HC Deb 01 July 1823 vol 9 cc1361-5
Mr. Brougham

rose again to present the petition of George Rowan, complaining of his having been dismissed from his office of collector of excise, and accusing colonel Crosbie (a member of the House) of having received money from several persons for procuring situations for them; having inquired into Mr. Rowan's character, and having found that he was a man of veracity and good reputation, and one whose statement, prima facie, he was bound to consider as entitled to credit. But here he must observe, that on presenting a petition, a member could not be held answerable for the accuracy of its contents. If he believed the party to be entitled to credit, he was bound to present the petition, and could not be held answerable, as if he stood up in his place in parliament and made the same assertions on his own authority. He had done all that he could effect, by cautioning the petitioner, that in making a. charge against any member, he was bound to make good his charge, or be prepared to suffer the punishment which awaited a breach of privilege. He moved that the petition be brought up. Upon I the motion, for laying it upon the table, an opportunity would be afforded for discussing its contents.

Mr. Wynn

opposed the bringing up of this petition. It contained charges against an hon. member of that House, which, if true, would expose him to a criminal prosecution, and the constitution had provided a proper tribunal for the investigating, such accusations. If the House should proceed upon the petition now before it, they could only do so by examining, witnesses as to the truth of the allegations, and afterwards directing the attorney-general to prosecute. This they could not do without expressing an opinion upon the subject; and he called upon the House to consider, with how great a prejudice they would afterwards send a person, to his trial by a jury. Another ground of objection was, that his hon. and learned friend had not stated that this charge had been brought before the; notice of the public functionaries, whose duty it would be to prosecute. On the part of the government, he could state, that there existed no disposition to screen any person who should commit such an offence as was here charged; but he did think that, at that period of the session, it would be highly unjust to allow charges to be brought against a member, when the House could not investigate them, even if they should be convinced of the propriety of doing so.

Mr. Brougham

hoped that he should be allowed to offer a few words. He was fully aware of the difficulty which had been pointed out; namely, that of turning the course of criminal justice, into that House; and as a general principle, he could not but assent to his right hon. friend's observations. But there was another and not a less important difficulty—that the House should avoid the imputation of being too slow in receiving charges against its own members. Here was a distinct charge of the abuse of patronage by a ministerial member of a county. In the case of lord Melville, he had been censured by the House for an indictable offence, and the House had afterwards directed his prosecution by the attorney-general, although that mode of proceeding was afterwards abandoned for that, of impeachment. His right hon. friend would say, that this was in his office of public treasurer; but there was another case—that of Thomas Ridge, a member of the House in 1710, who was a brewer, and a contractor with the Victualling-board; but not, therefore, a public functionary. He contracted to furnish 8,000 tuns of beer, and delivered only 3,000, having received payment for the whole. The House examined into the charges, expelled the member, and followed up that proceeding by an order to the attorney-general to prosecute. So that he was sent upon his trial, not only with the vote of the House about his neck, but under the additional weight of their sentence of expulsion. Of so little importance did he (Mr. B.) consider this, that he thought a man could not go into court with a better chance in his favour, than a prosecution by the attorney-general, in pursuance of a vote of the House. He thought, notwithstanding the difficulty which he admitted, the House could not refuse to receive the petition. When a day should be fixed for its discussion, the attorney-general might be directed to prosecute, and thus the difficulty would be got rid of.

Mr. Wynn

said, that the House, being the guardians of the public purse, could not discharge that duty without proceeding as they had dope in the case quoted by his learned friend.

