ORANGE LODGE COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 15 June 1837)

§ Sir R. Bateson
presented a petition on the subject of the motion which he brought forward yesterday, that leave be given to the clerk of the Orange Lodge Committee (1835) to attend and give evidence in the Court of King's Bench, Ireland, in the case of Gore Jones v. Hunter and others. He begged hon. Members to recollect that the trial to which the petition referred was to come on in the Court of King's Bench in Dublin on Monday next, and that it could not be postponed. The defendant, he was informed, did not possess the power of putting off a trial

§ The Speaker
said he had very little more to observe with respect to the present motion, except to repeat what he had said before. It was now for the House to decide whether they would proceed further in this matter or not. It was for them, then, to decide whether or not they would afford increased facilities to the proceedings of Courts of Justice. In all cases where Members consulted him he uniformly gave his advice in favour of their not refusing their aid to the administration of the law. As Members of that House he thought they were bound to give every facility in their power. With respect to the motion then before them, he had only to recommend the House now to determine whether or not they would enforce the strict rule.

§ Viscount Morpeth
said, he had not the least objection to the motion, and thought that the sooner the House gave its permission the better.

§ Sir R. Bateson
replied, that after what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite, he should not say another word, further than to observe, that in bringing forward the proposition he had not been actuated by any party motives but by a sense of justice alone. The hon. Baronet made a motion in accordance with the prayer of the petition.

§ Mr. Hume
opposed the motion, considering that no sufficient reason had been shown to induce the House to comply with the prayer of the petition. He thought that they ought not to encourage legal proceedings against persons who might give evidence to that House; the position in which such persons stood was most peculiar, and due regard ought to be had to the circumstances; he therefore objected to the motion.

Mr. O'Connell
differed from his hon. Friend the Member for Middlesex for he thought that the House ought to give facilities to parties who desired to supply evidence on matters of fact, and he requested hon. Members to recollect that in this case the evidence was required for the defence. He was clear in the opinion that the House did possess the privilege of printing and publishing evidence given before it; but, notwithstanding that undoubted right, he was equally clear in the opinion that the present was not a case in which the required permission ought to be refused. Surely if any person had stated that which was false an opportunity should not he denied of contradicting that falsehood.

§ Mr. Roebuck
observed that the hon. and learned gentleman opposite had said that the libellous character depended on the occasion. He thought that nothing ought to be brought against a man which he said under the protection of the house. One man might say to another, "You said something against me." The other replies, "True, but it was said under compulsion." The House, which exercised the power of compulsion, ought to protect those who gave evidence before it on matters in which the nation had a great interest.