§ Viscount Maidstonemoved that the Order of the Day for the attendance of Mr. O'Connell should be read.
§ Order of the Day read accordingly.
§ The SpeakerIs the hon. Member in his place?
§ The SpeakerThe hon. Member will be pleased to stand up.
§ Mr. O'Connell rose.
§ The Speakerproceeded to address him in the following words: Mr. O'Connell, you have permitted yourself to be betrayed into the use of expressions, at a public meeting, with respect to which this House has come to the following resolutions:—"That the expressions in the said speech, containing a charge of foul perjury against Members of this House, in the discharge of their judicial duties are a false and scandalous imputation on the honour and conduct of Members of this House. That Mr. O'Connell having avowed that he had used the said expressions, has been guilty of a breach of the privileges of this House; and, finally, that he be reprimanded in his place." The charge of foul perjury is one 264 of the heaviest that can be preferred; you cannot be surprised that, having cast so grave an imputation on Members of this House, it has roused the indignation of those against whom it was directed, and that you have exposed yourself to the severest censure and displeasure of this House. You have endeavoured to vindicate your conduct by alleging that you were impelled by a strong sense of the defective constitution of the present tribunal for the trial of controverted elections, and that you sought to effect a remedy for that evil, by stimulating public opinion. It is unnecessary for me to remind you that at the time when you used the expressions which have been condemned this House had recognised, with scarcely any difference of opinion, the expediency of attempting to apply a real remedy to the evils of which you complain, and that your energies and talents could not have found a more legitimate or useful employment than in endeavouring to render the measure before this House efficient for its object. You have further alleged, and it is true, that others have used language as strong as that which you have employed with respect to this House and its Members. In general this House has been of opinion that it consulted its real dignity, and obeyed the dictates of true wisdom, in relying for protection and de-defence against misrepresentation and calumny on the consciousness of the zeal and fidelity with which it discharges its duty to the people whom it represents. The case, however, is very different, when one of the Members of this House seeks to disparage and to degrade this House in public estimation, by charging a large portion of its Members with foul perjury. No one knows better than you do that the laws and constitution of this realm have invested this House with power and authority so large that its acts must always have an important influence on the wellbeing of the state, and that no power and authority can be beneficially exercised unless they are administered by those who are respected. It is, therefore, the first duty of Members of this House to contribute by all proper means to sustain that character, which is as essential for the credit of this House itself, as for the interests of the country. If, unhappily, the day should ever arrive, when from any cause this House should be stripped of the moral influence of character, and of the 265 respect of the people, its means of resistance to inexpedient, unreasonable, or unjust demands, would be so weakened, that this great Assembly, now popularly constituted, might be tossed about by every successive current, and the safety of the state might be endangered. I should be unworthy of the station which I hold if I did not feet the deepest interest in whatever can touch or affect the character of this House; and it is, therefore with great pain that I have been compelled, in the discharge of my duty, thus to animadvert upon the conduct of a Member who has sought to disparage this House by impugning the conduct and honour of a large portion of its Members. It now only remains, that, in obedience to the commands of this House, I should reprimand you, as I now, accordingly, do.
