Commons Sitting of 6 December 1837

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a second time:—Highway Rates.—Read a third time:—Municipal Officers' Declaration.
Petitions presented. By Mr. GROTE, from a number of Dissenting Congregations in London, for extending the working of the Municipal Officers' Declaration Bill to the whole empire.—By Mr. CHRISTOPHER, from Gainsborough, against the Poor-law Amendment Act.—By Mr. GILLON, from Leith, for Household Suffrage and the Ballot.—By Mr. MILES, from Warminster, for the repeal of the Beer Act.—By Mr. HUME, from three Protestant Dissenting Congregations in London, for extending the Foundation Schools (Ireland) Bill to persons of all religious denominations, by making it apply to the whole empire.

IRISH ELECTIONS.—SUBSCRIPTIONS.
Mr. William Smith O'Brienrose, pursuant to notice, to present a petition, which he believed was somewhat of a novel nature, but not more unprecedented than the circumstances out of which it had arisen. The existence of an election subscription Fund carried on for several months in England and Scotland was a matter of public notoriety, although it had not yet been alluded to in that House. It appeared to him, that a subscription professedly raised for the purpose of encouraging the presentation of petitions—
Sir Edward Knatchbullrose to order. He would be the last to interfere between any hon. Member and the right to present any petition he thought proper to that House; but he understood, on the authority of the chair, a rule had been adopted by mutual consent of both sides of the House, that no discussion whatever should take place on the presentation of petitions.
688
If it was the intention of the hon. Member merely to state the substance of the petition, he would be acting in complete conformity with the rule which had been laid down; but he appealed to the authority of the chair whether it was competent for the hon. Member to enter generally into the subject matter referred to in the petition.
The Speakersaid, the question had undoubtedly been submitted to the consideration of the House, and whatever rule existed was founded upon the authority of the House. There was a discussion announced for this very evening with reference to the subject matter of the petition, and, therefore, the hon. Member would probably think, that he would not only satisfy the rules of the House, but also meet the full justice of the case, by stating merely the substance of the case. Any argument on the merits of the petition would most appropriately be given in the course of the evening.
Mr. O'Brienwas quite ready to comply with the suggestion which had been thrown out. He was not disposed to enter into any argument on the subject; but it appeared to him, that under the particular circumstances of the case, he should adopt a legitimate and constitutional mode of bringing the matter before the House in the shape of a petition, considering himself aggrieved by the conduct of an hon. Baronet, a Member of that House, subscribing to a fund, having for its object the encouragement of petitions against the due return of hon. Members to that House, and among others, of himself for Limerick; and therefore he hoped he should be allowed—he believed he had a right—to read the petition at length.
The Speakersaid, the hon. Member might state the substance of the petition, but the rule of the House was, that he must not read the petition at length.
Mr. O'Brienwould then merely move, in the first instance, that the petition be brought up.
The Petition having been brought up,
Mr. O'Brien Mr. O'Brien moved, that the petition be read at length by the clerk—he insisted on his right to have it read, and if it were necessary, he should divide the House upon the point.
The Clerk read the petition, as under:
"To the Hon. the House of Commons.
"The humble petition of William Smith

689
O'Brien, one of the sitting Members for the county of Limerick,
"Humbly showeth,—That your petitioner most respectfully approaches your hon. House with a petition and complaint touching a matter which not only affects himself, but also deeply concerns the privileges of your hon. House, the rights of the electors of these realms, the especial interest of the people of Ireland, and the general well-being and concord of all parts of the United Kingdom.
"That your petitioner begs respectfully to call the attention of your hon. House to the existence of a public subscription set on foot in England for the purpose of encouraging the presentation of petitions against Members returned to serve in this present Parliament for the counties, cities, towns, and boroughs of Ireland, and of defraying the expenses attendant upon the conduct and prosecution of the same.
"That it appears from successive advertisements in the public newspapers, that a very large fund has been already raised in England for the purposes above-mentioned.
"That inasmuch as the persons who have been induced to subscribe to this fund for the most part are unconnected with the constituencies of Ireland, and have had no opportunity of personally witnessing the proceedings at the Irish elections, they have necessarily been liable to be misled by the misrepresentations of persons who have an interest in deceiving them."
Sir E. Sugdenrose to order. He submitted that the course which had been adopted on the present occasion, was altogether a novel proceeding. He had no wish to prevent the sentiments or opinions of any hon. Member being given fully to the House and the country upon any question of public or private interest. He simply rose to submit the question whether this petition should be received, it being the petition of the Member himself who presented it, on a question which concerned a public grievance.
Mr. O'Briensaid, he brought the matter forward as a matter of private grievance. He approached the House in the character of an aggrieved party. He complained of an hon. Baronet, a Member of that House, subscribing to a fund, having for its object to deprive him among others of his seat; and he did not see how the circumstance of his being a Member of that House should deprive him of that right of complaint which belonged to every other subject of her Majesty.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, that the hon. Member had not opened the case as one of private grievance. At all events, this course, if adopted, would occasion a very
690
serious public grievance. What; would it lead to? Hon. Members would write out an argument, deliver a pamphlet in the shape of a petition to the clerk at the table, and insist upon its being read at length, and thereby the greatest possible inconvenience must be produced. If it were a private grievance that was complained of, he should offer no objection to the reading of the petition; but having been opened as a matter of public grievance, he called for the opinion of the chair for the guidance of the House on so important a question.
Mr. Lambtoncould not but think it an act of great presumption on the part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to interfere when the clerk was reading the petition, the Speaker having expressed his opinion in favour of its being read.
Sir E. Knatchbullwas sure the hon. Gentleman had made a charge of presumption against his right hon. and learned Friend which was wholly untenable. The hon. Member was under a misconception. When a Member presented a petition and required that it should be read, as a matter of courtesy it was usual to have it read. That was the extent to which the rule had hitherto been carried. But the question was in the present instance greatly affected by the fact that the petitioner was the hon. Member himself, petitioning on his own part, and complaining of a public grievance. If it were a private grievance of which he complained, by which he was likely to suffer, his right hon. and learned Friend would not have urged his objection.
Mr. H. Grattansaid, his hon. Friend, (Mr. O'Brien) had distinctly stated that he complained of a private grievance; but after the letter written by the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, (Sir F. Burdett) he was disposed to think the matter should have been treated as a direct breach of privilege. There could be no doubt of the hon. Member's right to have the petition read at length.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he would be glad to learn from the Speaker the course which ought to be pursued on this occasion. The hon. Member below him, in introducing the petition by a few remarks, was interrupted by the right hon. Baronet opposite, and the right hon. Gentleman in the Chair then directed him to state the substance of the petition. But, not content with stating the substance, the hon. Member

691
desired that the petition be read at the table, when the Speaker intimated to him that he might pursue that course. In accordance, therefore, with the suggestion from the Chair, the hon. Member moved that the petition be read; which question having been formally put from the chair, and no opposition being made, he wished to know whether it was competent for any hon. Member to interrupt the reading of the petition? It appeared to him that the clerk was bound to proceed, and the observations of hon. Members should be deferred until the petition had been read.
The Speakersaid, it was not a common thing for an hon. Member to present a petition having immediate reference to himself. The usual course was, when any hon. Member had a complaint to make, to state the subject matter in his place in Parliament. In the present instance, the hon. Member for the county of Limerick, having adopted the mode of appealing to the House by petition, and having stated it to be a case of private grievance, he could see no reason for objecting to the rending of the petition.
The remainder of the petition was then read by the clerk as follows:—
"That your petitioner sincerely believes that the persons who have set on foot this subscription, desire and intend thereby, to frustrate and annul the choice of the electors of Ireland by the following means:
"First—Taking advantage of the expensive nature of the present process for the trial of controverted elections, they hope to overbear, by such subscriptions, the possibility of any resistance or defence upon the part of such sitting Members as may not be able to defray the expense of defending a seat in Parliament—an expense, which not unfrequently has amounted to several thousand pounds upon the trial of a single petition.
"Secondly,—Availing themselves of the present state of the law, they propose by the presentation of petitions against a considerable number of Members of your honourable House to disqualify from sitting upon committees for the trial of election petitions a large portion of those Members whose political opinions are in accordance with the sentiments of the electors of Ireland, and thus to obtain committees favourable to the objects for which this confederacy has been formed.
"That your petitioner humbly conceives that such a confederacy and subscription is in the highest degree unconstitutional, and that if it be converted into a precedent, a similar proceeding may hereafter be used as an instrument destructive to the rights and liberties of the British people.
"That in reference to the connection be-
692
tween Great Britain and Ireland it will be productive of the most injurious effects, as tending to create in Ireland an opinion that there exists among the English nation a strong antipathy to the Irish people, and a disposition to obstruct the free expression of their opinions through their Representatives in Parliament, and that thus the harmony which ought to subsist between two nations, united as well by mutual interest as by an international compact, will be endangered if not destroyed.
"That your petitioner has seen in the public newspapers a letter purporting to have been signed by Sir Francis Burdett, a Member of your honourable House, in which letter the said Sir Francis avows that he has contributed to this fund. And your petitioner humbly submits that it is the duty of your honourable House to inquire how far it is consistent with the impartial exercise of the functions which this hon. Member may be compelled (subject to the obligation and sanction of an oath) to undertake that he should thus voluntarily have made himself a party in a casein which the law constitutes him a judge.
"That, in exemplication of the results which may be expected to arise from the employment of the above-mentioned subscription, your petitioner has observed that a petition has been presented, impeaching the validity of the late election and return for the county of Limerick, which petition your petitioner conscientiously believes would not have been presented with a view to its being brought before a Committee of your honourable House, unless the parties from whom it emanates had expected to receive assistance and support from the above-mentioned confederacy.
"That it does not become your petitioner, in his own case, to make any statement which may induce Members of your honourable House to prejudge the merits of a petition which will be subjected to the investigation of a Committee of your honourable House, but your petitioner firmly believes that his return was the result of the free choice of the electors, of the county of Limerick, and that the grounds of the said petition are of a nature wholly frivolous and untenable.
"That your petitioner is not ashamed to confess that, even though assured of a favourable result, he does not regard with indifference the expense of defending his seat under the present mode of defending the trial of controverted elections; and he therefore humbly submits that if he should decline to defend his seat under a feeling of unwillingness to enter upon an equal contest with parties sustained by a subscription collected in England from individuals who are both wholly regardless of the interests of the constituency of the county of Limerick, but only anxious to promote the objects of the party to which they were attached, the free choice of the electors of the county would in such case be defeated and annulled by the machinations of the unconstitutional confederacy.

693
"That, as well therefore upon grounds of public policy, as with reference to his own individual case, your petitioner humbly prays that an inquiry may be made into all the proceedings connected with the said subscription, for the purpose of ascertaining whether such subscription be consistent with the laws of the land, the usages of Parliament, the privileges of your honourable House, and the rights of the electors of Great Britain and Ireland; and that your honourable House may take such other measures for securing to the people of Ireland protection against any injury or injustice that may arise from such confederacy and subscription as in its wisdom it shall see fit.
"And your petitioner will ever pray
" WILLIAM SMITH O'BRIEN."
Upon the question being put, that the petition do lie on the table,
Mr. Humesaid, as the subject was to come under the consideration of the House at an early day, he should submit to the House whether it would not be proper to have the petition printed?
The Speakerthought, if the hon. Member who had presented the petition desired to have it printed that it was incumbent upon him, and not upon the hon. Member for Kilkenny, to move that it be printed with the votes. It was also necessary that the hon. Member should fix some specific day on which it should be brought under the attention of the House.
Mr. O'Brienannounced his intention to call the notice of the House to the question, whether an hon. Member—the hon. Member for Wiltshire, for instance—could subscribe to a fund to enable parties to question a return, in which he had no interest, and of which he knew nothing? He should move that the petition be printed in the votes of the House. He begged to give notice that he should bring the subject under its attention to-morrow.
On the motion that the petition be printed,
Mr. Williams Wynnsaid, that the petitioner stated so much relative to the election, the trial of which was pending, that the House would do well to pause before it assented to the motion. The statement in the petition went the length of attacking the late Limerick election upon the merits, and he, therefore, thought the hon. Member should have given notice of his motion.
Sir Robert Inglissaid, that on a former night a petition presented by an hon. Member on his side of the House from
694
Berwick on Tweed had been withdrawn, on the ground that it interfered with an election petition, and he thought equal justice would not be dealt to both sides of the House if they allowed a petition to come before them complaining of circumstances which must come before them hereafter judicially. They had acted on this principle in the cases of Bridgewater and Berwick, and ought to do so in the present case.
Mr. S. O'Brienpresented himself to the House as an aggrieved party in reference to the Spottiswoode conspiracy that had been entered into against those who, like himself, represented large constituencies, but were unable to defend the expenses of petitions. He therefore intended, on the circumstances he had stated, to found a motion for to-morrow, in reference to the conduct of the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wilts. And he begged to move, as a necessary preliminary, that his petition be printed with the votes.
Lord John Russelldid not think the petition stated anything with regard to the last election; it merely alleged, that as between those complaining of the return and the sitting Member there could not be a fair trial, in consequence of circumstances having special reference to a Member of that House. He did not, therefore, see how the rule which had been applied in the cases of Bridgewater and Berwick-upon-Tweed must necessarily hold here. At the same time, he could not see why the hon. Member should give notice of bringing the matter before the House to-morrow, when another hon. Member intended discussing the same subject to night. The petition stated nothing which was not known throughout the whole country; and if the discussion anticipated came on to-night, why should the House be again called on to enter into the matter afresh to-morrow?
Sir Robert Peelhoped the House would pause, before they established a precedent by sanctioning the printing of the petition on another ground. This was not the application of an individual merely complaining of a private injury or grievance; but the petition contained an argument on grounds of public policy. These were the words of the concluding paragraph:—" That as well therefore upon grounds of public policy, as with reference to his own individual case, your petitioner humbly prays," &c. The petitioner referred to a

