PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE. (Hansard, 28 February 1831)

§ Lord Althorp
said, that the time was then conic when it would be proper to advert to an occurrence of the early part of the evening. He had not thought it proper to make any suggestion during the progress of public business, conceiving it better that the proceedings of the House should not be interrupted. But as the House had then gone through its business, it was time to take some notice of what had passed. The person who had committed the offence was in the custody of the officers of the House; and he meant to propose, if that were the opinion of the House, that he should be called to the bur, reprimanded and discharged. The insult to the House had been so gross, that he could hardly conceive that the person who committed it was in his right senses. That he should be reprimanded, however, would be necessary to the dignity of the House, and that was the proposition he should submit to consideration. The noble Lord concluded by moving that—Jacobs should be called to the bar of the House, reprimanded and discharged.

§ The Speaker
What is your name?— Alexander Jacob was the answer.

§ The Speaker
Have you anything to state to the House as an apology for your misconduct?

Alexander Jacob
demanded that that justice which every British subject had a right to expect should be done to him. He could assure the Speaker and the honourable Members, that he was brought to the House by his business, and in coming there he was not guided by any improper motive, nor did he contemplate doing anything that was prejudicial to his country. He thought he had a right to enter the Gallery as an individual, and he conceived that the hon. Member could not expect that he should remain silent and—[order!]

§ The Speaker
I wish to warn you, that you may not increase your offence by pursuing such a course as that you have now entered upon.—

Alexander Jacob
had seriously considered the course he had to pursue, and did not need any warning to make him serious. Me was proceeding to make some further observations on the language of the hon. member for Waterford, when

§ The Speaker
again called him to order. Alexander Jacob meant to apologise, but if he were out of order in explaining—

§ The Speaker
told him, he was not brought to the bar to justify his conduct. If he had any apology to offer to the House he might make it.

Alexander Jacob
wished to apologise for his conduct, and humbly begged pardon for what he had done.

§ The Speaker
told him to withdraw.

§ Lord Althorp
said, that Mr. Jacob had made something like an apology, but that apology was not satisfactory. It was not sufficient to justify the course he had at first proposed. He must be called on to make a more humble apology before the House could consent to discharge him. He would therefore move, that Alexander Jacob, for his offence to that House, should be committed to Newgate, and that Mr. Speaker do issue his warrant accordingly.

§ Mr. O'Connell
trusted he might be pardoned for interposing in the case. He was aware that the insult had not been offered to him individually, but to the House, and for that Mr. Jacob had readily-asked pardon. He thought that there was something in his manner, though whether it was accidental or not he did not know, which, perhaps, made his conduct rather his misfortune than his fault. He seemed to labour under some influence, either temporary of the day or permanent, which entitled him to the pity of the House. Was what the individual had been guilty of unexampled? Had it never occurred before? He hoped that mercy would be shown in this case as had been shown in others, which would not violate the dignity of the House. There was in the man a strange obliquity of intellect to make him guilty of such an outrage. Whether the obliquity were permanent or occasional, it would merit forgiveness. He had expressed his contrition—he had asked pardon—and what 1038 more abject could he perform? By that, he submitted, the dignity of the House was sufficiently vindicated, and there was no occasion to inflict a higher punishment than the reprimand at first proposed. He would therefore move, as an Amendment on the noble Lord's Motion, that Alexander Jacob be brought to the bar, be reprimanded, and discharged.

Mr. Alderman Waithman
seconded the Amendment.

§ Sir Robert Peel
rose to support the proposition of the noble Lord. He could conceive the feelings which animated the hon. and learned Gentleman if the offence were personal, but the offence was against the privileges of the House. If there was that obliquity of intellect suggested by the hon. and learned Gentleman, which might be suspected, and which would wipe out the offence, it was at least proper that the House should have time to inquire into that. He did not wish to look at what was stated at the bar as any aggravation of the offence, but the individual had stated, that he was connected with some mercantile transactions, and that they brought him to the House. That did not betray any obliquity of intellect. If there was a cause of a temporary nature for that obliquity, he could not admit that as an excuse. There was a necessity to vindicate the rights and privileges of that House, and teach those who came to the House intoxicated—for that was the temporary obliquity the hon. Member referred to — that the House would never admit that as an excuse. There was some danger that the offence might be frequently committed; for that was not the first time that the privileges of the House had been violated. Within the last two years, he had seen papers thrown from the Gallery into the House concerning the subject under discussion at the moment. Then the House had adopted the same course proposed by the noble Lord; it had not been contented with an apology, and had placed the individual in custody till next day, when his apology was accepted. He considered that course proper on this occasion, and he hoped the House would not be contented by merely reprimanding the individual. He hoped that it would adopt the proposition of the noble Lord, and defer the discussion till another day.

Mr. C. W. Wynn
entirely concurred with his right hon. friend, and thought the offence was unfit to be passed over, if the House passed it over, it would seem as if it were inviting a repetition of the offence.

§ Lord Althorp
said, considering; the facility that was then afforded to violating the Orders of the House, it seemed to him necessary, if they intended to preserve freedom in their debates, not to pass over the case. The hon. and learned Gentleman properly defended the man, as he was the person more immediately offended, but he must see, that to vindicate the dignity of the House, it was necessary that some further punishment should be inflicted.