Mr. O'Connellproceeded to say:—Sir, it seems to me that in following the precedent which you have laid down on the present occasion, much inconvenience has arisen. I have been deprived of a considerable advantage in my defence, by the mode of proceeding adopted by the House. It is but of small importance to myself, whatever my own inconvenience and suffering may be, but it is of great importance to the House and to the country that in the course of proceeding adopted there should be no disparagement to the character of the House in regard to its moral conduct in the eyes of the country at large. It is not merely by a longwinded resolution, whilst a portion of our body admits the allegation—it is not because we say, that we are pure, that the country will judge us to be so—it is not, Sir, because a majority of nine, or of nine and-twenty, or even of 200, have declared themselves free from taint, that the country will believe our conduct to be pure. As for myself, Sir, the morality or immorality of this House is a subject of trivial importance; but it is of great importance for the true administration of justice, that no party should be deprived of his rights by reason of a little political bias. In my opinion, Sir, and doubtless in the opinion of the country, the House will not be considered to have vindicated itself by this vote, any more than the judges, who authorised the taking of ship-money would have vindicated themselves before the public, if they had met and declared themselves to be pure, and patriotic, and just. I am sorry that I was not in the 266 House after the resolutions were proposed, because the force of the words which I used, seem to me to be exceeded in the resolution, and I think that I could have satisfied the House of this. But taking the meaning of the word as it is assumed in these resolutions, was it such as to enable the House to declare the language which I used to be false and inconsistent with the fact? Might not many facts be brought forward to prove that partiality does exist? Has any Gentleman avowed that the facts are not true? Why hon. Members would laugh to scorn any one who alleged that there is no partiality in the election petitions of this House. What position, then, are we in when no Member will venture to state his firm belief that Election Committees are impartial? Who will get up and say, that the Committees are impartial? This is lax morality; it is not perjury, but it is simply voting from party bias. Upon the votes of this House it is admitted that many Members' decisions have been influenced by party bias and party attachments. In the resolutions moved last night, and printed with the votes this morning, it is expressly stated, that "several Members of this House have avowed their belief that the decisions of Election Committees, sworn well and truly to try the matter before them, are biassed by party interests and attachments;" and I want to know what this is but a charge of perjury, although you may disguise it under the name of party bias? If this be not perjury, then have I not used the word, for this expresses exactly what I meant to convey. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may lay the flattering unction to their souls that they have made a glorious vindication; but I ask, will the country go with them? Have they said anything to vindicate themselves in the eyes of the country by disclaiming at once that the tribunals are actuated by party feelings? Have they disavowed a system of partiality which every sincere Christian must wish to get rid of? No, they have not done so; nor can they. As for the bill before the House, it does nothing as respects the partiality of the Committees; it does not change their character. I wish to say nothing disrespectful of the hon. Gentleman who has introduced this bill, but it does not apply any remedy, and it contains enactments which are directly opposite to one another. The public have long been opposed to the system, though 267 it appears to have been now for the first time known to the House. Why, Sir, I hold in my hand a pamphlet on the abuses of Election Committees, published by a Parliamentary agent above a year ago, in which he says "During my practice as a Parliamentary agent, now a period of nine years, I have not known a case in which the parties interested, as also the gentleman at the bar, did not look more to the character and political opinions of Members of the Committee, as furnishing grounds of success, than to the merit of the case which they had to sustain." He then proceeds to say—"The evil has continued to increase until it has become intolerable." I have, Sir, proclaimed it to be intolerable, and for this, Sir, I have received your reprimand; but I conceive it to be intolerable, and especially to a part of the country which I have the honour to represent. The Parliamentary agent then goes on—"At the present time no Member is secure of his seat"—and this is told to the public, and no steps are taken by the House upon it—"nor can petitioners hope to succeed with the best cause; all depends on the Committee whom chance, or the superior tactics of party, may select for the trial of the petition." But this calumny and this libel the House permit to be unnoticed, although the publication is to be found in all the shop windows a hon. Members go along the streets. I know that I am not very popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite. It may be my faith but if it be a fault, it is one of which cannot repent. But instead of assailing me, why did not the hon. Gentleman attack the person who put forth these sentiments in a publication a year ago? They think to stifle my voice and the opinion of the public, but they will be able to stifle neither the one nor the other. I hay every possible respect for the assembly of gentlemen around me; but no respect for any man or any body of men will ever keep me from speaking the truth. Many gentlemen may recollect the story of Galileo who was imprisoned by the Inquisition for saying that the world moves round; but when the key was turned upon him, an he was left alone, he exclaimed, "The world moves round notwithstanding." Here is the character given of the Election Committees, but not I nor any one of party to which I belong—I know the gentleman who wrote this pamphlet, but he not a Whig, much more a Radical as I am, 268 belongs to a party opposed to me—but here is what he says, "Nothing depends upon the merits, but all on the Committee." Now, I ask hon. Gentlemen to put their hands to their hearts and say whether this be