695
number of cases, and argued that a subscription raised for the purposes alluded to was impolitic; but before the House assented to the printing of it, let them see the advantage they would give to one Member over another. An hon. Member might embody an argument or a speech, which might be a very good one, in a petition, and procure its authentic publication with the votes, while ordinary Members of the House must trust to the reporters for the publication of theirs. He hoped the House would pause before they established a precedent of that kind in favour of a petition, not complaining of any individual act of grievance merely, but discussing the whole question on the grounds of public policy. The hon. Gentleman, at all events, was bound to give notice on the subject.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, the question was one of privilege, and did not require any previous notice. The objection of the right hon. Baronet was rather comical. He said the petition should not be printed because it contained an argument; why if the petition contained no reasoning, that would have been an excellent reason for not having it presented at all. Seriously, the question involved the interest of many individuals in that House. It might be desirable to know how many in that House had contributed to this fund. As far as he understood the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, he had put his name publicly in the newspapers; he gave all parties fair notice; certainly, there was candour in his conduct; and they all knew, therefore, if the hon. Baronet should be called on to serve on any election Committee, that he was one of the parties to the petition, and he would be challenged of course; for what could be more monstrous than that a man should be both a party and a judge? Was it to be endured in this country, that there should be a tribunal where men could contribute to the expenses of a suit, and yet adjudicate on the merits as a judge? He had heard much of this and that being un-English, surely this was exceedingly un-English. He therefore hoped hon. Gentlemen opposite who had contributed to this fund, or suspected others, would come forward and avow themselves, that the House might know who were partisans and who were not. There would then be some chance of fair play; there would be "edification in their vice." All the hon.
696
Member now wanted was, having given notice of his motion for to-morrow, that the petition should be printed with the votes, in order that the House might fairly be apprised of the contents of the petition. He could see no objection to such a course.
Lord Stanleysaid, he hoped neither the House nor the hon. Baronet would now be led into any premature discussion on a general question which was to undergo, or at least which he hoped was to undergo, full discussion to-night, as to whether an individual or set of individuals, singly or collectively, had or had not a right to subscribe to the legal expenses of an election petition. The question now before the House was one of much narrower compass; and he rose principally with the view of pointing out to the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, that there existed between this case and the Bridgewater and Berwick-upon-Tweed petitions a much closer connexion and analogy than he seemed disposed to allow. The petition, which had been presented from Berwick, had been withdrawn by consent of the House. It did not complain of anything which had occurred at the election; but it stated that an agent or some person on behalf of the rejected candidates had written a letter to the petitioner, who had voted for the sitting Members, requesting him to give evidence of bribery before the Committee; and that upon his answering that he could not conscientiously give such evidence, that agent had offered him a large sum of money to appear before the Committee—an offer which clearly amounted to subornation of perjury. That petition had nothing whatever to do with the merits of the election: it did not enter into it even so much as the present petition did; but as it appeared to prejudge some person who had been instrumental in bringing forward the petition against the return of the sitting Members for Berwick, it had been thought advisable that his hon. Friend who had presented that petition should withdraw it. The petition was in consequence withdrawn; and he left it to the House to say, whether the petition of the hon. Member for Limerick did not go much more into the merits of his return than the petition to which he had just alluded.
The Attorney-Generalsaid, the question for the House to decide was, whether

697
this petition ought to be printed or not. It complained of a breach of privilege. The hon. Member for Limerick stated in his petition that he had been aggrieved by the conduct pursued by another hon. Member: why, then, should not his petition be printed according to the common course of the proceedings of the House? If that petition sought, like the Bridge-water petition, to prejudice the merits of the question to be tried before the election Committee, he should tender his advice, as he had tendered it before, that it should be withdrawn. He had been clearly of opinion that the Bridgewater petition ought to be withdrawn, because if it had been inquired into it must have compelled them to go into the merits of the late election. But that reason could not be alleged to exist in this case, for the hon. Member for Limerick merely said, "I believe I was duly elected, and I wish to have a fair trial. I think that the chance of my having a fair trial is prejudiced by the fund to which the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, has subscribed." The questions, then, which the House had to inquire into had no reference to the election; they were confined to these points—first, whether a subscription had been given by the hon. Baronet to that fund or not; secondly, whether, if it had been given, it was legal or illegal; and lastly, whether the printing of this petition would or would not prejudice the petition against the seat which the hon. Member for Limerick then held. Leaving the two former points undecided, he was prepared to contend that the printing of this petition could not prejudice the election petition which had been presented against the hon. Member for Limerick. No man could feel more strongly than himself the great importance of not doing any thing calculated to prejudice the cool march of justice in this country. Now, they would prejudice that march if they did not allow this petition to be printed.
Mr. Hindesaid, that the speech of the Attorney-General was intended to show that there was a difference between the Bridgewater petition and that which was then under the consideration of the House, but what had fallen from him had tended to prove that it was very inconvenient when an hon. Member ventured to enter upon a discussion of which he had not heard the commencement. If the hon. and learned Attorney-General had been in
698
the House the—[Attorney-General, I was.]—Well then, if he had been attentive to what had taken place in the House, he would have known' that an analogy had not been drawn between this petition and the Bridgewater petition, but between this petition and the Berwick petition, to which he had adverted last night. In the present case complaint was made that subsequently to the election an attempt had been made to prejudice the tribunal, before which the trial of the election petition must take place, by what was called the unconstitutional conduct of the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wilt hire, in the other case the assertion was, that the trial was to be prejudiced by an attempt at subornation of perjury. The petition from Berwick was entirely confined to what occurred subsequently to the election, and to the means taken to prejudice the trial before a fair tribunal. Admitting the present case to be a breach of privilege, the other case could not be considered to be less so. Last night he had offered either to name a day for the consideration of the petition which he had then presented, or to withdraw it altogether. His right hon. Friend, the Member for the University of Oxford, had suggested to him that it would be better to withdraw that petition for the present, and in that suggestion the noble Secretary for the Home Department had concurred. In obedience to their suggestions, and to the general feeling of the House, he had withdrawn it. But the House would give rise to an opinion very unfavourable to its character for impartiality, if it called upon him one night to withdraw his petition, and yet, when a similar request was made on the next to another Gentleman, it declared that that Gentleman's petition must not be withdrawn, but must be presented and printed.
Mr. Prymeobserved, that the reason alleged for the withdrawal of the petition last night was, that it related to a matter which could be inquired into before the Election Committee. Of course it could, for it was the duty of every tribunal to inquire whether any witness examined before it had been tampered with or not. But that was not the case here. How could the grievance of which the hon. Member for Limerick complained be inquired into before the Election Committee? It clearly could not be inquired into, if the hon. Baronet, the Member for Wiltshire,

699
was not a member of that Committee. Could it be inquired into, even if be was a member of it? He thought not. He conceived that he had clearly established that there was a broad distinction between the circumstances which had been respectively urged for the withdrawal of these two petitions.
Mr. Hinde: I distinctly stated last night, that the allegations of the petition which I then presented could not be inquired into by any Election Committee, as the party complained of was not an agent of the petitioning candidate.
Sir F. Burdett:—Sir, it is personally indifferent to me what becomes of this petition; but I must say, that if the hon. Member who presented it had been mo e accustomed to the usual courtesies of the House, he would have given me notice of his intention to present it. He did not think proper to do so. That is not, however, a matter of the slightest importance tome, further than this—that I might not have been in the House at the time of his presenting it, and the hon. Member might have averred things to which I might have wished to reply, without having the opportunity to do so. After what has just fallen from my noble Friend, I will not enter into that question now. The whole of this proceeding is so extraordinary to me, is so contradictory to all previous Parliamentary experience that it is difficult to comprehend the meaning of it. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin has pursued a similar course to the hon. Member for the county of Limerick—for he calls an act of mine by a name which attributes criminality to it, and yet he does not venture upon a single argument to show how injustice is done by honest men, who wish to see justice done, aye justice done to Ireland, and more particularly justice done upon the hon. and learned Member himself. It is not to be borne that any man should suppose that by big words, an assuming tone, and a confident brow, this House can he driven from its usual mode of proceeding into measures which are contrary to its usual practice, and I may say, to its ordinary privileges and to the common sense of every thinking man in the country. The hon. and learned Member charges us with a conspiracy. A conspiracy!—and for what? Conspiracy is not an offence, except it be a combination for an illegal object. Conspiracy is only combining together for
700
a certain purpose; and if combination alone constitutes conspiracy, then is the hon. and learned Member for Dublin the greatest conspirator whom I know in the world. His cry has been for years, "Agitate, agitate agitate—combine, combine, combine;" and as to funds, why, "Rent, rent, rent." Yes, that has been the great thing with him. Why, Sir, the hon. Member shows a total want of acquaintance with all the proceedings of Parliament, and a strange ignorance of that profession of which he is a member, when he fancies and supposes that a petition must be crammed with arguments and reasons instead of being a plain statement of facts; and when he says, on our rejecting a petition because it is crammed with the one and contains nothing of the other, that if there be no argument in the petition, there can be no reason for presenting it. This logic will not impose on you, Sir, nor will it pass current with the House of Commons for petitions register facts and allegations which are to be duly inquired into at a proper time. If a vote is to be taken upon this question, I shall withdraw, I have no interest whatever in the petition. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Member for having made this attack on me, for I have put myself in front of this question, and am prepared to stand the brunt of all this trial, be it a legal trial or otherwise. I believe that I have acted upon just, upon honest, and upon constitutional grounds. The hon. Member who presented this petition is evidently interested in the fate of the election petition against his return. I ask whether members in his situation,—and there are many of them on the benches opposite—are entitled to call upon us to make fresh election laws, and to devise new modes of trial for the honorable object of creating unconstitutional procrastination and mischievous delay? They sit here, let me tell them, in a very equivocal condition. We call them, it is true, Members of Parliament, and yet they are in a critical position, for their seats are questioned. It is, in my opinion, the first duty of the House to try whether those Members are or are not entitled to their seals, and I much doubt whether we ought to have any holyday until we have decided by our vote who ought to keep their seals, and who are the real Representatives of the people. I doubt also whether it would not be a proper thing to lay it down as a

701
fixed principle that all persons petitioned against should be excluded from voting on any question in that House until the petition against them was decided. I have now done. Nothing has occurred this day which is not to me most acceptable. I do not mean to oppose the printing of this petition, but I shall beg leave to walk out of the House if the House should determine to divide upon it.
Mr. O'Connellrose to explain [Spoke spoke.] He had a right to explain, and if he were interrupted he would move the adjournment of the House. He congratulated himself on the impartiality of the Speaker. He had attacked nobody—he had even gone out of his way to give credit to the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire for his candour. [Great tumult in the house.]
The Speakercalled on Mr. O'Connell to explain.
Mr. O'Connell: I did not use a single harsh word. I did not describe what I think a crime by its proper denomination. The hon. Baronet has therefore misstated me. He also misstated me in saying that I used no argument to show how a person could be partial in a case like this. I did so. [Renewed tumult—Mr. O'Connell sat down, the Speaker rose.]
Mr. Humerose amidst loud cries of "Chair" Why chair?
Sir R. Inglis: I called chair, Sir, because you rose, and when you rise, Sir, it is due to your station that you should be heard.
Mr. Hume: I have not yet spoken. I am not out of order. Why then does the right hon. Baronet call out "Chair?" ["Order," "Chair."]
Sir E. Knatchbull—I never till now, saw an occasion, since I have been in Parliament in which the Chair rose to offer its opinion on a point of order and was not duly attended to.
The Speaker: It is true that I rose, and I did so for the purpose of stating that when the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was about re-stating his arguments, he was doing that which was inconsistent with an explanation. The hon. Member for Kilkenny, I suppose, rose for the purpose of showing that the hon. and learned Member was in order; for otherwise he had no right to rise.
Mr. Humehad not risen with the view attributed to him by the Speaker, but because his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Dublin, had desisted from his
702
argument, in compliance with the call made upon him from the Chair. He could not refrain from expressing his surprise at the attempt which the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, had made to turn the attention of the House from the subject before it, by talking of the rent and other irrelevant but irritating matters. The hon. Baronet had talked of justice; was it justice to introduce topics which were not before the House, to raise a prejudice against the question which was regularly under discussion? The hon. Baronet had said, that as an honest man he was anxious to see justice done with respect to those election petitions. Now, was it justice to allow an individual to be a judge in his own cause at the very moment he was expending large sums of money for the purpose of carrying his cause? The petition of the hon. Member for the county of Limerick complained that several individuals of rank, and especially the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, whom it mentioned by name, had subscribed money for the purpose of interfering with the privileges of that House. Notice had been given by the hon. Member for Limerick that he would to-morrow move for a Committee of Inquiry, to ascertain how many other Members of that House were in the same situation with the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, and were therefore disqualified from sitting on Committees to decide controverted elections. He contended, that the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, was, upon his own admission, clearly incapable of sitting upon any election Committee. If there were fifty other Members who had joined him in his subscription, parties would go to their election Committees, not knowing whom they ought to strike off, as parties who had prejudged the case. It was for the purpose of ascertaining who bad mixed themselves up with that subscription as the hon. Baronet had done, and for the purpose of giving the House an opportunity to purify itself by striking those Members off' all Election Committees, that he wished hon. Members to have this petition in a printed state before them. The allegation having been made that the House did require such purification, and that there were so many Members who ought not to be allowed to sit on Election Committees, and a notice having been

