BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

HC Deb 07 May 1832 vol 12 cc741-3

On the Motion of Lord Stormont, Mr. Reid, the printer of the handbill in which the names of the majority and minority of the Committee of the House of Commons which sat upon the Sunderland Dock Bill were published, was called to the Bar. He said, he printed the bill by direction of a majority of a committee of persons in Sunderland interested in the Bill. He took the list of names from a letter signed by Wright and Kidson, the solicitors for the Bill.

These gentlemen, were then, on the Motion of Lord Stormont, called to the Bar, and acknowledged the writing of the letter. They were not aware that in so doing they were committing a Breach of Privilege, and expressed their sincere regret that they had inadvertently done so.

On the Motion of Lord Stormont the House voted the letter written by the Solicitors, in which the names of the majority and minority of the Committee were published, to be a Breach of Privilege.

Lord Stormont

moved, that the Solicitors should be called to the Bar, which was accordingly done.

Mr. Beaumont

moved that Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright, the explanations which they had given and the apologies which they made being deemed sufficient, be discharged, and that the House do not think it necessary to proceed any further in the business.

Mr. John

Campbell supported the Motion.

Sir Robert Peel

hoped that Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright would be discharged without punishment; but he thought they should receive, through the organ of the House, such a reprimand as their great offence merited; and they should be told that, had it not been for their personal explanations, the House would have punished them severely. Their offence was a great one. To charge a Committee of that House with being influenced by corrupt motives in the discharge of their official duties was a very serious offence. It had been said, that the letter which was written, and which constituted the offence, was written confidentially, and which stated that the Bill had been defeated through a corrupt family connection. That letter was written for the purpose of being shown to more than 100 persons, who were interested in the Bill; therefore, he thought that circumstance deprived it of its confidential character. Moreover, it was written with the intention of publication, and such being the case, he was of opinion that a very great offence had been committed; yet, after the explanations which had been given, and the apologies which had been made, he hoped that the House would agree with him in thinking a reprimand would be deemed a sufficient punishment.

Mr. O'Connell

thought a reprimand a very severe punishment, and that it should not be inflicted except upon very important occasions. It was beneath the dignity of the House to do so. He thought that, after the great sorrow which had been expressed by Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright, the Motion of the hon. member for Northumberland would meet the justice of the case. For his part, he would give it his most cordial support.

Sir Robert Peel

said, that he had made a technical mistake. He had just understood that, before a reprimand could be given by the organ of the House, it was necessary that the parties should be in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and, therefore, he would move that the word "admonition" he substituted for "reprimand."

Sir Robert Inglis

said, that it was inconsistent with the dignity of the House not to punish most severely the Breach of Privilege which had been committed, at least by the severest reprimand.

Mr. C. W. Wynn

conceived that it was the bounden duty of the House to visit the present offence with a very severe punishment.

Lord Althorp

thought it was the duty of the House to inflict punishment in serious cases, yet, in the present one, he thought that, after the apologies which had been made at the Bar, the House would deem an admonition sufficient.

Sir George Cockburn

, though a Member of the Committee which had been alluded to, felt nothing personal towards Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright; yet he was sure, had any hon. Member been present, he would see how unjust it was to impute improper motives to that Committee, and how perfectly false the charges were which had been made against them. He perfectly con- curred in the Motion of the right hon. Member in the substitution of the word "admonition" for "reprimand."

Mr. Hunt

thought the present offence was slight to that which had often been committed by the hon. member for Kerry, who called the House, which represented the majesty of the people, the nominees of the borough-mongers; therefore, he hoped, in the present instance, the slightest possible punishment would be inflicted.

It was then

"Resolved—That the letter addressed to the Committee of Wet Docks, Sunderland, signed John P. Kidson and Joseph John Wright, contains libellous matter, reflecting on the Committee of this House, to whom the Sunderland Docks Bill was referred, in Breach of the Privileges of this House.

"Resolved—That John P. Kidson and Joseph John Wright, in having written the said letter to the Committee of Wet Docks Sunderland, have been guilty of a high Breach of the Privileges of this House.

"Ordered—That John P. Kidson and Joseph John Wright be called to the Bar of this House, and there admonished by Mr. Speaker."

Mr. Kidson and Mr. Wright

were again called to the Bar, and were thus addressed by Mr. Speaker:—

"Mr. John Kidson and Mr. Joseph Wright, the House have taken into their consideration the letter upon which you have been examined. It was impossible for them to entertain a doubt that it contains a grave Breach of the Privileges of this House; and, if it had been unaccompanied by the explanations which both of you have afforded, and by the regret which you have expressed, the House would have felt it due to themselves and to the public to have taken the most serious notice of it; but they have been struck with the candour with which you have stated your own conduct; they have been induced to believe that the earnestness and zeal that you felt in the interests of your clients led you unpremeditatedly to the commission of this Breach of Privilege; and, under these circumstances, they feel that their own honour and dignity may be preserved, and that the public interests will not be compromised, by their consenting to go no further than to direct me, as their Speaker, to admonish you as to your future conduct; that admonition, they feel persuaded, will preclude a repetition of such offence, and relieve them from the painful task of considering its enormity."