HC Deb 06 February 1834 vol 21 cc150-8
Mr. O'Connell

rose to direct the attention of the House to a breach of its privileges, and, after what had passed last night, it required very serious and deliberate investigation. It seemed to him generally understood, that the House had exercised its jurisdiction over two individual Members; and that the House had itself attached the matter then in controversy, which it was competent both to investigate and to redress. It was exceedingly desirable, that the characters of Members in the performance of their parliamentary duty should be ascertained—that the individuals might meet reproach if they deserved reproach, and confidence if they deserved confidence. He was himself, and so was his hon. and learned friend, the member for Tipperary, exceedingly anxious that an investigation of the facts should take place in a manner the most complete and satisfactory; and if there were any doubt in his mind as to the mode of proceeding, it arose out of the difficulty of bringing the subject within the rules of the House as much as was practicable or possible. He was quite ready in this respect to adopt any course which might be suggested by persons of greater experience, and whose feelings were not, like his, necessarily interested. He should be glad to avail himself of any aid that could be given by individuals who were able to maintain neutrality. For the present, his hon. and learned friend the member for Tipperary, and others were accused parties; they had been accused in no very measured language, for any language was extremely comprehensive which imputed deliberate treachery as between Members of the House and their constituents. For such a purpose it was not necessary to use vituperative terms; and certainly no man would deserve to be a Member who did not feel the deepest anxiety for the most prompt, efficacious, and honourable vindication of his character before a tribunal above the possibility of suspicion. As his own experience could not direct him in the proper course, he threw himself on the indulgence of the House, if he mistook the manner in which it was fit, in such a case, to proceed. He had last night read in a newspaper an extract from a speech attributed to the hon. member for Hull, and delivered at a public meeting in that town; and he did not know, that he could bring it before the House in any other shape than by considering the publication a breach of privilege. It was more particularly a breach of privilege, because the language attributed to the hon. member for Hull was not admitted by him to be that which he employed; on the contrary, a most important portion was different from what he uttered. He alluded emphatically to the secret machinery by which votes in this House were said to be procured. The speech attributed to only one individual this species of duplicity in his communication with Ministers. That part of the accusation had been disclaimed by the noble Lord, the Chancellor of the Exchequer: he denied that any such communication had been made to a Cabinet Minister. He (Mr. O'Connell) adopted this as the only basis that he knew of on which to found an inquiry. He was anxious that the inquiry should not be limited, but should be as extensive as possible; and it was the more necessary as the hon. member for Hull, as he understood, had given a kind of pledge to prove the fact he had asserted. He wished that hon. Member (Mr. Hill) to have the fullest opportunity of proving the fact. Therefore, he took the publication in the newspaper as the basis of the inquiry; and, speaking under correction, he wished a Committee of Privileges to be appointed to investigate the matter. After having so referred the question, he proposed to extend the powers of the Committee, so as to include every mode and shape in which the accusation could possibly affect the integrity of his excellent, honorable and esteemed friend, the member for Tipperary. The publication to which he alluded was, The Examiner newspaper, of the 10th November; and he meant, that the clerk should first read the passage, and then that the whole should be referred to a Committee of Privileges, to ascertain the facts, and report upon them to the House. First he should content himself by moving, that the paragraph be read.

Mr. Secretary Stanley,

before the paper was read at the Table, wished to ask, whether the House, by the act of reading it, would be bound to take any consequent steps with regard to the printer or publisher? If that were not the case, he should have no objection to the reading by the clerk, as a preliminary to any motion the hon. and learned Gentleman might wish to make. If it were the case, he took the earliest opportunity of stating unhesitatingly, that he should object to the preliminary Motion.

The Speaker

said, that the reading of the paragraph would not necessarily commit the House to any proceedings against the printer, unless, upon the reading, it should be further determined, that the paragraph contained matter which the House, having noticed, would be bound, in vindication of its privileges, to visit with its displeasure or punishment.