703
given of a motion for a Committee to inquire into the truth of that allegation, would the House refuse to possess itself of that document, and to put it into the hands of Members in time to enable them to judge by to-morrow whether the Committee ought to be granted or not? There was ample necessity that the House should do justice to itself by purifying these tribunals. When the House knew the extent of the evil, it should then proceed to determine what ought to be done with the men who had prejudged every election question, and yet were ready to sit upon Committees appointed to decide upon controverted elections. If the hon. Baronet should tell him that it was consistent with the character of honest men to seek justice in this extraordinary manner, he would tell the hon. Baronet in reply, that it was not consistent with the institutions of England that any man should be a judge in his own cause. He would put it to the Speaker whether he had not decided again and again, that when a petition alleging a grievance and calling for inquiry was presented, and when notice was given that a motion would be made on the subject matter of that petition, that petition must be printed before the subject came under discussion. Now they were twenty-eight hours before the discussion of that motion—and he asked the Speaker whether it were not consistent with the practice and the convenience of the House to have the petition printed and distributed with the votes to-morrow? He would not on the present occasion enter into any investigation of the charge which the hon. Baronet had brought against his hon. and learned Friend of being an agitator or conspirator. When the proper opportunity for discussing that question arose, he would be prepared to show that there were other agitators more violent and more unconstitutional than his hon. and learned Friend. He concluded by saying that this petition ought to be printed before the House proceeded to the discussion upon it to-morrow.
Mr. Aglionbycould not give his vote upon the present question without making a few observations in support of it. It would not raise the character of the House with the country, when it was known that a mere question as to the practice of the House had engendered so much personal heat and party violence. His reason for voting for the printing of this petition
704
was, that he could see no analogy between it and the Berwick and Bridgewater petitions. It was a fit petition to be received, and therefore the only question for the House was, whether it was not a fit petition to be printed. What would the House say if a juryman were proved to have given, nay, were even accused of having given, an undertaking to pay part of the costs of the prosecution which he was empanelled to try? If any Member of that House were accused of having done something like this by subscribing to the funds necessary to defray the costs of prosecuting an election petition, ought not the House to put a mark on such a man, and reject him from their body? It was important not only that Members of that House should be impartial judges, but also that they should be deemed above suspicion. If the House rejected this petition, it would be said that it had done so because it was anxious to stifle inquiry, because it was afraid to let the public know how it carried the inquiry on. He hoped that if it valued its own character, the House would let this petition be printed, as it did not prejudice the merits of the election.
Sir Edward Sugdenbegged to call the attention of the House to this paragraph in the petition of the hon. Member for Limerick:—"That it does not become your petitioner in his own case to make any statement which may induce Members of your hon. House to prejudge the merits of a petition which will be subjected to the investigation of a Committee of your hon. House, but your petitioner firmly believes that his return was the result of the free choice of the electors of the county of Limerick, and that the grounds of the said petition are of a nature wholly frivolous and untenable." He put it to the noble Secretary for the Home Department, whether such a statement did not make this an election petition.
Lord J. Russellrose to address the House in consequence of the pointed appeal which had just been made to him, and because he thought it important that the House should settle the mode of proceeding as to this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman who spoke last had asked him this question—"Do you not think that the words of the paragraph which I have just read affect the merits of the election petition for the county of

705
Limerick?" To that question he replied, that he did not think that words of such general meaning did affect the merits of that election petition. The petitioners against the seat maintain, of course, that the sitting Member is not duly elected. If he is determined to maintain his return and to defend his seat, he, of course, contends that he is duly elected, and that the petition against him is frivolous and untenable. A mere assertion like that was very different from alleged fuels, such as bribery or intimidation, or coercion of voters, or any other circumstance which affects a seat. Therefore it was, that he thought that an allegation of this sort did not bring this petition within the rules laid down in the cases of the Berwick and the Bridgewater petitions. The hon. Member for Newcastle seemed to understand him to have said that the House ought to proceed with this matter to-night, and that it had no occasion to have the petition printed. Now, what he wanted was this—that the House should understand thoroughly what it was prepared to do. If they wished the discussion on the general question to come on that night, then the petition ought to be considered in the general discussion. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member for Limerick wished to bring on his motion tomorrow, he being interested in the matter, had a perfect right to do so, and as the hon. Member came forward as an aggrieved party, the House ought to give him a fair opportunity for entering into the merits of the case, and for asking for a Committee of inquiry. In order to state the merits of his case, it might be more or less material that his petition be printed. The printing of a petition, before a substantive motion was made upon it, was the ordinary course of the House, and to depart from it on this occasion would seem as if the House did not intend to give the hon. Member a fair hearing. If, then this matter should come to a vote, he should certainly vote for the printing of the petition. But he could not do this without saying a word as to the course to be pursued. He had a motion on the books with respect to the days on which the different Election Committees were to be fixed after the recess. Now, there was nothing in this petition which at all altered the grounds on which he proposed to fix the days after the recess for each election petition. Therefore if he now voted for
706
the printing of this petition for the sake of going into the whole question of the subscription, so far as it had reference to the seats in Ireland, he wished it to be understood that he felt himself at liberty after the division to move to fix days after the recess for the taking into consideration the different petitions on controverted elections. He was excessively sorry that the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, had mixed up this preliminary discussion with matters of extreme passion and excitement. That was a course suit likely to procure justice. When a specific motion was made, he should be prepared to state his opinion, whatever it might be, on the conduct of the hon. Baronet, and on the course which he had pursued that night.
Mr. O'Brien Mr. O'Brien, said, that his course would depend very much upon the result of the discussion of that evening. One fact, to which he wished to bring the attention of the House, and which had not been alluded to by the noble Lord who had just sat down, was, that an hon. Member of that House had avowedly become a subscriber to that fund. But he had risen on the present occasion for one object alone, and that was to offer his sincere apology to the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, for not having given him private notice of his intention to present his petition. He had given public notice of it some days ago. He had thought that that notice would be sufficient to raise the whole question, as he understood from the public papers that the hon. Baronet was absolutely burning for the first opportunity to avow himself a member of "The Spottiswoode Gang."
Mr. Morgan O' Connellsaid, that on this occasion he should certainly vote with the hon. Member for the county of Limerick. The hon. Baronet, the Member for Wiltshire, had made a violent attack on the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and had said, that for twenty years of his life the battle cry of that hon. Member had been "Agitate, agitate." Now, he should like to know what the hon. Baronet himself had been doing for a life which extended over a much longer period? Was it not the hon. Baronet who had agitated this vast metropolis to its very centre; and who had endangered the peace of the city and the lives of thousands of its inhabitants? Surely, then, the hon. Baronet should be the last man in the country to

707
attack any person for pursuing a course of agitation which he had himself pursued so violently and so long. It was true, that the hon. Baronet had now repented him of his former errors; and so he now went on to eulogise those whom he had vilified for so many years, and whom he held up to the execration of the people of England whenever they ventured to appear among the people. It was no wonder that the hon. Baronet should attack those who had spent their youth like him in the advocacy of liberal principles, but who had not, like him, in old age turned their backs on the friends of their youth, and gone over to the camp of the Tories. He thought that the hon. Baronet had exhibited bad taste in the violence with which he had attacked the hon. Member for Dublin both in that House and elsewhere. But let that pass. He should like to know why it was, that the hon. Baronet always attacked the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but never ventured upon similar attacks upon any other Representative for Ireland. There were other Members for that country who stood on the same principles with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but the hon. Baronet was ever silent in reference to their political conduct.
Major Handleysaid, that the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, had expressed his intention to retire from the House, and not to vote upon this question. He wished to know whether this conduct was to be taken as an emblem of the impartiality which the hon. Baronet had determined to pursue on all election petitions from Ireland, and whether the hon. Baronet did not feel it binding on his honour not to vote at all upon those matters.
[After Major Handley had done speaking, Sir F. Burdett retired from the House amidst great cheers; but it was stated that he could not have voted, having paired off, till after the Christmas holidays.]
The House divided:—Ayes 234; Noes 203; Majority 31.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Barnard, Edward G.

Ainsworth, P.

Barron, H.

Alston, Rowland

Beamish, F. B.

Archbold, Robert

Belfast, Earl of

Bainbridge, E. T.

Bellew, Rich. M.

Baines, Edward

Bentinck, Lord W.

Ball, N.

Bernal, R.

Baring, F. T

Bethell, Richard

708

Bewes, T.

Fitzroy, Lord C.

Blackett, C.

Fitzsimon, Nicholas

Blake, W. J.

Fort, John

Blewitt, R. J.

French, F.

Blunt, Sir C.

Gillon, Wm. Downe

Bowes, John

Gordon, Robert

Bridgman, H.

Goring, H. D.

Brocklehurst, J.

Grattan, J.

Brodie, W. B.

Grattan, Henry

Brotherton, J.

Greenaway, C.

Browne, R. D.

Grey, Sir G.

Bryan, G.

Grote, G.

Buller, Charles

Guest, J.

Buller, E.

Hall, B.

Bulwer, Edward L.

Hallyburton, hon. D.

Busfield, William

Handley, Henry

Butler, hon. P.

Hastie, A.

Callaghan, D.

Hawes, B.

Campbell, Sir J.

Hawkins, J. H.

Cavendish, hon. C.

Hay, Sir A. Leith

Cavendish, hon. G. H.

Hayter, W. G.

Cayley, E. S.

Heathcoat, John

Chalmers, P.

Heneage, E.

Chapman, M. L.

Hobhouse, Sir J. C.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Clay, William

Horsman, E.

Clements, Viscount

Hoskins, Kedgwin

Clive, Edward Bolton

Howard, P. H.

Codrington, Sir E.

Howick, Viscount

Collins, W.

Hurst, R. H.

Cowper, hon. W. F.

Hutton, R.

Craig, W. G.

Jephson, C. D. O.

Curry, William

Jervis, S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Kinnaird, hon. A.F.

Dashwood, G, H.

Labouchere, H.

Davies, T. H.

Lambton, Hedworth

Denison, W. J.

Langdale, hon. C.

Dennistoun, J.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Divett, E.

Leader, J.T.

Duckworth, S.

Lefevre, C. S.

Duff, James

Lemon, Sir C.

Duke, Sir James

Lennox, Lord George

Duncan, Viscount

Lennox, Lord Arthur

Duncombe, T.

Loch, J.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Lushington, Charles

Dundas, C. W. D.

Lynch, A. H.

Dundas, Fred.

Macleod, R.

Dundas, Capt. D.

Macnamara, Major

Dunlop, J.

Mactaggart, J.

Easthope, John

Maher, John

Ebrington, Viscount

Mahony, P.

Elliot, hon. John C.

Marshall, William

Ellice, Capt. A.

Marsland, Henry

Ellice, rt. hon. E.

Maule, W. H.

Ellice, E.

Melgund, Viscount

Evans, De Lacy

Mildmay, P. St. John

Evans, G.

Morpeth, Viscount

Euston, Earl of

Morris, David

Fazakerley, J.

Murray, rt. hon. J.

Fielden, J.

Muskett, G. A.

Ferguson, Sir R.

Nagle, Sir R.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

O'Brien, Cornelius

Ferguson, Robert

O'Callaghan, C.

Fergusson, R. C.

O'Connell, D.

Finch, F.

O'Connell, J.

Fitzalan, Lord

O'Connell, M. J.

Fitzgibbon, hon. R.

O'Connell, Morgan

709

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Standish, Charles

Paget, Lord A.

Stanley, E. J.

Paget, Fred.

Stansfield, W. R. C.

Palmer, C. F.

Steuart, R.

Parker, J.

Stewart, James

Parnell, Sir H.

Stuart, V.

Parrott, J.

Strickland, Sir George

Pechell, Captain R.

Strutt, E.

Philipps, Sir R.

Style, Sir C.

Philips, Mark

Surrey, Earl of

Philips, G. R.

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

Phillpotts, John

Tancred, H.W.

Pinney, William

Thomson, C. P.

Ponsonby, C. F. A.

Thornley, T.

Ponsonby, hon. J.

Tracy, H. H.

Potter, R.

Tufnell, Henry

Poulter, John Sayer

Turner, William

Power, James

Verney, Sir H. bt.

Power, John

Vigors, N. A.

Price, Sir R.

Villiers, Charles P.

Protheroe, E.

Wakley, T.

Pryme, George

Walker, R.

