but, as the right hon. Baronet said, the hon. Gentleman could defend 226 himself to his constituents, without establishing a dangerous precedent in that House.
§ Mr. Elphinstonewas willing to withdraw the petition, in compliance with what appeared to be the wish of the house.
§ Mr. Andrew Johnstonsaid, that he should be sorry to make any statement which another party might not have an opportunity of answering, and if it were the sense of the House that he ought not to press the subject, he would not avail himself of that opportunity.
§ The Petition was withdrawn.