Mr. Maurice Fitzgerald

said, he rose with great pain to speak of the conduct of an hon. gentleman who was his own colleague. He was compelled to do so, in consequence of an allusion which had been made to him in the speech of his learned friend on Friday last, and which had been made public. He had been applied to by his learned friend as to the character of the petitioner: and, feeling that he had no right to refuse the information required, he had communicated it in the terms which his learned friend had read to the House. He had added, however, that as there had been election jealousies between his friend and those of colonel Crosbie, he wished to avoid any interference in the business, and particularly requested that his name might not be mentioned. Whether this did or did not preclude his learned friend from mentioning his name, the House would decide; but he must now state that it was his intention he should not do so. Not that he wished to conceal his having given the petitioner a character, but he wished not to lend any corroboration to the charges which had been made. In this spirit he had written the letter which had been quoted. He was satisfied that his explanation would be sufficient to gentlemen who heard him, on whatever side of the House they sat; because he knew that personal feelings, in matters so delicate as that of which he was speaking, were held by them paramount to all political inclinations. It had been hinted to him, that it might elsewhere be believed that the petition had originated with him. To those who knew him, it was enough to say that such an imputation must be, of its nature, false. If he had thought it necessary to make any charge, he should not have disgraced himself by adopting indirect means. So far from encouraging the charge, he had abstained from all correspondence with the petitioner, whom he ad not seen for some years; and he had not replied to his letter, because although he knew that, in the county in which they both resided, any correspondence would be construed into an encouragement; and he had written confidentially to a friend of his, desiring he would have it understood that he was no party to the affair. He concluded by saying, that the charge had given greater pain to no individual (his hon. colleague excepted) than himself. He trusted that he had now removed the impression which the partial quotation of his letter had occasioned.

Mr. Brougham

was sure that what Iris right hon. friend had just said, would establish the futility and groundlessness of the suspicions which he had felt himself under the painful necessity of repelling. He could confirm every statement which his right hon. friend had made. He regretted, however, that he had not known that his right hon. friend wished the whole of his letter to have been suppressed, or he would not have read the extract from it. As to reading the whole of it, his right hon. friend would see that he could not have done that, without distinctly disclosing who was the writer. As to the petition, he was merely actuated by a sense of duty in presenting it for he had never been more plagued about any thing in the whole of his parliamentary experience. The House was, however, bound to protect its purity. It was bound to guard against the abuse of the influence which the members of it might have with his majesty's government. He did not think, therefore, that the House would do its duty, unless it received the petition. What it should do with it when it had it, was another question.

Colonel Crosbie

embraced that opportunity of saying, that the impression on his mind originally was, that the hon. and learned gentleman had received the information he possessed from his colleague. He now, however, felt satisfied that such was not the case.

Mr. M. Fitzgerald

said, that there was a phrase in the petition, relative to the dismissal of the petitioner, which he would be glad to explain, in order to prevent any misapprehension to which it might otherwise be liable. It was stated that, whatever were the merits of the trial, the means employed against the petitioner were base and treacherous. This did not apply in any manner to his (Mr. F's) colleague, nor to the parties concerned, and least of all to the government. It referred to a former petition presented by the petitioner, when he was dismissed from office in 1817, in which he complained, that his dismissal took place in consequence of a conspiracy among persons in his own employment, at the head of whom was a clerk he had dismissed for pecula- tion. So far from the government having used any undue rigour towards, the petitioner, he (Mr. F.) believed that the then Secretary for Ireland had stretched his authority in his favour.

Mr. Peel

said, that although he did not recollect the particular facts of the case, he was certain the object of government in dismissing the petitioner was not to provide for any other individual.

On the motion that the petition do lie on the table,

Mr. Wynn

observed, that he could not perceive the propriety of allowing the petition to he on the table, unless it was intended to follow it up by some further measure. He, however, did not see what measure could now be adopted, and therefore thought it useless to place the petition before the public.

Upon the question that the petition do he on the table, the House divided: Ayes 26. Noes 51.

List of the Minority.
Brougham, H. Money, W. T.
Bennet. hon. G. Palmer, C. F.
Calcraft, J. Price, R.
Forbes, C. Parnell, sir H.
Farrand, R. Rice, T. S.
Grattan, J. Robinson, sir G.
Gurney, H. Smith, Robt.
Gaskell, B. Smith, Wm.
Hobhouse, J. C. Tierney, right hon. G.
Hume, J. Western, C. C.
Leycester, R. Wood, alderman.
Lamb, hon.G. TELLERS.
Leader, I. Buxton, T. F.
Martin, J. Nugent, lord.
Monck, J. B.