Ramsbottom, John

Wall, C. B.

Redington, T. N.

Wallace, R.

Rice, E. R.

Warburton, H.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Ward, H. G.

Rich, Henry

Whalley, Sir S.

Roche, E. B.

White, A.

Roche, William

Wilbraham, G.

Roche, David

Williams, W.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Williams, W. A.

Rumbold, C. E.

Wilmot, Sir J. E.

Rundle, John

Wilshere, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Winnington, T. E.

Russell, Lord Charles

Winnington, H. J.

Salwey, Colonel

Wood, C.

Sanford, E. A.

Wood, Sir M.

Seale, Colonel

Woulfe, Sergeant

Seymour, Lord

Wyse, Thomas

Sharpe, General

Yates, J. A.

Sheil, Richard L.

Slaney, R. A.

TELLERS.

Smith, Robert V.

Hume, J.

Somers, J. P.

O'Brien, W. S.

List of the NOES.

Acland, Sir T.

Blennerhassett, A.

Acland Thomas D.

Boldero, Henry G.

A'Court, Captain

Boiling, William

Adare, Viscount

Borthwick, Peter

Alsager, Captain

Bramston, T. W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Broadley, Henry

Ashley, Viscount

Broadwood, Henry

Attwood, W.

Brownrigg, S.

Bagge, W.

Bruce, Lord E.

Bailey, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Baillie, H. D.

Burr, D. H. D.

Baker, Edward

Burrell, Sir C.

Barneby, John

Burroughes, H. N.

Barnes, Sir E.

Calcraft, J. H.

Barrington, Viscount

Campbell, Sir H.

Bateman, John

Canning, Sir S.

Bateson, Sir R.

Castlereagh, Viscount

Bell, M.

Chandos, Marq. of

Blair, James

Chaplin, Colonel

Blakemore, R.

Chapman, A.

710

Chute, W. L. W.

Jermyn, Earl of

Clive, hon. R. H.

Johnstone, Hope

Copeland, W. T.

Jolliffe, Sir W.

Corry, H.

Jones, John

Courtenay, P.

Jones, Theobald

Creswell, C.

Kemble, Henry

Crewe, Sir G.

Kerrison, Sir Edw.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Darby, George

Knight, H. G.

Darlington, Earl

Knightley, Sir C.

De Horsey, S. H.

Law, hon. C.

D'Israeli, B.

Lefroy, Thomas

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Lewis, Wyndham

Dowdeswell, William

Liddell, H. T.

Duffield, T.

Litton, Edward

Dugdale, W. S.

Lockhart, A. M.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Logan, Hart

East, J. B.

Lowther, Colonel

Eaton, R. J.

Lucas, Edward

Egerton, Wm. Tatton

Lygon, General

Ellis, John

Mackenzie, T.

Estcourt, T. G. B.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Estcourt, T. H. S.

Maclean, Donald

Farnham, E. B.

Mahon, Viscount

Farrand, R.

Marton, George

Feilden, W.

Master, T. W. C.

Fellowes, E.

Maunsell, T. P.

Fitzroy, hon. H,

Meynell, Capt.

Follett, Sir W.

Wiles, P. W. S.

Forbes, William

Milnes, R. M.

Forester, hon. G.

Monypenny, T. G.

Freshfield, J.

Neeld, John

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Nicholl, John

Gibson, Thomas

Norreys, Lord

Gladstone, Wm. E.

Packe, C. W.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Pakington, J. S.

Gore, J. R. Ormsby

Palmer, Robert

Goulburn, H.

Palmer, George

Granby, Marquis

Parker, R. T.

Grant, hon. Colonel

Parker, T. A.

Grimsditch, T.

Patten, John Wilson

Grimston, Viscount

Paul, H. St.

Grimston, hon. E. H.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Halford, H.

Peel, Colonel J.

Halse, James

Pemberton, Thomas

Harcourt, G. S.

Perceval, Colonel

Hardinge, Sir H.

Perceval, G. J.

Heathcote, Sir W.

Peyton, Henry

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Planta, Joseph

Hillsborough, Earl of

Powell, Colonel

Hinde, J. H.

Powerscourt, Lord

Hodgson, F.

Praed, Winthrop M.

Hodgson, R.

Price, Richard

Hogg, James Weir

Pringle, A.

Holmes, hon. W. A.

Rae, Sir Wm. bart.

Hope, G. W.

Ramsay, Lord

Hope, hon. James

Reid, Sir John Rae

Hope, Henry T.

Richards, Richard

Hotham, Lord

Rickford, William

Houldsworth, T.

Rolleston, L.

Howard, W.

Rose, Sir George

Hughes, W. B.

Round, C. G,

Ingestrie, Viscount

Round, John

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Rushbrooke, Colonel

Irton, Samuel

Sanderson, R.

Irving, John

Sandon, Viscount

Jackson, Sergeant

Scarlett, hon. J. Y.

711

Scarlett, hon. R.

Tollemache, F. J.

Shaw, Frederick

Trench, Sir Fred.

Sheppard, T.

Trevor, hon. G.

Shirley, E. J.

Vere, Sir C, B.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Verner, Colonel

Sinclair, Sir G.

Wilberforce, W.

Smith, Abel

Wilbraham, hon. B.

Somerset, Lord G.

Williams, Robert

Spry, Sir S.

Wood, Col. T.

Stanley, Edward

Wood, Thomas

Stanley, Lord

Wynn, rt. hon. C. W.

Stewart, John

Young, J.

Stuart, H.

Young, Sir W.

Sturt, Henry Charles

TELLERS.

Sugden, Sir E.

Fremantle, Sir T. W.

Thompson, Ald.

Baring H Bingham

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
Lord J. Russellrose, in pursuance of the notice he had given, to name the days after Christmas when it would be convenient to consider the various election petitions before the House. He should detain the House for a very few moments on this subject, but he felt that he owed some explanation in respect to the answer which he had given to a noble Lord on a previous evening, who begged that an early day might be fixed for these petitions. He would now say at once that, as it was expected that the House would adjourn from the day immediately preceding the Christmas holydays until the 1st of February, he should propose that the first petition on the list should be taken into consideration on the Tuesday following, the 6th of February. On the occasion to which he had referred, he stated to the noble Lord that he had some hesitation as to what course he should pursue in respect to these petitions. He did not wish to provoke a debate on a subject which might be better considered to-morrow night; but he must say, that circumstances had occurred before, during, and after, the late elections, which had caused him to doubt whether or not it might not become necessary to adopt an extraordinary course in reference to these petitions. Threats had been held out in some instances that persons whose return was certain, would be opposed, and that, in case this opposition failed, the returns would be petitioned against. In other cases contests were provoked where there was no chance, of a new candidate succeeding. Immediately after the elections particular reference was made to those of Ireland, and it was openly declared that it was necessary to raise a subscription to set aside the returns from that country;
712
and it was stated this was required, not on the grounds that the Members returned did not represent the people of Ireland, but specially, because they did not agree with the majority of the Representatives of England. These circumstances, combined with others of a similar kind, had induced him to doubt the just operation of that law upon the subject known under the name of the Grenville Act. He was ready to state now, however, that his suspicions as to these circumstances were removed, and he would also acknowledge that no circumstances but those of a very extraordinary nature should induce the House to adopt an unusual course in respect to petitions relating to the seats of Members, or to defer their consideration beyond the time which a due regard for the dignity of the House and the character and claims of the petitioners required. Now, with regard to the number of the election petitions already before the House, they did not seem to exceed in so great a number the amount of former occasions as to warrant the belief that any sinister or peculiar motives had called them forth. In 1831, there were fifty-seven election petitions; after the dissolution of 1832, there were forty-nine; in 1835, there were forty-two; and in the present year, up to the time he was speaking, there were sixty-seven petitions, which was only ten more than the number of petitions in 1831. As far, therefore, as any deductions from numbers could guide him, considering the great number of contests which had taken place in the late election, considering also the narrow majorities which sometimes occurred in the last Parliament, and the very natural desire which existed on the part of the minority to crop that majority, he did not think that the number of election petitions in the present year was such as to warrant any extraordinary measures in regard to them. With respect to the nature of the petitions themselves, he could only say that, up to the present period, he did not perceive that there was any great cluster of petitions of any one particular kind which would make it clear that there had been any combination in order to present them, when no reasonable grounds existed for their complaints, and that they had been presented merely for the purpose of influencing the results of divisions of that House, or for changing the tribunals or altering the names of those who should

713
be called on to decide upon petitions of this kind. Under these circumstances, he should merely move, "That the petition on the election for the county of Roxburgh be taken into consideration on Tuesday, the 6th of February."
Sir R. Peelrejoiced at the course which the noble Lord had taken, and which entirely precluded the necessity for his making the motion of which he had given notice, in the event that the noble Lord's motion had not been made. He rejoiced, because he thought that the noble Lord had strictly adhered to the uniform course pursued in respect to election petitions, and had thus asserted the undoubted principle that it was the first duty of Parliament to determine who were the representatives of the people. By the course now adopted by the noble Lord, it was declared to the country that the House would proceed, immediately after the recess, to try the election petitions, before the known constitutional authority of Parliament, and therefore all parties concerned in them would hold themselves in readiness to give their attendance, and do all that might be required of them in respect of them at that time. The 6th of February was the day named for the first petition, and the rest on the list must shortly follow in their order, at which time the parties to them must be aware that they would be required to have their witnesses in attendance to submit their cases before the known tribunal appointed to decide upon them. He knew enough of the noble Lord to feel assured that he would not depart, on the present occasion, from the accustomed course of Parliament in these matters. The number of election petitions in 1831 was fifty-seven, and in the present year they were sixty-seven in number, and the noble Lord had justly stated that in the relative numerical proportion of these petitions there was no ground to impeach the bonâ fide origin and intention of the latter. With respect to the parties from whom these petitions emanated, he believed that of the sixty-seven hitherto presented, twenty-seven or twenty-eight came from parties on his side of the House, and thirty-six from parties interested in the opposite side of the question, which, with the fortunate intervention of three from neutral parties, completed the number. The noble Lord had stated that there was no appearance upon the face of the petitions themselves of their having been con-
714
certed by any combination of parties for sinister purposes. He had looked into the petitions emanating from parties on his side of the House, and as far as they were concerned, he could fully bear testimony to the truth of the noble Lord's observations; but if the noble Lord were to look into those proceeding from his own side, he thought the noble Lord might possibly find some grounds to shake his confidence in this matter. The number of petitions naturally bore some relation to the number of contests, and where these contests were nearly balanced, more petitions might be expected than when the elections were carried by more numerous majorities; and he believed that in the late election there had been more contests, and the returns obtained by smaller majorities, than usually was the case. He heartily rejoiced, therefore, that the contingency which had been impending over their heads, and which was the more awful because it had been kept in complete obscurity, had not fallen upon them. He certainly did regret that the noble Lord, as leader of the House of Commons, could ever have supposed that there would have been sufficient grounds to suspend the ordinary course of Parliament in respect of these petitions. Now, whether there were sixty-seven petitions or 150 petitions, provided they had not proceeded from improper motives, the House should not, he thought, be pre vented from pursuing the proper and ordinary course in respect to them, and nothing should be said or done to deter parties from coming before that House with a sincere desire of seeking redress of supposed grievances. For his part, he had never seen the declaration which so much alarmed the noble Lord, that it was the intention of certain parties to question the elections of Ireland on the mere ground that the parties returned differed from the majority of the English Representatives. He could only add that this would have been a most preposterous and unjust ground of opposition, and he could hardly believe it had ever been seriously entertained by any rational man. With respect to the other ground for alarm stated by the noble Lord, he certainly had seen statements calculated to excite an alarm that some of these petitions were presented with a view to prevent certain Members from taking part in the decision upon election petitions. Of course the noble Lord referred to the cor-

