§ Lord John Russellrose, to call the attention of the House to a circumstance which very nearly concerned their rights and privileges. An hon. member had received a letter, requesting 1174 his attendance in his place in parliament, to resist the dangerous practices of lord Althorp, lord Normanby, and Mr. Creevey. There was also a sentence in the same letter which contained these words:—"the Opposition in despair of being able to get into office, are determined to break down the means of administering the affairs of the country." This letter was signed "C. Arbuthnot." Seeing the right hon. secretary to the Treasury in his place, he was anxious to introduce the subject, being convinced from his character, that his signature to this letter must be an atrocious forgery. He felt convinced that the right hon. secretary would disavow having written such a letter, and he now gave him the opportunity of contradicting it.*
§ Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, that in consequence of what had fallen from the noble lord, it became necessary for him to inform the House, that the expressions just quoted to them had been written by him. They were contained in a letter which was entirely of a private nature; and although he had no hesitation in avowing himself to be the author of it, he could not admit that the expressions in question would bear the construction the noble lord had
*The following is a copy of the said letter:—[PRIVATE.]—Downing-street, 8th March, 1822.—My dear Sir; On Wednesday next, the 13th instant, a motion is to be made by lord Normanby, to abolish the office of one of the postmasters-general, and on the 14th, the day following, Mr. Creevey makes a similar motion against the board of control.—In this manner the just and necessary influence of the Crown is from day to day attacked; and as other motions of a similar nature are to be made by lord Althorp, &c.; it will be quite impossible for any set of men to conduct the government of this country, unless practices of this kind shall be successfully resisted.—It seems as if the Opposition, in despair of coming into office, had determined to break down the means of administering the affairs of the country; and as this subject is become most serious I have no scruple in apprizing you of what is now passing, with the hope and expectation that you will think it necessary to attend, and thus to lend your aid in stemming the torrent of such dangerous innovation. Your's, most sincerely, "C. ARBUTHNOT.1175 placed upon them. He meant no personal reflection whatever upon those individuals; but had applied his observation to the motions which they were in the habit of making and not to their motives. He was as much attached to the preservation of the privileges of that House as the noble lord, but he could not for a moment admit that he had done any thing in violation of those privileges. He had said nothing in that letter but what he would state in his place in that House.
Lord Normanbysaid, that feeling he had been actuated only by a conscientious sense of duty in the line he had pursued, he could not help thinking it extraordinary that any member should dare to impute to him a wish to support dangerous doctrines, or to undermine the best interests of the country, for having introduced a measure which had twice received the sanction of that House.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotrepeated, that there was nothing in the letter which he had written to bear out the construction put upon it.
The Marquis of Londonderryhad hoped, that the freedom of debate, both in and out of parliament, was sufficiently understood to allow a latitude of discussion upon public topics. The gentlemen opposite might have only one opinion of the innocent tendency of their measures; yet others might think quite the reverse of their effect. It was too much to say that one set of gentlemen should, in the discharge of what they deemed to be their duty in parliament, adopt a particular course, and yet complain that others who differed from them should deliver their opinion upon that course in the way which it struck them. Still more extraordinary was it, that such a proceeding should be brought forward as a breach of privilege. He trusted that they still lived in a land of freedom, and that neither he nor his friends were to be gagged by the gentlemen opposite, who threatened to visit with a breach of privilege, any man who ventured to express an opinion upon the tendency of their measures.
Lord Normanbysaid, that he had not seen the letter alluded to, but if it contained an imputation upon him and others of being actuated by a desire to undermine the best institutions of the country, it was wholly unwarrantable.
The Marquis of Londonderrysaid, it did not follow, because the writer of a letter entertained an opinion that the proceedings of others were calculated to pro- 1176 duce a certain effect, that, therefore, they intended to produce it.
Colonel Daviessaid, the letter contained the words,—"the Opposition, despairing of coming into office, had determined to do so and so." This he conceived was a direct imputation.
The Marquis of Londonderryobserved, that it was no unusual thing to charge gentlemen with an anxiety to attain, or a despair of attaining office.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotsaid, he entertained the greatest personal respect for some of the gentlemen opposite, and he believed they knew it; at the same time, he confessed he disliked some of their measures; and entertaining that dislike, he did not feel that the privileges of the House prevented his expressing it.
