—The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose, and stated, that he had been authorised by Mr. Fuller, now in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, to express the deepest regret on his part for the outrage of which he had been guilty, and to request, in Mr. Fuller's name that be might be discharged. As Mr. Fuller had thus expressed his regret for his conduct, and had thus apologized, he trusted the House would therefore think, considering all the circumstances of the disagreeable 645 occurrence, that it had expressed its sense of the impropriety of such conduct, in a manner sufficiently strong, and that enough had been done to support their dignity and authority. He concluded by moving, "That Mr. Fuller be now discharged out of custody."
§ Earl Templewas sure that the House must be aware how unpleasant it was to rise to speak in opposition to the most lenient proposal upon a personal question. But there were times and circumstances which required that those feelings should be surmounted, and which demanded that gentlemen should not shrink from a strict discharge of their duty, however unpleasant. It was hardly necessary for him, he trusted, to disclaim any personal hostility to the gentleman to whom this motion related; but after the extraordinary, outrageous and highly aggravated insult which had been experienced by the House: an outrage the more serious as it had been committed within their walls; and the more aggravated as it had been directed, not to the members alone, but to the person of the Speaker: after all these circumstances, he could not make up his mind to pass the matter over with so slight a punishment; no more indeed than what might be suffered by any of the members if a quarter of an hour behind his time on a call of the House. The House would, no doubt, recollect that a committal to the custody of the Serjeant at Arms often took place upon being a few minutes behind their time at election ballots. It was impossible for him, therefore, consistently with his sense of what was due to the House and the Speaker, to suffer such outrageous conduct to pass with so slight a mark of the resentment of the House.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not at all feel upon the subject as the noble lord appeared to do. He agreed with him that the outrage was of the most extravagant nature: but even the very extravagance of it evinced that the gentleman who had committed it was in a state, which ought to prevent the House from inflicting any severe punishment. The noble lord mentioned, that what Mr. Fuller had already suffered was nothing more than what was often inflicted upon members who happened to be five minutes behind their proper time on a call of the House. But did the noble lord really think that there was any thing analogous in the two cases? The time of confinement was indeed the same; but here the 646 House had expressed the strongest sense of the misconduct of Mr. Fuller, and in this the great punishment consisted. If they should continue the confinement farther, the only satisfaction they could have, after all, would be an apology for the offence, and that had now been given. He could not help also adding, that to whatever extent the outrage had been carried, yet almost instantly, on that very night, the gentleman had repented, and had authorised a friend to make his apology. It could hardly have been expected, that the House would then have been satisfied with it. Now, however, the regret expressed, and the apology made, ought he thought, to induce the House to consent to his discharge. As to the alledged offence against the Chair, he really could not see that there was any personal offence to the Speaker, separate from the outrage which had been committed against the House. There was no offence against the Speaker, except what arose from his being in the Chair at the time, and being the leading person in the House. He was as anxious to support the dignity of the Chair as any man could be; but in agreeing to his motion he saw nothing by which that dignity would be in the least compromised. The House had now shewn, that it would not pass over such indignities without an expression of its resentment; but if the same offence should be repeated, the House would of course mark the next deviation from the rules of propriety, in a severer manner than it was necessary to do with respect to a first offence. He hoped, therefore that the House would feel, that it was perfectly consistent with its dignity to assent to the motion, that Mr. Fuller be discharged.
Mr. C. W. Wynnfelt exactly as his noble friend had described himself to feel, in rising to speak on a personal question of this nature. But he was convinced that the House would not discharge its duty to itself, if it agreed to the motion now proposed. It was said, that this was the first offence; but the House would recollect, that it was not one offence only. The House had, in the first place been insulted by the most improper and unparliamentary language; and when it expressed its sense of such conduct, Mr. Fuller had burst out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms; had rushed into the body of the House, and committed the most violent outrage. After such conduct as this it was proposed to discharge the 647 offender at the first sitting of the House— There was no precedent of any case similar to this; but even where members had been committed for improper language, the House had directed that they should be reprimanded. But if this motion was carried, the entry on the Journals would be, that, after the commission of this unprecedented outrage, Mr. Fuller was discharged at the next sitting of the House. The best apology, perhaps, for the conduct of Mr. Fuller, was the conduct of the House itself, which had allowed improper language to pass so often without notice, that its laxity had in some measure formed a snare for Mr. Fuller on this occasion. If the House had been more strict in enforcing its rules, such an outrage as this would, probably, never have taken place.