715
respondence which had recently taken place between two persons, calling themselves "An Elector," and a "Non-elector," in The Morning Chronicle. It was, doubtless, this correspondence which excited the noble Lord's apprehensions of the fatal result of "a cluster of petitions," to use the noble Lord's expression, and the declaration upon which the noble Lord had built his well-founded alarm, was viewed with the more apprehension, and accepted the more implicitly, because it proceeded from an organ which advocated the noble Lord's own politics. As to the other declaration, he had never seen it; and he heartily rejoiced in the hope that the apprehension of it was ill-founded. He regretted, however, that the noble Lord had suffered himself to be disturbed by vain apprehensions of this kind, and to be induced even to hold out a threat that he would suffer himself to depart from the ordinary course of Parliament in respect to its privileges, and to delay to bring on the consideration of its disputed seats beyond the usual period named for so doing. He hoped the result would operate as a caution to the noble Lord not to give faith to vague communications in newspapers; and that he would not again throw impediments or objections in the way of bonâ fide petitioners to the House of Commons. There was one subject in connexion with this topic to which he wished to advert before he sat down. He referred to the Bill brought in by the hon. Member for Liskeard relating to the trial of controverted elections, and which had now passed its second reading. He hoped that the course this evening pursued by the noble Lord in reference to these election petitions might be understood as a promise that they would not proceed hastily with that Bill. Why, if the present mode of trying election petitions was considered so far satisfactory that the election petitions now before the House were to be tried by it, he could see no occasion for bringing on that Bill. He believed that it was understood that no business of importance would be done after the present week until they re-assembled after the recess. So general, he thought, was this understanding, that the hon. Member for Bridport positively refused to defer his motion respecting the Danish claims to any day after Friday, so impressed was he with the notion that immediately after that day there would be a
716
general flood of Members out of town. If this were the case the hon. Member for Likeard could not hope to obtain that attention to his Bill which the subject of it demanded, and, therefore, he hoped that the hon. Gentleman would consent to defer the future stages of it till after the recess. If, however, the hon. and learned Gentleman did not think proper to accede to this suggestion, he would give notice that he would on Friday next, without at all entering upon the merits of the Bill, but merely because the House would not after that day be in a state to do it justice, move that it be postponed till an early day after the recess, and divide the House on his motion.
Mr. C. Bullerwas exceedingly obliged to the right hon. Baronet for having apprised him of the course which he intended to pursue in reference to his Bill. It could not be expected of him to discuss the propriety of that course; but he must say, that he had heard no reason from the right hon. Baronet, except the threat of his opposition, which should prevent him from pursuing the course he had originally intended in reference to a matter to which much public interest was attached, and on which he might say public justice to some extent depended. He should be very sorry to prevent the right hon. Baronet and his Friends from going out of town, but at the same time he must say that he really did not so particularly want their attendance in this matter. As far, however, as the Bill might be benefited by their counsel, he hoped that their engagements were not so very pressing as to prevent their affording their assistance.
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had partly mistaken what he had said. The notion of leaving town had not originated with him or with any Gentleman on his side of the House, but with Gentlemen on the other side. He had stated, that so general was this impression amongst Gentlemen on the opposite side that the hon. Member for Bridport had declined to postpone his motion on the Danish claims beyond the present week. Under these circumstances he felt assured that Government would not lend itself to obtain an unfair advantage upon a question of so much importance.
Lord John Russellsaid, that however desirous Members might be to get out of town as soon as possible, he thought that,

717
as a matter of public business, it would be of move importance to go on with this Bill before the recess. The object of this Bill was, to see whether they could not devise a better mode of trial for election petitions. He thought they could, and he gave notice that he should move the insertion of a clause, making it imperative on election Committees to appoint a commission to take evidence. If it should turn out that they could find a better mode of proceeding in election cases than the present mode, he could see no reason why it should not be applied as soon as possible. There could be no more reason to postpone this Bill, because there happened to be certain petitions actually awaiting their trial, than there was to postpone the Jury Bill of the right hon. Member, until all the causes then entered for trial before the courts had been disposed of.
Mr. H. Grattanrejoiced at what had fallen from the noble Lord, and he would ask those who recollected the proceedings at the Carlow and Longford election Committee, whether they would suffer any cause of friend or foe to go before such a tribunal? He called upon the hon. Baronet opposite, to recollect what took place at the Carlow Election Committee in his own presence, where a piece of paper was handed round to the members of the Committee, eight in number, who merely gave a stroke of their pen above or below the name, and the vote was rejected accordingly.
Sir Robert Peelrecollected only once entering the room of the Carlow Election Committee, and then only for half an hour, during the whole of which time the Committee was occupied in listening to the speech of Mr. Thesiger.
Motion agreed to.

PRIVILEGES OF THE HOUSE.
Lord John Russellwished to know from the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blewitt), whether he did not consider it better to reserve the discussion of his resolutions until to-morrow, when the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. W. S. O'Brien) would bring under discussion a petition bearing on the same subject?
Mr. Blewitt: If I am to understand that I shall have precedence to-morrow evening, I shall agree to the noble Lord's proposition.
Sir Robert Peel: I think the hon. Gentleman should stipulate for his taking pre-
718
cedence of all other motions. He is perfectly entitled to do so.
Mr. Blewittthen proceeded:—Sir, in rising to move the resolutions of which I have given notice, I can assure the House I feel deeply impressed with the responsibility of the duty I am now called upon to discharge. It will naturally be asked of me, what qualifications have you, a young and inexperienced Member of the House, to put yourself forward thus prominently in the face of your country, and to assume a position which would have better become a more eloquent advocate, and a more practised debater? Sir, in answer to that inquiry, I must plead guilty to a charge of presumption—the presumption of one who undertakes an Herculean task, without the strength or the power by which only it is to be achieved. Humble, however, as my position in this house may be, I cannot stand tamely by, and see its dignity insulted, its authority despised, and its just rights and privileges set at defiance, Sir, my attention was first called to the grievance in question by the remittance to London, from the country town near which I reside, of a sum of money, for the avowed purpose of expelling from this House the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Sir, it did appear to me that this was a most foul and atrocious aggression upon the freedom of election, and the liberty of the subject, and such as I could not have anticipated, even from the utmost virulence of political or party feeling. I had, indeed, heard that a Committee had been formed in London, for purposes which I could not but deem unlawful and unconstitutional; but until the subscription to which I have alluded came under my notice, I had no conception of the mischiefs that might result from the formation and objects of the Committee. I little dreamed that the combination of a few individuals, filling respectable stations in society, and who might be acting from honest impulses, but wrong conclusions, to achieve what, however illegal in itself, might by them be deemed justifiable, would lead to results tending to sap the foundations of justice, and to annihilate at one "fell swoop" the rights and liberties of a mighty nation. Sir, if the hon. and learned Member for Dublin is to be expelled from this House by the combined and collected resources of Conservative opulence, why not the noble Lord on the treasury bench, and all

719
his right hon. coadjutors? Why not each and every one of the hon. Members on this side of the House? Even you, yourself, Sir, are not safe in that chair, to which the unanimously-approving voices of the House have elected you. No man, however large his own immediate resources, however powerful and unlimited his credit, however rich he be in the "golden opinions of his constituents—no man, I say, in this House, can stand singly and unsupported against that mighty deluge of wealth which is, as I understand, to be supplied and fed ad infinitum from the princely and almost inexhaustible resources of a certain hon. Baronet in this House, and of his new political associates out of the House. Sir, I beg to call the attention of the House to the form and language of my resolutions. They are framed upon the principle, that immutable principle of justice in a free country, that no man should be presumed to be guilty, nor condemned without a trial. My first four resolutions are declaratory of what I consider to be the law upon certain points. My last seeks an inquiry into what have been the circumstances of a particular transaction alleged to have taken place, but of which the House has no judicial knowledge, in order to ascertain whether those circumstances have been such as to bring any and what parties within the scope and operation of the law. By this course, Sir, nothing will be taken for granted, nothing prejudged; and I have adopted it, because it was most consistent with my notions of justice and of equity, and with that moderation of temper and feeling which best becomes a man who is actuated by public, and not by any party or personal motives. It is just possible, Sir, that I may not, on this occasion at least, gain credit with some hon. Gentlemen for that pure honesty of intention to which I lay claim; and as I cannot introduce them into the recesses of my heart, I must be content if I can only obtain from them a fair and dispassionate hearing. This, Sir, I might demand as a right, but I am quite willing to accept it as an act of the kindest and most considerate courtesy. Sir, to support the first of my resolutions, I shall have to prove that it is a breach of the privileges of this House to impeach, or wilfully and deliberately call in question, otherwise than by a petition, the right or title of any Member to a seat in the House. I request attention to the precedents and
720
authorities which I am about to cite, and which I shall do as shortly and succinctly as the nature of the case will admit of. I well know the value of your time. Let the House hear me but with patience while I speak to the purpose, and I promise that its indulgence shall not be abused. I will not confine myself to a reference to the character applied to the House by Fortescue.
"Si antiquitatem spectes, est vetustissima; si dignitatem est honoratissima; si jurisdictionem est capacissima."
In the time of Henry 6th, the following doctrine was laid down by the judges:—
"It hath not been used before time, nor becomes it us to determine matters concerning the high court of Parliament, which is so high and mighty in its nature that it is judge of the law, and makes that to be law which is not law, and that to be no law which is."
Unless I am able to satisfy the House by precedents analogous to the present case, I shall waive all claims to a decision in his favour. Lord Coke, in his 1st Institute, said,
"Whatever matter arises concerning either House of Parliament ought to be examined, discussed, and adjudged in that House to which it relates, and not elsewhere. In the celebrated county of Norfolk case, in 1586, the Lord Chancellor and Judges took upon themselves to decide which of two returns were valid; upon which it was resolved by the whole body of this House, 'That it was a most perilous precedent, that after two knights of a county were duly elected, any new writ should issue out for a second election without order of the House itself. That the discussing and adjudging of this and such-like differences only belonged to the House.' On the 28th of April, 1626, Mr. Crooke complained to the House, that Sir Thomas Horwood had reviled him, saying, that he came to be a Member of the House by bribery and corruption, and Sir Thomas Horwood was sent for to answer the charge. On the 7th of December, 1669, the House of Commons passed a resolution,' That no petition, or any other matter depending in the House of Commons, can be taken notice of by the Lords, unless communicated to them by the House of Commons.' The celebrated declaration of rights, which was comprised by 1 William and Mary, 1688–9, contains the following passage:—'That the freedom of speech an I debates, or proceedings in Parliament, ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.' On the 11th of January, 1694, the House passed the following resolution:—'Resolved, that Mr. Alexander Norres, mayor of the borough of Liverpool, in the county of Lancaster, having taken upon him to judge, that Joseph

721
Maudit, esq., being coroner of the said borough was incapable to be elected burgess to serve in Parliament, though duly chosen, having made a false return, Thos, Brotherton, esq., to serve as a burgess for the said borough, hath herein violated the rights of the Commons of England, and broken the privileges of this House. Resolved, that the said Alexander Norres, for the said misdemeanour, be sent for in custody of the Serjeant-at-arms.' On the 26th February, 1701, the House agreed to a resolution of a Committee of Privileges to the following effect:—That it is the opinion of this Committee, that to assert, that the House of Commons is not the only Representatives of the Commons, tends to the subversion of the rights and privileges of the House of Commons, and the fundamental constitution of the Government of this kingdom.' On the 26th January, 1703, the House passed the following resolutions:—1. 'That according to the known law and usage of Parliament, it is the sole right of the Commons of England in Parliament assembled (except in cases otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament,) to examine and determine all matters relating to the right of election of their own Members.—2. 'That according to the known law and usage of Parliament, neither the qualification of any elector, nor the right of any person elected, is cognizable or determinable elsewhere than before the Commons of England in Parliament assembled (except in cases otherwise provided for by Act of Parliament.'")
The cases which I have cited, show the jealousy felt by that House as to any doubt being cast upon the right and title of any of its Members. That the House does not allow of any impeachment of its title as a collective body was proved by the resolution of 1701, declaring it to be mischievous to hold that they were not the Representatives of the people. Then came the resolution of 1703, by which the rights of electors were clearly defined and ascertained. I will add to these authorities, the statement of Judge Black-stone, who said, that the privileges of Parliament were established, not only for the purpose of protecting its Members from being molested by their fellow subjects, but also, more especially, from being oppressed by the Crown. If Blackstone had lived in these days, he would have transposed these clauses, and have said that the privileges of Parliament were established not only for the purpose of protecting its Members from being oppressed by the Crown, but also, more especially, from being molested by their fellow subjects. The House is now, however, threatened externally with a species of molestation at which every true
722
lover of his country looks with horror and dismay. A self-constituted tribunal has risen up—an imperium in imperio—greater and yet less than the Parliament, acknowledging apparently its power, but intercepting and controlling and rendering nugatory its jurisdiction. Sir, the judges of the land the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, kings and queens, all the high and mighty of the kingdom, have been told successively, in the plainest and most indignant terms, that they shall not interfere in any matters affecting the House of Commons. I shall be glad to hear by what ingenuity of argument any hon. Member will attempt to convince the House that a self-elected committee of private individuals are entitled to do that which is forbidden to the Lords, the Judges, and the King's Majesty. Sir, the next point which I shall have to support before the House is, that according to the law, and also according to the established practice of the House, no person who has not a direct and immediate interest in an election which is the subject of controversy can petition, or directly or indirectly be a party to a petition, against the return of any Member. I shall argue this point, first from the general principles of law, and then from such direct and analogous precedents as I have been able to find in the Journals of the House. Sir, such naturally is the wicked propensity of mankind to meddle in the affairs of others, and to promote quarrels and disputes amongst their neighbours, on the Lucretian principle, I presume—
"Suave mari magno turbantibusæquora ventis E terrâmagnum alterius spectare laborem"—
such, I say, Sir, is this propensity, that it was found necessary, at a very early period of civilised society, to make it an offence, and provide some remedy against it; and accordingly I find in the Roman law an express enactment forbidding the practice, denouncing the offenders as the pests of society, and subjecting them to the condemnation of fine, imprisonment, and perpetual infamy. The same principle was adopted in our common law under the head of maintenance, which is described by the best authorities as an officious intermeddling in a suit that no way belongs to one, by maintaining or assisting either party with money or otherwise to defend it; and this is expressly charged as an offence against public justice—as tending