§ Lord John Russellsaid, he should be quite ready to drop all farther notice of the letter, if the Speaker would say, that it was competent for any member, consistently with the privileges of that House, to say, that one set of gentlemen, despairing of being able to get into power, were endeavouring to undermine the constitution.
§ The Speakersaid, that the House must see the difficulty in which he was placed, in giving an opinion upon the construction of a phrase drawn from a letter, and applied so as to affect the reputation of individuals, which letter was not itself before the House. The inconvenience of endeavouring to discuss a case of privilege, under such circumstances, was obvious. In the first place, to impute a despair of attaining office to any body, was an imputation which did not come within the prohibition of the orders of that House; but the remainder of the phrase, if uttered there, would be strictly unparliamentary, and most disorderly. To impute an unworthy, much less an unconstitutional motive, to any hon. member in the exercise of his public duty was certainly unparliamentary. But then, again, if the imputation were levelled only at the tendency of measures, and not at the intentions of the individuals who had originated them, the case would be different; still it was impossible for them to consider the construction of the phrase without having the actual words before them. An opinion might be wrong and mistakenly applied, but still not unparliamentary. If the imputation were directly applied to individuals, there could be no doubt that it was most outrageously disorderly. Not hav- 1177 ing read the words which were animadverted upon by the noble lord, be was utterly incapable of giving an opinion upon their character; and in the absence of the letter, the House must perhaps be struck with the dangerous consequence of embarking in a debate upon them.
§ Mr. Arbuthnotconceived, that any opinion expressed in a private letter could not be considered a breach of the privileges of that House. The letter in question was a private letter, and so private was it, that he declared, upon his honour, he had kept no copy of it. In writing that letter he had not the slightest intention of giving offence in any quarter; but still if the act was a wrong one, he was ready to bear the full responsibility of it. Who had made the letter public he could not tell. If in writing the letter he had acted wrong, he was the last man to shrink from the responsibility attached to his conduct.
Mr. Wynnobserved, that this was the first time he had heard the Speaker called upon to decide upon a question on an hypothetical case. The letter in question was certainly a private communication, and could not be construed into a breach of privilege. Suppose some gentleman opposite were to write to a friend, and state that the measures pursued by ministers were likely to overturn the liberties of the country—would any person contend that this was a breach of privilege? If such a communication were to be so considered, he believed they would have very many breaches of privilege to decide upon. There was not on the records of parliament a proposition more monstrous, since the time when the House had disgraced itself beyond redemption, by expelling some, and committing other members, who refused to give credit to the Popish plot in the reign of James the First.
Sir R. Fergussonsaid, the right hon. gentleman had looked at this transaction as if it had been a single letter sent to a private individual. But, what would the House say, if it turned out to be a Treasury circular, sent to absent members, to induce them to attend and give their support to ministers. This, he believed in his conscience, to be the fact.
Mr. Wynnsaid, his right hon. friend had stated, that the letter was a private one, and that he had kept no copy of it.
§ Mr. George Lambdeclared his surprise, that after the satisfactory explanation and disavowal given by the right hon. secre- 1178 tary to the Treasury, the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wynn) should have revived the question of privilege; and he was still more astonished to find that the right hon. gentleman, in his speech, had begged the whole question, and uttered a violent tirade on the indelicacy of intruding upon private correspondence. The whole question here was, whether the letter was or was not a private letter.—[Mr. Arbuthnot, "I repeatedly said it was."]—He could assure the right hon. gentleman that he did not mean to gainsay his explanation, which he considered perfectly satisfactory. But he must repeat his astonishment, that a right hon. gentleman who took such excessive care of the forms and privileges of that House, should have thought proper, after the explanation which had been given, to re-open such a discussion.
§ Lord J. Russellsaid, he had not called the letter a breach of privilege; but had said, that it was a matter which nearly concerned the privileges of parliament; inasmuch as the writer had imputed unworthy motives to members of that House. The right hon. member had disavowed any such imputations; and he (lord J. R.) was satisfied. He had made no motion— he had no motion to make.
Lord Normanbysaid, that as all personal allusion had been disclaimed, he would be the last man in the House to follow up the matter any farther.