Mr. Lockhartobserved, that it was rather too hard at this moment to allude to the former conduct of Mr. Fuller: if the hon. gent. who spoke last, really did mean to allude to him. The House not having noticed it, it ought not to be brought up against Mr. Fuller in his present situation. He knew how much Mr. Fuller regretted the outrage into which he had been betrayed in an unwary moment, and he knew that his regret was the more keen, on account of the misconception which he found to prevail both in and out of the House, as to his having meant any disrespect to the Speaker. He had done all that was in his power to counteract that impression. He had apologized for his offence, and expressed his regret that he should have been led into it. He hoped, therefore, the House would feel that its dignity would not be in the least compromised by assenting to the motion.
§ Mr. Whitbreadsaid, that he had sat for 20 years in the House and never witnessed such a gross outrage as had been committed the other night. He was present— he saw it all—he heard all—but would not quote the language used. Those who were present will recollect that it was only by an accidental circumstance that the outrage had been prevented from proceeding to the utmost excess of violence. After this Mr. Fuller sent the House a sort of an apology directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
[The Chancellor of the Exchequerhere interrupted Mr. W. and said, that he understood the apology to be directed to the House, though it had been inclosed in a letter to him.]
§ Mr. Whitbreadin continuation, insisted that it was directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer only, and taking up the paper from the table, read "I beg you will inform the House that I am sorry for what I have done, and beg leave to apologize for my conduct." This was therefore incontestibly directed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer alone. The paper itself shewed that such was the fact, and it was impossible they could deny it. Of the letter inclosing this apology the House knew nothing, as it was not on the table; but after all, the apology was far from being couched in very ample terms. Gentlemen had talked a great deal lately about their privileges. One man for a violation of them had lately been reprimanded at their bar, and another had been sent to Newgate, and was the House to suffer an outrage within its walls—the greatest outrage that had ever been committed, to pass with this slight mark of its sense of such conduct? when an hon. baronet, who was present at the time, thought that he who committed this outrage ought to be sent to the Tower, it would not perhaps be considered as harsh, that he (Mr. W.) expected a much more ample apology; and even supposing an ample apology to be made, he could not have thought it possible that the offending person should be dismissed without a reprimand from the chair. When gentlemen who saw the outrage, doubted, if it would be consistent with the dignity of the House to allow the man who had so insultingly violated its privileges and rules, ever to sit there again, it was proposed to dismiss the matter with this meagre apology and slight duration of confinement. Many gentlemen present had seen the outrage; all of them had heard of it; the whole public rung with it. He affirmed, that not the House alone, but the Speaker had been insulted; he had heard the language used and could not be mistaken as to its obvious import. He would not quote it, unless he was challenged to do so. But if he should be challenged to quote the words, he thought they were such as would leave no doubt of the correctness of his conclusion. He must therefore oppose the motion.
Sir R. Williamsthought he might move, as an amendment, "That Mr. Fuller be brought to the bar to apologize to the House, and that if the apology should be deemed sufficient, he might be discharged."
§ Sir E. Knatchbullwas not present at the time the outrage took place, but he had 649 heard of it, and he regretted that he was under the necessity of admitting, that this apology was hardly sufficient. Yet it would be allowed, he believed, that he was far from being indifferent as to the character and conduct of the unfortunate member who had incurred the displeasure of the House. He had taken the liberty of calling upon him, and had found that if it was conceived that he had offered any insult to the Speaker he was ready to come to the bar and make the most ample apology, and he trusted he would be allowed to come to the bar for that purpose.