723
to keep alive strife and contention, and to pervert the remedial process of the law into an engine of oppression. These salutary regulations of the common law were adopted and confirmed at a very early period of our history by various statutes.
"The 1st Richard 1st enacted, 'That no person whatever shall take or sustain any quarrel by maintenance in the country, on grievous pain—the King's officers to be punished as therein provided; all others, on pain of imprisonment and ransom.' By the 1st Edward 3rd. (one of our most accomplished princes and law-givers) it was enacted, 'That no person shall take upon him to maintain quarrels nor parties in the country, to the disturbance of the common law.' This offence was again recognised by the 32d Henry 8th, and tke offender was made liable to a penalty of 10 l."
I will here anticipate an objection with which I may be met on this point. It might be contended that this was not such an officious intermedling in the quarrel of another as was contemplated by the law—that this was a question in which all ought to unite "ut bene gereretur Respublica." I will answer that objection by this argument—that every elector has a right to exercise his privilege in a particular disstrict, and not elsewhere, and that an unqualified person can take no part in an election. He can not propose or second a candidate, he can not demand a poll, nor can he subsequently call for a scrutiny. All these rights and privileges are expressly confined to the electors, or those who have a right to be candidates. I admit that when a candidate is returned, he is a representative of the whole country; but it is the privilege of the House to decide upon his title, and none but electors or candidates are allowed to interfere. The first case bearing upon this subject is the Buckingham case, in 1689:—
"There it was said the objection was taken that the petitioners against the return had not entitled themselves, by their petition, to question the election, having not thereby so much as alleged that they were either electors or elected, or candidates for the said ejection. The committee did not come to any express resolution on that particular point, but upon the whole matter they decided that the election was good. In the Dumbarton district case, 1728, the House decided that the manner of obtaining and signing a petition was a material question previous to the trial, and referred that matter to the consideration of the Com-
724
mittee; and in the Wotton Basset case, 1742, and in several other cases which he could mention, the House made similar orders. I find it expressly laid down in several works on parliamentary practice, that previous to the Grenville Act, 10th Geo. 3rd, no petition against the return of a Member to that House was ever admitted, except from the electors or candidates. The Grenville Act would seem to have suspended the operation of this principle, as it did not restrict the petition to any particular class of persons, but it was soon found so inconvenient, and productive of so much vexation, that it was deemed necessary to bring back the law to its ancient footing; and, accordingly, by the 28th of Geo. 3rd, after reciting, that provision ought to be made for discouraging persons from presenting frivolous and vexatious petitions, 'It is enacted, that no petition against the return of a Member shall be proceeded upon unless subscribed—first, by some person claiming a right to vote; second, by some person claiming a right to be returned as duly elected; or, third, by some person alleging himself to have been a candidate.' In the Honiton case, 15th of February, 1786, it was made a preliminary objection before an election committee, to the trial of a petition against a return, that the petitioners had applied to different persons for money to support their petition. The committee went into the objection, but it was not proved. On the 14th of November the House agreed to a resolution. 'That it is highly unwarrantable, and a breach of the privileges of the House, for any person to set the name of any other to any petition to be presented to the House.' Then came that most important chancery case of Wallis v. Duke of Portland, decided by Lord Loughborough, and confirmed on appeal to the House of Lords, in which it was laid down by his Lordship, 'That the procuring and maintenance of a petition by one not immediately interested in an election, was against public policy, and amounted to maintenance at common law,' and in which, also, his Lordship expressed a strong opinion, that a general public subscription to carry on a petition to the House was a crime."
It will be said that this was only an opinion pronounced by a judge in equity, and not by a criminal tribunal, which alone can be supposed to have a right to deal with such a case. But I answer that it was the solemn legal opinion of one charged with the administration of justice, and that it was confirmed by high legal authorities in the House of Lords, and, amongst others, by the chief justice of the King's Bench for the time being. It was found, in accordance with the law, and was entitled to the consideration of the House, more especially as there was no conflicting opinion to rebut it. All the cases showed

725
that not only the signing of a petition, but the getting it up, was confirmed to electors and candidates, and that no other person had a right directly or indirectly to interfere. Then, Sir, if I have satisfactorily established the principle, who can doubt that an infringement of it is a breach of the privileges of the House? It is and must be a contempt, and consequently a breach of privilege, for any person to do that which the House says he shall not do. The House had decided that a letter written by one Thomas Fergusson to influence the vote of an elector—he being in the employment of the crown—was a breach of its privileges. Let the House suppose the case of a Member elected by the almost unanimous suffrages of his constituents, but who was petitioned against from private motives on the ground of an election fund—suppose this individual not encumbered with a large fortune, but having before his eyes the fear of a dunning creditor or of a necessitous family, reproaching him with the wicked weakness of his ambition—suppose that this favourite of the electors chose rather to abandon his seat, than to defend it to his ruin,—was this case an impossible—was it even an improbable one? What man in his senses would be a candidate, if he must always have the fear of these consequences before his eyes? If this association were permitted to one side, it would be equally legal for the other; and in that case the whole representation of the country, and the whole construction of the Government for the time being, would depend upon the longest purse. This is a state of things which I am sure no Gentleman in the House would wish to see. I shall now have to prove that it is a conspiracy and a crime at common law, and a breach of Parliamentary privilege for any persons to confederate together for the several purposes mentioned in my 3d and 4th resolutions. I shall first inquire what sort of confederacies have been held at common law to subject parties to a conviction for conspiracy. Russell, in his excellent work on the criminal law, lays it down that every confederacy of persons to obstruct, prevent, or defeat the course of public justice, or wrongfully to prejudice or to impoverish a third person, or to maintain another in any matter whether true or false, or to effect any public mischief, will amount to the crime of conspiracy, the unlawful agreement being the gist of the
726
offence. I have before shown that no man can legally maintain another in a civil proceeding—that it is a violation of the common law—that it is against the provisions of sundry statutes—and that it subjects offenders to fine and imprisonment. Now, Sir, a petition against the return of a Member to Parliament is altogether in the nature of a civil proceeding, though some hon. Members perhaps may consider it a very uncivil one. The petition does not seek to prosecute criminally an alleged offender, but is in the nature of an appeal for the trial of civil rights. I have before shown that to assist in getting up such a petition, or to support it with money, is forbidden by the law, and by the practice of this House, and that such assistance and support have been pronounced by judicial authority as an act of maintenance at common law, and a crime. The case, therefore, to which I have last alluded does not and cannot apply. If then, Sir, maintenance be of itself an offence of so highly criminal a nature, how greatly must that crime be increased when it is superadded to and incorporated with another of equal if not of greater magnitude! I mean, of course, conspiracy—which then becomes conspiracy—to do an act of maintenance. Such then, Sir, are maintenance and conspiracy in statute and common law. I will now show how I connect them with a breach of Parliamentary privilege. It appears to me, upon a full consideration of all the cases that have occurred in Parliament on the subject of privilege from the commencement of its records to the present day, that whenever any crime or offence, either at common law or by act of Parliament, has occurred to affect the proceedings of Parliament or elections, or any other matters concerning Parliament, the same crime or offence has been adopted and naturalised, and engrafted, as it were, and acted upon as part of the lex Parliamenti. This, Sir, appears to me the only rational basis of our judicial privileges. I consider that every such privilege ought to be founded on the law and consistent with the law, and that any decision of the House in direct violation of a rule of law or of an existing statute would be an act of usurpation and of injustice. It is, however, a rule of law recognised by all the judges of the land, and by every writer on the constitution of the country, that this House is entitled to certain privileges—

727
that those privileges are part of the law of the land—and that one of those privileges is the sole right of examining, discussing, and adjudging all matters concerning the House itself. What I claim, therefore, for this House as an undeniable privilege, founded upon the law and consistent with the law, is, not the right of ourselves to make new laws, but the sole right of applying the laws as they exist to all matters affecting elections or any of our proceedings—the sole right of adjudging whether in such cases the laws have been broken, and the sole right of punishing those whom we may have found guilty of a breach of the laws which we are so entitled to administer. Is not this position proved by all the cases of libel, with reference to which, proceedings have been taken in this House, from the year 1500 down to the case of the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wilts (Sir F. Burdett), in the year 1810? Is the authority of Parliament not proved by analogy of what was the case in the courts of justice in the country? Do they not maintain the necessity of a true and faithful record of their proceedings; and do they not commit persons for contempt who infringed upon that rule? Is it not upon record that an individual, a Captain Perry, was committed for presuming to print his brief before the hearing of the cause? If such be the practice pursued in courts of justice, is it not a contempt of the privileges of that House for parties to confederate together to interrupt the established jurisdiction of that House, to prejudice the minds of the public and of the Members of that House, not only by allegations made without proof, and not only before the cause came on for hearing, but before the case was even in course of judicial investigation? Sir, I think I have now said enough in support of my first four resolutions. They will be found to embrace the following list of crimes and misdemeanours:—First, libel; second, maintenance; third, conspiracy; fourth, contempt of court; fifth, breach of Parliamentary privilege, the last uniting them all in a sort of Gordian knot, which this House will not allow to be cut, and which it may, I think, baffle the ingenuity of hon. Members to untie. I now come to my fifth resolution. Sir, the reference I ask for to the Committee of Privileges is founded upon the passages I am about to read from The Standard
728
newspaper. [The hon. Member then read the resolutions adopted by the meeting at the London Coffee-house, Ludgate-hill, on the 30th of August last.] He continued:—I shall not imitate the example of those who have taken upon themselves to prejudge the cause of poor persecuted Ireland, whose singular ill-fortune it is ever to be thought in the wrong. Upon the proceedings detailed in these papers I shall make no comment. There is no proof before the House, and, therefore, I will not assert that any meeting took place—that any committee was formed—that any resolutions were passed—that any subscriptions have been made. In order to avoid the possibility of injustice I should be even willing to become an adherent to Bishop Berkeley's philosophy, and to believe, if I could, that no such papers as I hold in my hand were ever printed, and that no such person as Mr. Andrew Spottiswoode ever existed. I wish nothing to be done partially or unfairly. From what has been read to the House, regard being-had to my first four resolutions and what I have advanced in support of them, the House is, I think, bound to believe that something has occurred which ought to be inquired into, and that that something must materially affect the question whether or no certain election petitions which have been presented to the House ought or ought not to be proceeded upon? This question, Sir, cannot be determined until the whole facts of the case are laid before the House. That the House has the power, and has always acted upon the principle, of inquiring into the manner in which election petitions (or indeed any petition) have been got up and supported, I have before shown. Sir, I shall now make a few concluding observations on the principles attempted to be established by my first four resolutions. Whatever may have been heretofore thought by hon. Members on the other side of the House, they will now see that in these at least no party question is involved. We are all equally interested in the maintenance of those rights and privileges which we hold in trust for ourselves, for our successors, and for the people. There is no man, however humble, who may not make it an object of his ambition to obtain a seat in this House. Our privileges, therefore, are privileges of the whole nation, and in them every member of the community has a direct and immediate interest. On these

729
grounds, then, Sir, I appeal for support to every party in this House, but more especially I appeal to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, whose chastened temper, and whose wise and enlightened mind will enable him to view the question entirely divested of prejudice or party feeling. He, I think, will admit that I have conducted the discussion of an important and exciting topic with candour and moderation, that I have asserted no principle for which I was not prepared to produce precedent and authority, and that if I am mistaken, I have at least shown grounds for a rational opinion. Sir, the subject to which I have been calling the attention of the House affords a fruitful field for declamation, and had I been actuated by no other feeling than that of making an ostentatious display of rounded periods and studied sentences, my speech might, perhaps, have been more agreeable to your ears, though not so satisfactory to my own judgment. I have throughout addressed myself to the reason of hon. Members, and not to their passions. If I have failed to convince the House of my honest opinions, I shall of course readily submit to their decision. I do, however, beseech the House to ponder deeply and anxiously upon the results that may ensue from it. Our ruling princess, though as yet but in the springtide and blossom, as it were, of her maiden intellect, is wise, just, virtuous, and beneficent. I believe, Sir, that to her we might surrender all our dearest rights without a fear that our confidence would be abused. But let us recollect that life is uncertain—that there is a power more mighty than kings and queens, to whose inscrutable decrees the high and the low, the bad and the good must succumb. The time will arrive (long, long be it averted!)—but the time will arrive, and we know not how soon (for in the midst of life we are in death!), when that virgin Queen, who is now the object of our fondest hopes, shall be torn from us, and laid to repose in the sepulchre of her illustrious predecessors. What may then happen, Sir, lies unseen and unknown in the womb of futurity; but should another despot ever arise in this country, and presume to treat as a bauble yonder mace—the emblem of your authority, and of the House's power—to what should we fly for succour if not to those privileges which have been handed down to us as an inheritance from our forefathers, and
730
which it is now my object to have transmitted to our children's children unimpaired either by royal influence or by aristocratical encroachment, as the best, the only safeguard for the rights and liberties of the people. I conclude, Sir, by moving that the five resolutions which stand on the notice-book be adopted by the House.
On the first resolution being put,
Mr. Warburtonexpressed a hope, that the hon. Member would confine himself to the last resolution which he had read, and merely move for a Committee to inquire generally into the transaction. There might be much difference of opinion among hon. Members as to the details and bearings of the question, but he thought there could be none as to the necessity of the House being acquainted with all the facts of the case. Suppose, for instance, it should appear that among the subscribers to the fund alluded to there were some foreign potentates. [Oh, oh.!] Hon. Members might exclaim, but the thing was by no means impossible that among the subscribers to this fund there were certain would-be despots, to whom it should be of the utmost consequence of what materials that House should be composed. He did not say the case was so, but it was not impossible, and therefore he conceived it became necessary for them, on being apprised that a large collection was being made to turn Members out of the House by persons other than electors, to institute a rigid inquiry into the allegation. It was perfectly notorious out of doors that there were subscriptions to a large amount raised with a view of trying to influence the determination of the election Committees. He did not, of course, mean that the money was to be applied in bribing the Members who should sit on election Committees, but all knew that as money constituted the sinews of war, so it was the sinews by which petitions were persevered in. If there were money the petition might be persisted in even long after the electors might wish it abandoned. He had seen a list of the subscriptions to this fund, and he thought it would be well to ascertain whether the names there represented were real or not. An Oxford newspaper had been sent to him containing one of those lists, on examining which he found no less than 700 names of bachelors and under-graduates subscribing ten shillings each, besides various anony-