Mr. Secretary Stanley

said, that, after the explanation they had heard from the Chair, he did hope the House would take no step in this matter without due deliberation upon the consequences which that step might involve. It was impossible for any person, who heard the painful discussion of last night, not to have entertained the deepest regret at what then occurred; and it was quite as impossible for them not to see, that there was no escape from the difficulties in which they were now involved, without some further proceedings to be hereafter determined on by the House. He owned, that it had been to him a subject of deep regret, and he had stated it at once to his noble friend, that his noble friend should have felt himself called upon, although by a high sense of honour and feeling which no man could fail to appreciate, to give a public answer in that House to the questions put to him on such a matter. And, although he intended to attach no blame to any quarter, he must yet say how much he regretted, that, at an earlier period of the debate, the authority of the House had not been interposed to arrest its progress. But those regrets were now unavailing, and he thought it must be evident to every man who heard him, that the course they might take in the difficult situation in which they were now involved, would create a precedent that must hereafter have a very considerable influence, not only upon the private comforts of society, but also upon the conduct of public men in the discharge of their public duties. He held, that the House of Commons might, not only for the protection of its own privileges, but for many other purposes where the public interest demanded it, exercise powers almost inquisitorial. Yet he must say, that there was no subject to which he should be inclined to apply those powers with so much of shrinking caution, or with so deep a reluctance as one involving the introduction of private conversation into matters of public discussion. He implored the House to contemplate the effects of such a course. Not only would the freedom of debate in that House be impeded by it—not only should they thereby be hanging a clog upon their tongues by which to prevent the free exercise of the right of speech from the fear of dropping some unguarded expression; but also, throughout private society, distrust and reserve would take the place of candour and of the good feelings resulting from social confidence in their daily intercourse. It must throw a lurking suspicion into all their transactions with each other most unfavourable to the character of the House in its public capacity, and, he might say, degrading to their characters as Gentlemen in private. He felt this most deeply, and, therefore, he implored the House not to let it escape their due consideration in determining upon the course they were about to adopt. For, however much he deplored the circumstances, he could not deny that, after so much had been allowed to pass, after the question had been permitted to be asked, and after the answer which had been given by his noble friend, the hon. and learned member for Tipperary, in vindication of his own honour and character, had a right to call upon the House to set aside all technicalities and forms, and after they had guarded, as much as possible, against the danger of leaving the case as a precedent for future proceedings, to claim at their hands a further and full investigation. One word more as to the peculiar position in which the House was placed. The House had interposed in this matter in vindication of its own dignity, and had thereby taken the whole matter into its exclusive jurisdiction. Therefore, whatever result might attend the proceedings to be instituted by the House, this, at least, he trusted the House would understand, and would expect it to be understood by every Gentleman the more nearly he should be personally implicated, that the matter being so taken within the jurisdiction of the House, was not again to be taken into other hands. He trusted he should be forgiven for putting this broad construction upon the engagement into which two Gentlemen had been compelled, by the authority of the House, to enter. He trusted, that that engagement would be held to have been imposed, not upon those two Gentlemen alone, but any other Gentlemen who might think themselves implicated in any accusations that had been made; and that, whatever should be the acts or decision of the House, that decision should be final and satisfactory. If, therefore, he hesitated to adopt the proposition of the hon. and learned Member, it was not from a wish to debar any Gentleman from the fullest means of vindicating his character in the sight of the House. Nor did he wish to debar any Gentleman from tendering his personal evidence in the question upon any facts within his knowledge. But what he desired to do was this: upon a question of so much delicacy, affecting the character of individual Members, and involving consequences so deeply important to the House and to society, he was anxious to recommend the House to take no immedi- ate step. Atleast the delay of two or three—of three or four days—could not be too much to allow temporary excitement to subside, and the House could then seriously deliberate and discuss what might be the best mode—what the fittest tribunal—for ascertaining the truth, and what ought to be the specific limits of the accusation, and of the questions to be submitted to that tribunal. He gave no opinion upon the course taken by the hon. and learned Gentleman further than this—that he intreated the House not without notice, and not without sufficient grounds, to come to any determination as to the mode in which the investigation should take place. He would not suggest one moment's delay, hurtful as it might be to the feelings of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Sheil), if he did not think that proceeding with deliberation was of paramount importance. There was one further consideration which he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would forgive him for stating. It was most important that it should be fully understood what was the charge, and to what extent the answer must apply. The hon. and learned member for Tipperary had made a declaration last night in that House in the most formal and solemn manner it was possible for any man to adopt. He had not forgotten it, nor would the House forget it; and he trusted, that the House would feel that the word of a Member so pledged before his country was the most strictly binding asseveration that could be uttered. Therefore the hon. and learned Gentleman should well know the charge, in order that he might adapt to it the limits of his denial. He would not anticipate what that denial would amount to—he was aware of the extreme difficulty of speaking upon the subject—he hardly knew how to word what he had to say without hurting individual feelings—but if that denial should not be fully and entirely supported, or rather if the denial given last night should be set aside, he prayed the House seriously and deliberately to consider to what further steps it might lead. He wished only to impress upon Members the deep importance of the question. It was of importance to the character of the hon. and learned Gentleman—of importance to the character of the House. When once the House had determined, in some shape or other, to enter upon the investigation, it ought to feel what might possibly be the awful consequences of the result. He was sure he should be pardoned if he should inadvertently hurt any Gentleman's feelings; a deep sense of duty impelled him to request hon. Gentlemen for a short time to suspend their decision upon the course that ought to be adopted, and to suggest to the hon. and learned Gentleman the fitness of withdrawing the Motion he had made, for the purpose of giving a notice upon the subject for an early day, allowing due time for deliberation.