Mr. Secretary Ryderdid not rise with a view to diminish the sense which the House appeared to entertain of the insult offered to it, nor to extenuate the offence committed. But at the same time, it was but fair to consider the situation in which the hon. member was when the outrage was committed;—it ought to have its weight in his favour;—that the insult was not a premeditated one. What the precise expressions were, he did not know, for he had not heard them; but he believed it to be admitted, that the hon. member was then in a situation in which he could not altogether appreciate the very improper nature of his conduct. With a view to example, however, he would propose an amendment to the motion of his right hon. friend. The hon. gent. opposite (Mr. C. Wynn) would perceive that it would appear on the Journals, not only that the hon. member was discharged at the next sitting, but that the House did not sit the day immediately following the outrage. He concluded by moving as an amendment, "That Mr. Fuller be called to the bar to be reprimanded by the Speaker, and then discharged."
§ The Speakerthought it right to state to the House, in justice to the individual whose conduct was now under discussion, that he had received a letter from Mr. Fuller, with an apology for expressions which he had not heard; and if he had heard them, the House would give him credit, he trusted, when he said that they would not have operated in the least on his mind, except as connected with the dignity and authority of the House.
§ The Speakerobserved, that he understood the hon. baronet only to have thrown out a suggestion, without embodying it into a formal amendment; but if he had misapprehended the hon. member he hoped 650 the House would give him leave to correct himself.
Sir R. Williamsthen said that he would second the amendment of the right hon. gent.—The question being put,
§ Sir John Anstrutherrose, amidst cries of "question, question," and said, that he did not mean to oppose the Amendment. His duty to the House (he was chairman to the Committee of Inquiry) had called upon him to pay particular attention to the outrage; and he was satisfied that it had proceeded in a great measure from a certain species of accidental misfortune. He, however, thought it necessary that a personal apology should be made to the Speaker. He now understood that apology had been made; but he also thought it proper that the apology should be entered on the Journals, if this was regular,
§ The Speakersaid, that nothing would appear on the Journals to shew that there was any personal insult to the Speaker, and this superseded the necessity of entering the apology on the Journals.
§ Mr. G. Vansittartasked, whether it would appear on the Journals that any apology at all had been made?
§ The Speakeranswered in the affirmative, and mentioned the precedent of a person who had offended by words, some years ago, in whose case it was stated, that the regret he expressed for his conduct was the ground on which the House admitted him to his seat again.
The question was then put, and the amendment carried without a dissenting voice.
§ The Speakerthen ordered the Serjeant at Arms to bring Mr. Fuller to the bar.
The Serjeant, with his mace, went accordingly to Mr. Fuller, and brought him to the bar; whereupon the Speaker, sitting in the chair covered, reprimanded the said Mr. Fuller, and he was ordered to be discharged out of custody, paying his fees. The Reprimand was as follows:
"Mr. Fuller; You now stand at that bar, in the presence of the Commons of this United Kingdom, to receive the declaration of their displeasure.
"During the progress of a Committee of this House, employed upon a solemn and important enquiry, your offensive language and disorderly conduct required an appeal to the authority of the whole House. Called upon by the House to excuse your misconduct, you aggravated your first offence, by insulting its dignity. And when committed to a custody which 651 ought to have been obligatory, alike upon your person and your honour, you forcibly broke from that restraint, and entered these walls with clamour and outrage unparalleled.
"This is the head and front of your offending. For my own part, I may state, with most perfect sincerity, that in no period of this transaction have I experienced any other sentiments than those of deep concern and regret, in common with the whole House, that any honourable member should have placed himself in your situation. And we are now willing to believe, from what was expressed in your behalf at the close of the same evening, when these events occurred, and from what has been represented again to us, during this day, that you feel a due sense of your own misconduct and errors.
"The moderation with which this House has visited your offence demands your most humble and most grateful acknowledgments. But let not this considerate forbearance lead you to mistake its motive, or to neglect its warning. For if, unhappily, you should at any future time relapse into the same or similar practices, there will probably remain but one step more to be taken, for rescuing the authority of this House from inevitable disgrace, and removing the possibility of your continuing so presumptuous a contest.
"For your past misconduct I am enjoined now to reprimand you, and you are hereby reprimanded accordingly; You are moreover discharged out of custody, paying your fees."
Ordered, nem. con. That what has been now said by Mr. Speaker, in reprimanding the said Mr. Fuller, be entered in the Journals of this House.