731
mous contributions of 25 l. and 20 l. each. Now, all this ought to be a matter of inquiry. For his own part, though he might not be willing at once to agree to all the resolutions of the hon. Gentleman, the first of which called on the House to designate as a breach of its privileges the institution of this fund, if the hon. Member only moved for a Committee he should readily have his vote. ["Hear, hear!"and cries of "withdraw."]
Mr. Blewitt, seeing that the wish of the House was, that he should not press the first four resolutions, and merely move for the Committee would at once submit to its desire.
The question was put and agreed to that the first resolution should be withdrawn.
Mr. Frenchsubmitted to the hon. Member whether he might not as well wait for the motion of the hon. Member for the county of Limerick which stood for to-morrow, and which was precisely for the Committee the hon. Member sought, and thus let the matter come in a more matured shape before the House.
Mr. W. S. O'Briensaid, that if he were allowed to reserve that portion of his motion which stood for to-morrow, and which referred more immediately to the conduct of the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wiltshire, he had no objection to the Committee being appointed at once.
The Speakerwished to know from the hon. Member for Monmouth, what the question was he had now to move?
Mr. Blewitt: To strike out the first part of the fifth resolution, and move for the appointment of a Select Committee.
The Speaker: The hon. Member must hand me the precise words of his motion.
Mr. Blewittleft his seat, and was proceeding to make the alteration in the form of his motion, when
The Attorney-Generalrose for the purpose of entreating- the hon. Member to withdraw his motion, inasmuch as a discussion was fixed for to-morrow, which would open the whole subject. On the discussion of the petition of the hon. Member (Mr. S. O'Brien), which had been ordered to be printed to-morrow, they would have both the law and the fact for their consideration, and the House then might determine as to the propriety of the appointment of a Committee of privileges, or a Select Committee. His
732
own private opinion was, that neither the one Committee nor the other would be expedient. The hon. Baronet (Sir F. Burdett) had subscribed and had maintained his right to do so; and many persons entertained doubts as to whether this confederation was an offence. He had seen one Committee of Privileges, and he never wished to see another. A Committee of privileges consisted of all the Members of that House who were of the legal profession, all the merchants, and all the Members for counties, and, therefore, it was neither more nor less than a Committee of the whole House.
The Speakercalled the hon. and learned Gentleman to order, there being no question before the House.
Mr. Blewittsaid, if the subject was to be taken up by any hon. Member of more weight than himself, he should be content to withdraw his resolutions. But inasmuch as it was admitted that a difference of opinion prevailed in the public mind on the subject of the subscription, he thought it quite necessary that it should be known what the law was.
Sir E. Knatchbullcalled the attention of hon. Members, and that of the noble Lord, in consequence of the course pursued by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Blewitt), and the proposition that the subject under discussion should be deferred until to-morrow. The hon. Member for Monmouth had deliberately persevered in bringing on his motion, after he had been requested by the noble Lord to postpone it until to-morrow, and after having occupied the time of the House with the delivery of a speech which very possibly contained much information, now came forward and asked leave to withdraw his motion. Under ordinary circumstances he (Sir E. Knatchbull) should not object to the adoption of such a course, but he did think, under the present it was due to the justice and character of the House that it should come to a decision upon the question.
Mr. Humecalled the attention of the House to the fact that the hon. and learned Member for Ripon (Sir E. Sugden) had occupied the attention of the House the other evening for two hours and a half, and then withdrew his motion. No objection was then taken by that (the Ministerial) side of the House to the course so pursued. They had not pressed for a division on that occasion. He

733
had seconded the motion of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Blewitt), in order that the question might be brought before the House; but it was now considered by hon. Members around him that they could not properly decide upon it at present. If the hon. Gentleman was not allowed to withdraw his motion, then let it be negatived. As they were ill informed on the subject, however, it had better stand over or be negatived.
Lord John Russellhad understood that the first four resolutions had been withdrawn.
Sir E. Knatchbullhad not been aware that such was the case. If the Speaker should say he had put the question, that would alter the case. He did not believe the question had been put.
Mr. Praedhad not understood the question to be put.
The Speakersaid, he had put the question on the first resolutions, and that part of the motion was withdrawn. He considered that no objection existed to the withdrawal. He was then about to put the question on the last resolution, but it not being in the proper form to be put, the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Blewitt) came to the table to alter it. At that time it was, that the hon. and learned Attorney-General proceeded to address the House, when he had called the hon. and learned Gentleman to order, on the ground that there was no question before the House.
Mr. Williams Wynnwas not aware that the question had been put.
Mr. Borthwickhad understood the Speaker to have put the question on the first resolutions, upon which he (Mr. Borthwick) rose to oppose them, when he was interrupted by hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side of the House stating that they were withdrawn.
The Speakersaid, that he had called the Attorney-General to order because at the moment when he was addressing the House there was no motion before it.
Mr. Goulburnrose to address the House, but was called to order by
An Hon. Member on the Ministerial side. There was literally no question before the House, and it was not competent to the right hon. Gentleman to speak.
The Speakersaid, that undoubtedly there was no motion before the House, but if any Member entertained a reason-
734
able doubt as to the propriety of the course pursued by him, he would be most happy to hear anything that might fall from him.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, he had risen to subscribe to the course taken by the right hon. Gentleman in his statement with regard to the first resolution.
Colonel Sibthorpsaid, that it certainly did appear more difficult for the Speaker to perform his duty in this reformed House than in the old un-reformed Parliament. He wanted to know how it was the hon. Member had withdrawn his resolutions without the consent of the House?
The Speakersaid, he was in the course of reading the fourth resolution, when, in consequence of the hon. Mover desiring to make certain alterations, he called on him to come down to the table and put the resolution into an intelligible shape. While he was doing this the Attorney-General began to address the House, and he called him to order because there was no motion before the House.
An Hon. Member on the opposite side (amidst much confusion) suggested that the Speaker had better proceed to read the fourth resolution, as altered by the hon. Member for Monmouth.
Sir E. Sugdensaid, the real state of the case appeared to be this. The resolutions having been regularly moved and seconded, the hon. Member for Monmouth walked down to the table to place the amended paper in the Speaker's hands. You, Sir, continued the hon. and learned Member, state that you afterwards put the question for the withdrawal of the first resolution. But I am bound to say that I did not hear a single word of your putting that question, owing to the inattention that prevailed at the time on these benches. The difficulty seems to me to arise, not from your not having put the question, but from our not having heard you put it. Suddenly you passed on to consider what were the terms of the fourth resolution, with what I at the time, and I say it with the utmost respect, thought some irregularity, I having no conception at the time that any motion to withdraw the resolution had been put by you, Sir. Had I been aware that such a question had been put, I should myself have got up, and opposed the withdrawal.
The Speaker: I am sure the House will give me full credit when I say that my only desire is to have the question fairly deci-

735
ded. I have stated, according to my recollection, what I think passed, but I am sure the House will see that it is a very painful situation for a Speaker to have what he says so questioned. I therefore appeal to the House, not so much for my own sake, as for the sake of those who may follow me, that when a difference does arise as to a matter of fact, the question should be properly decided—I wish, indeed, that it were possible to put the question again, but I feel assured the House will do me the justice to think that I would never decide any question in a manner that I did not think fully justifiable.
Mr. Goulburnhad not heard the motion put for the withdrawal, although it was evident from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman in the chair that the question had been duly put.
Colonel Sibthorptrusted that nothing that had fallen from him had been construed into any disrespect. He could in all sincerity declare that he had intended none.
Sir E. Sugdendeclared, that he had not the slightest intention to cast any imputation on the chair. His only object had been to explain how it had been that they on that side of the House had fallen into the error of supposing that the question of withdrawal had not been put.
The Speakersaid, that all he had meant was to point out the very painful situation in which he had been placed by what had occurred.
Sir Edward Knatchbullwas quite sure that every decision of the right hon. Gentleman emanated from the purest mind. He thought that the decision of the right hon. Gentleman on the subject, whatever it might be, should at once be accepted by the House.
Sir Edward Codringtoncould confirm what the hon. Member for Evesham had stated as the fact with regard to the motion put from the chair. There was no noise whatever on that (the Ministerial) side, though there was much noise among the Gentlemen on the other side. It was that noise which had no doubt given rise to the mistake.
Mr. Borthwickhad one word to say in confirmation of his previous statement. He would not have got up to address the House in the first instance had he not heard put the question of withdrawal. He then rose solely because he was afraid that
736
the question would be carried for want of opposition.
Lord J. Russellsaid, as there appeared to be so much confusion of opinion in the House, he would state his recollection of the facts, thinking that whatever decision the right hon. Gentleman might himself come to ought to be at once acquiesced in by the House. After the resolutions had been moved and seconded, and the first had been read from the chair, the hon. Member for Bridport suggested that all the resolutions should be withdrawn, except the fourth, and that a Select Committee should be moved for. The question for the withdrawal of the first resolution was then put. The hon. Member for Evesham rose at the moment to address the House, but, finding that the hon. Members on his side did not agree in his wish to do so, he sat down, and the Speaker proceeded. He (Lord J. Russell) then understood the withdrawal to have been put and carried. The Speaker could not be answerable for the inattention of Members who afterwards were unaware of what had been the proceedings. He paid attention at the time, and had now stated his recollection. It remained for the Speaker to take the course he thought necessary.
Sir Robert Peelwas quite of opinion that the proposition of the hon. Member for Kent should be adopted; namely, that whatever might be the decision of the Speaker on the point must be assented to. It appeared that the hon. Member for Monmouth was prepared to relinquish his first three resolutions. If the father of those babes, and pretty large babes they were, chose to abandon them, they must be thrown on the parish; The House had no authority to compel the hon. Member to provide for them. He and his friends were, he trusted, not to be accused of smothering them. The only safe course for the House to pursue in this as well as in all similar cases was to adhere strictly to their rules. If the hon. Member for Monmouth chose to relieve them—
The Attorney-General, amidst roars of "Order, order! chair, chair!" rose to call the right hon. Baronet to order. There was no question before the House. The right hon. Baronet, while he recommended to the House to adhere to their rules, ought at least to adhere to them himself.
Mr. Blewitthad always been accustomed to give the right hon. Member for

737
Tamworth credit for discretion, and finding that he was in a good position, he should imitate the right hon. Baronet,—say nothing more, and sit down. The hon. Member therefore did not move his last resolution, and the others were previously withdrawn.
The Solicitor-General(amidst much confusion) rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to make better provision for collecting and distributing the estates of persons found bankrupts under commissions and fiats directed to country Commissioners. This motion put an end to the confusion, and leave was given to bring in the Bill.