Mr. O'Connell

said, that the only thing in the course of the right hon. Gentleman's observations which excited in his mind any portion of surprise, was the supposition that any thing which had fallen from him could be calculated to hurt the feelings of any human being. It was impossible for him or for any man to exaggerate the importance of the inquiry to which they were about to proceed. He wished for deliberation; but deliberation did not preclude determination. He thought it would be more consonant with a deliberative course of procedure, and it would be important, above all to his hon. and learned friend, that they should have before them at once an idea, with something like distinctness, as to the form of the charge and of the nature of the inquiry. He need not say, that there could be no disposition on the part of those who were accused, to limit the scope or nature of the inquiry; there could be no desire with them, but that the investigation should be ample and complete. He therefore thought, that he was not only justified in doing so, but bound to adopt the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman. Acceding to everything which had fallen from him as to the importance of the subject, and the serious consequences which it involved, the only thing he had to say was, that if any charge could be made it should be at once stated. He meant, that it should be generally specified, in order that the House should know what it was they were to inquire about. The accusation of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a peculiar feature in it. It not only went beyond the question he put, but it included other individuals besides his hon. and learned friend. Certainly the noble Lord had said more than one; but that might be any number. It could not be less than two, but it might be just forty. He admitted, that the subject had been taken up by the other side of the House fairly, and he trusted, that he should be regarded as having no other desire than for a full and impartial inquiry. There appeared to be a difference of opinion between the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord opposite; but he hoped they would be prepared to state who were to be the persons charged, and with what offences.

Mr. Secretary Stanley

begged to correct the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said, that there was any difference between him and his noble friend near him. On the part of his noble friend and himself, he declined the application of the hon. and learned Gentleman to be considered public accusers in the case, and therefore he could not give the information the hon. and learned Gentleman desired. The term used by his noble friend was, that certain Members of that House, who spoke against the Coercion Bill used very different language out of the House. He again implored the House to pause, in order that they might have time to take into their serious consideration the steps which it would be proper to adopt before they decided on any direct or final course.

Mr. O'Connell

regretted extremely, that from the turn which the Debate had taken it was impossible to go further. Now the matter became involved in much obscurity, even with regard to the charge made. Nothing definite was stated, and he must say, that he had never heard a charge more general, more loose, and more vague. The House would feel with him how painful a situation he stood in in vindicating a Gentleman from a charge that was in its nature so indefinite. Why were they not told of some particular time or place? And as the transaction now assumed quite a different shape, and as now nothing personal referred to his Lordship, why were they not told who it was that reported the conversation, and why did they not hear of some circumstance which would enable them to see their way a little further? There were no particulars given; all was general assertion. He hoped it was not the case with the noble Lord, dolosus versatur in generalibus; but the proverb showed, that the way not to be candid was to deal in generals. The noble Lord in his statement did certainly implicate more Members than one. Now, why should these Gentlemen remain under such an imputation? Surely they, against whom such charges were alleged should at once be mentioned; for, whatever difficulty there might be in giving the authority, there could be none in specifying at least one more individual. Therefore he hoped, that the second individual at least, or, if he might be permitted to use the noun of multitude, "individuals," should be distinctly designated.

Question postponed.