true or false? It is easy enough for parties to get on Committees of the most extraordinary character. I have heard to day of a most extraordinary circumstance with regard to a committee; and it was really suggested to me—only the noble Lord who has conducted this case has done so with so much perfect correctness, that I will not at all think of involving him in any species of even legitimate complaint—that my case was to be brought on early, before any facts connected with that case came before the House. But it appears that some gentlemen have that sweet oblivious antidote which makes them forget that two and two make four, or some other proposition equally clear and palpable. The writer then goes on, "Thus to ensure a favourable Committee every principle of decency and justice is notoriously and openly prostituted." This has been in print for twelve months, and yet I am now assailed for taking up this thing when it is pressing on the interests of those most dear to me. This is what the public say, and yet you come out with your resolutions in vindication of yourselves with a majority of nine, declaring that to be true which the public declares to be utterly false. The pamphlet goes on, "The solemnity of an oath and public opinion have little effect on many when the interest of one of their party is at stake." That is what the public say, and what becomes of your vindication or of your reprimand? I have expressed no regret for what I have said—I have retracted nothing—I will retract nothing. I have risen for the purpose of moving for the appointment of a Committee of investigation, which I have not had an opportunity of doing before. Let me meet your resolution by evidence. Give me a Committee—let it be selected in any way which may best secure the discovery of the real state of the public opinion—let the leading men of each party be upon it. Let it be nominated by the Speaker. Ought the House to submit to this history of it given to the public? I do not refer only to the organs of both parties, but to the deliberate publications of your own House. I will examine before the Committee Members of this House, and I will examine the learned Counsel 269 who practise on committees, and who have said to me, "It is in vain to struggle; you see the Committee will decide every thing against you." They at once say, that when they see a Committee of seven to four struck, "You may send your witnesses home—we can go on with your case—there is not the least difficulty or doubt in the matter." I have heard that said of a recent case; and that being so, I put it to the honour and candour of Gentlemen whether they will proceed and persevere in the present course, and not give us the remedy I ask? You have your public tribunals to try every thing untainted and unstained, and you find in those tribunals gentlemen who, whatever their politics may be, perform their duties with impartiality—I will say this of those gentlemen who come among us connected with the English bar—and you have therefore unstained and untainted benches of justice—you have impartial juries—and you can, by doing what we lawyers call changing the venue, remove the trial of a cause to a place where feelings of attachment to either party do not exist—you can get the judges of the land to preside over and correct the errors of juries, and the findings against evidence, or against the weight of evidence; but now, whom have you to correct the decisions of these election tribunals? No one! They are the most absolute tribunals in the world. Law there is, it is true—but they know not law. Then what can be worse than this? Laws of evidence have been made, by which it is provided that no man shall be deprived of or injured in his property or his life, or his honour, except in a manner justified by them. But what law of evidence is followed on election Committees? Why, as it appears from the book of this gentleman, if any person desires to have any particular fact out, which the counsel cannot properly ask for, it is only to suggest to a friendly member of the Committee to put the necessary questions, and facts are elicited which any counsel in a court of justice would be ashamed to require. I am ready to prove my case. I call on you to let me prove my case. If the Committee should be appointed, and should decide that I have made a false charge, there is no submission too humble to be proudly bowed to by me. If they say that I have misstated facts, there is no reparation which I shall not be ready to make. But I cannot comprehend the notion that any 270 censure is inflicted on me by the votes of a majority of this House which will not come to the evil, and eventually procure its entire eradication. That many will come down to-morrow—let me not say all, for I wish to make the exception as wide as I can—but that many will come down, and will be reproached in their clubs if they happen to be away when their ballot is going on. All they want to have said is—"Oh! if you had been in your place—if you had been there—the majority would have been the other way." A morality of party against the morality of justice! I have heard a great deal against religion here. What scuffles and scrambles have been made for the purpose of throwing out observations against religion in one part of the House and in another, and what sanctimoniousness of demeanour has been observed on other occasions! This, then, is a question of trying a matter fairly, after being sworn on the Holy Word of God. Where, then, are those men of pure sanctity? Why don't they come forward now, and adjourn their Sabbath-day's Bills, if we are to hear any more of those Bills—adjourn them for a week or ten days, and come to a real vindication of their calling on the sanctity of the name of the Eternal God. Sir, I mean to move, that this Committee shall be formed, and I shall submit upon that to anything which the House may think fit. I have repented of nothing—I have retracted nothing. I mean not to use harsh or offensive language. I repeat what I have said, but I wish I could find terms less offensive in themselves and equally significant. I am bound to reassert what I have said, for I am convinced of nothing by a vote. Sir, I now move for the appointment of a Committee.
§ The SpeakerMr. O'Connell, it is contrary to the rules of the House to move for a Committee without having given notice.
Mr. O'ConnellIf that is the rule, Sir, I now give notice that I will move for the committee to-morrow.
§ Lord John Russellmoved, that the Speaker's address be inserted in the journals of the House.
§ Ordered accordingly.