ELECTION PETITIONS.
Lord Staley: As we have now gone through the whole of the business that stands upon the notice-paper for to-day, I beg to take the opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the state in which we stand with respect to the question which we had hoped to have brought to a discussion and conclusion this evening. Certainly if there were any parties in that House feeling that the motion to be brought forward by the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Blewitt) was one not only of the most unusual, but also of the most absurd and ridiculous character.—I say, if there were any parties in this House who were of opinion that the motion brought forward was absurd and ridiculous, I must say, that the proceedings of this evening must have been most highly gratifying to them; because a motion introduced with so much pomp, heralded by so loud a flourish of trumpets—a motion upon which the Government avowedly intended to make a stout battle—was at last brought forward [the remainder of the sentence was drowned in loud cries of "Question!" and cries of "Go on!"] When order had been restored the noble Lord continued: I am too well aware of the practice of this House not to know that at this moment, formally speaking, there is no question before it. If, therefore, it be the pleasure of the House that I wait till the question be put from the chair "that this House do now adjourn," I am perfectly willing to sit down. But I thought it more convenient—[cries of "No, no,"] and I have the right—[cries of "question" and adjourn"]—have the right to make what observations I may think fit, and still be
738
in perfect order, by moving myself, at the close of my remarks, that the House do now adjourn; but I will not take that course. I will wait till the motion for the adjournment be made, if Gentlemen choose to stand upon form, and demand that that more formal course should be taken, because I intend to show them cause why the House should not adjourn without a more definite explanation of the course which public business is to take tomorrow.
Lord John Russell Lord John Russell moved that this House do now adjourn.
Lord Stanley: I am now in perfect form, according to the orders of the House, and have a right to continue those observations that I was about to make as to the course of proceeding which has been taken this evening, and the course which lies before us for to-morrow. I have stated, and repeat it again, that those who thought that the motion of the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Blewitt) was absurd and ridiculous, must have been highly gratified at the farce which has been enacted to-night. Yes, the motion so confidently brought forward, so avowedly made the groundwork upon which the Government had intimated their intention of taking a most extraordinary and, as I think, most unconstitutional course with respect to petitions, has turned out to be the greatest farce ever enacted in this House. The hon. Member for Monmouth comes down with a long string of, I suppose, very well-considered resolutions; because no man, and especially a new Member of the House, would, I think, come down with, so long a string of resolutions, involving the most serious principles, unless they had previously been well and carefully considered.
Mr. Hume: I rise to order. The noble Lord is about to arraign the conduct of an hon. Member. Has he given any notice to that hon. Member of his intention? That hon. Member is not now present. I leave it, therefore, to the noble Lord to say how far he thinks it proper to proceed with observations relating to the conduct of another Gentleman, that Gentleman not being present to defend himself.
Lord Stanley: I thank the hon. Member for Kilkenny for informing me that the hon. Member for Monmouth is not present. Finding that he has disappeared under the cloud which has involved all

739
the proceedings of this evening in so much mystery, I will not proceed with any observations that can relate either personally to him or invidiously to his motion. But I wish to call the attention of the House, as the Spottiswoode conspiracy storm seems to have blown over for this evening [No, no!]—What! not blown over [No, no!]—not blown over for this evening? Surely I have a right to say that the storm is blown over when an hon. Gentleman, having given notice of five resolutions, having made a long speech in recommendation of those resolutions, finding very great doubt and difficulty thrown upon them by a part of the House, finally withdraws the first of the five, and on the remaining four, fearing the decision of the House, declines to have the question put. That is the precise situation in which this most vaunted motion, which was to blow up the, Spottiswoode conspiracy, now stands. But I want to know what we are to expect from tomorrow. Clearly the hon. Gentleman who has given way to-night has no intention of again inviting us to the discussion of those resolutions from which he has shrunk this evening. No possible Parliamentary ground can be alleged for such a course. The House to-night was full to overflowing. The only wish, on the part of the House was, to have the question put. But the hon. Member could not persuade himself to have the question put, because he was well aware of the reception it would meet with from the majority of the House. Therefore, that these resolutions should ever again make their appearance upon the table of the House, I hold to be a presumption insulting to the dignity of the House. If they should again make their appearance, then I must say, that the proceedings of this evening can be characterised only as the grossest and most vexatious trifling with the House. But i suppose, that the great field-day is to be upon the motion of the hon. Member for Limerick (Mr. W. S. O'Brien). The noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, told us at an early hour of the evening-, that it was necessary to print the petition of the hon. Member for Limerick, because the whole question in which his petition was involved was to come under the consideration of the House to-night—that the whole matter would be taken as a substantive question, of which the hon. Member for Limerick's case would form a
740
part, though only a small and inconsiderable part; and moreover, that that case would be determined by the general decision to which the House came tonight. We ask, then, for judgment on the general question; we claim it, we beg for it, but we cannot, even have the question put, which is to enable us to express our opinions upon it. Now, it is proposed, as I understand, to sink the general question in the individual question. The petition of the hon. Member for Limerick is to be brought forward to-morrow night, when the great constitutional question is to be decided upon, whether any individual is entitled by the law of the land to subscribe his money to carry into effect the legal rights of any man, or any body of men—whether any individual has the right to support by his money the expenses necessary to procure justice by securing a true election, free from fraud, for Members of this House. We desire to discuss that point on the general question, but we are told that we must discuss it upon the single question. I put it then to those Gentlemen, who were so anxious to call me to order, is it an unreasonable thing that I should ask to be informed what the precise question is to be which, within twenty-four hours, the hon. Member for Limerick is to bring forward? We were ready to meet the case to-night, we were prepared with our answer; we knew the case, we had had warning given us of what it was to be; but now the hon. Member for Limerick, under cover of his single case, persuades the hon. Member for Monmouth to shrink from the general issue, and proposes to have the question revived upon his individual petition, not having had the courtesy to give us notice of what the question is to be when he brings the matter under our consideration. The hon. Member for Kilkenny charged me just, now with a want of courtesy in not having given notice to the hon. Member for Monmouth, of my intention to allude to the manner in which he had brought, forward his resolutions. But how could I, or any human being, imagine by anticipation the events of this evening? Could any man conceive that a question so solemnly brought forward, would be so ludicrously disposed of? But I submit, whether the hen. Member for Limerick—I do not know whether he be present or not—I submit, then, whether he be not I chargeable with a want, of courtesy to the

741
House in not giving, before the question of adjournment was put to-night, a distinct notice of the proposition which he thinks of sufficient importance to bring forward in a substantive form to-morrow. As the hon. Gentleman is in his place, I hope I shall obtain from him the object I have in view—a distinct statement of the nature of the proposition which in the course of some eighteen hours hence, we are to be called upon to discuss.
Mr. W. S. O'Brienhad taken an opportunity, more than once in the course of the evening, of stating that until the motion of the hon. Member for Monmouth was disposed of, he could not exactly say in what terms his motion would be framed; but, from first to last, he had given a distinct intimation that it was his intention to direct the notice of the House to the conduct of the hon. Baronet (Sir Francis Burdett), the Member for North Wilts. That intimation was given in terms as clear and explicit as he had the power of employing; and his absence from the House, a short time since, was for the purpose of writing out the notice of his motion for to-morrow night, and giving it to the clerk. The notice he was going to submit, and which had been drawn up without any reference to any thing that had fallen from the noble Lord, was to the following effect: that he would, on the morrow evening move, that the petition presented by him, complaining of the subscriptions raised to prosecute election petitions in Ireland, be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord John Russell: The noble Lord has called the attention of the House to the proceedings of the night; and, I think, he has indulged rather unduly in an air of triumph at the resolutions moved by the hon. Member for Monmouth not being acceded to by the House. It is very possible, that the hon. Member for Monmouth, not being used to the modes of proceeding in the House, may, without sufficient consideration, have given notice of resolutions with which other hon. Members could not agree. It may be very possible that the motion which he framed was not in accordance with the general view of those who share in his opinion, as to the character of these subscriptions. But I do not think, that the noble Lord is justified in assuming from that that he is to leave this House with an assurance that the confederacy to collect subscrip-
742
tions for the purpose of displacing Irish Members, and Irish Members only, is to remain unassailed. I do not say, that I could have supported the motion of the hon. Member for Monmouth. I do not say, that it may be fit, considering the law and the precedents in these cases, to institute a Select Committee upon the subject; but this I do say, that an act more calculated to shake men's confidence as to the fair decision of Election Committees—an act more calculated to make men believe that the seats in this House were to be determined, not according to the just rights of the case, but according to the politics of those who held those seats—an act more calculated to make one part of the United Kingdom afraid, nay, strongly sensible, that they will not get justice—an act more calculated to work these evils than this combination, of which Mr. Spottiswoode is at the head, I know no instance of in the history of this country; and if I take any part in the debate to-morrow, it certainly will be to insist upon the dangerous character of such a proceeding. What is the appearance that the thing presents? That men collect subscriptions to support or to attack seats which they think to be held unduly. That would be a question which, upon some precedents and some decisions, might well form matter for deliberation, and one high authority might be quoted who has given a legal decision upon views founded upon the subject. But this is not the character of this proceeding. The character of the present proceeding is this, that hardly were the elections over—hardly could any man know the exact circumstances of any particular election—than a party of persons meet (this was upon the 30th of August, when the particulars of the elections could hardly be known) and decide immediately that a certain number of those elections—they neither say which nor how many—are invalid; they declare that practices had prevailed at those elections, of which they could have no knowledge, and they proceed to say—not, certainly, that they found their petitions upon that point—but they proceed to say, that Members will be seated in the House having different opinions from those of many Gentlemen who have been returned for many parts of the United Kingdom. What was the direct tendency of such a course as this? Was it not enough to make every Irish-

743
man believe and think, "Whatever I may do with my franchise, to whomsoever I give my vote, I know, although there may be a majority of hundreds of sound votes in favour of the Member to whom I commit my wants, my feelings, my interests, he will be no sooner returned to the House than he will be attacked by a monied combination, not on the grounds that he does not represent me—not on the grounds that he is not sent by me freely into the House of Commons to speak my sentiments; but, because he does not speak the sentiments of those more wealthy and more opulent persons who take care that there shall be returned for the county or the borough of which I am an inhabitant a person, not to represent my sentiments, but to represent the sentiments of those who subscribe their money to secure the seats of such Members as they please?" I maintain that the tendency of such a subscription is to raise in the breast of every independent elector the feeling I have stated, and no other. I put aside, at this moment, the inconvenience, the expense which may attend those who have been so elected; at this moment, I will not take that point into consideration. But I say that, considering the difference of political opinions, and the differences in point of religion which prevail in Ireland, to raise a subscription fund, and to carry it throughout the country for the sole purpose of unseating Irish Representatives, and no other Representatives, is a measure more calculated to estrange the people of Ireland from a great portion, at least, of the people of England—more calculated to engender feelings of bitterness and of alienation than any measure of which we have a record in history. It is calculated—and this is the most injurious effect of all—it is calculated to make the people of Ireland think that there are Members meeting in London cognizant of the constitution, and aware of the practice of the House, who believe, that if the Members for Ireland are not suitable to the taste of some parties in this country, they may be turned out of their seats. I say this, because the noble Lord has thought fit, at the moment that the House was about to adjourn, to recite, out of triumph, an account of what had taken place this evening. I ask the noble Lord, therefore—as there is no doubt that the hon. Member for Limerick will bring forward his motion—to come down to-mor-
744
row and say, not whether it be legal in certain cases to make subscriptions, but whether he be ready to stand by this Spottiswoode conspiracy,—whether he applaud it as an act done in the spirit of the constitution,—whether he stand up for it as an act calculated to cement the union,—whether he, with his knowledge of the proceedings of the House, will say, that those who have circulated and promoted this subscription are likely to make the character of this House more respected throughout the empire. I will not say now, that any direct proceedings can be taken by the House: I know but of one case in which resolutions of a similar nature were proposed to the House, and they stand, indeed, upon a very weak and fragile authority. I wish I could quote some person of high legal fame as having brought them before the House; I wish I could name some person of great constitutional knowledge, some person of sound judgment, as having proposed them; but, alas! the only person I can name as having brought forward any similar resolutions, was the hon. Baronet, the Member for North Wilts. Upon his authority, I certainly shall not lean. The hon. Baronet, undoubtedly, brought a case against two electors of Middlesex, who were Members of this House, who not only had signed a petition but assembled at a meeting somewhere in the city, and passed resolutions condemning the hon. Baronet for having obtained his seat by illegal means. The hon. Baronet moved resolutions calling upon the House to declare whether these electors had not committed an unconstitutional act. Their defence was, that, although they were Members of the House, they were electors of Middlesex, and that they had signed the resolutions in question as being the only means by which they could make common cause with their fellow-electors in promoting a petition against the seat of one of their Representatives; and I think, with this defence, it was hardly to be expected that the resolutions of the hon. Baronet could prevail. But I will not take the hon. Baronet as an authority; any strength to be derived from the former conduct of the hon. Baronet I am ready to relinquish, and give him up entirely to the noble Lord. I promise the noble Lord, that he shall not hear me quote the proceedings adopted by the hon. Baronet as an example for the House to follow in the present in-

745
stance. I will stand only upon the actual facts that have occurred; and without saying, that it is possible for this House to afford any direct remedy upon the subject; I will say, that it is fit that the public notice should be called to the case, in order that in consequence of the discussion which I hope will take place—in consequence of the condemnation (which I think will be general) of such an attempt to govern the elections—persons may not, for the future, endeavour to say "here are men who do not agree with us in opinion—here are men with whose religion we differ—here are men who go to constitute a majority against us; for these reasons, and upon such pretences, we will raise the country for petitions to subvert them."
Sir Charles Douglascongratulated the House upon the speech it had just heard from the noble Lord. But he begged to ask the noble Lord a question—he wished to know from the noble Lord, what was the course taken by him some few years ago, not with regard to subscriptions for election petitions, but with regard to subscriptions for forwarding the elections themselves? He wished to know, whether at the time before there was any coalition between the noble Lord and the hon. and learned Member, who at the beginning of his Parliamentary career was called the franking Member for Ireland, but who since had been well known as the temporary Member for Dublin—he wished to know whether, at that time, the noble Lord was not aware that large sums of money were systematically collected to further the elections of that party to which the noble Lord was attached? The noble Lord might think that constitutional; he (Sir C. Douglas) did not. The noble Lord and his Colleagues might very probably think their coalition with the hon. and learned Member of very considerable importance, and, therefore, they continued steady to engagements which many of them in their hearts wished they had never contracted. Their coalition with that parley was, indeed, as disgraceful to themselves as their continuance in office had been pernicious to the country. He repeated the remark, and he thought that the majority of the House must agree with him, when he reminded them that the coalition of the Ministry was with one who could not speak of his own countrymen but as "hereditary bondsmen," nor
746
of the people of England except as the most "priest-ridden" people in Europe.
Question carried, and House adjourned.