HC Deb 20 May 1842 vol 63 cc560-4

On the Order of the Day for a committee of supply, Mr. C. Buller begged to put it to the House whether he could not bring on the question relating to the borough of Bridport, and the petition he had presented from Mr. Warburton, as a matter of privilege. It seemed to him, that the case stood precisely on the same ground as others brought forward by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Roebuck), for his whole argument would be to show that there was no distinction between them. It seemed to him, therefore, that the same rule of privilege ought to be applied to them.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

thought no pressing necessity existed, and that the House ought not to give way too easily upon such a point, and treat as matters of privilege questions strictly not of that character, the discussion of which would interfere with the transaction of the ordinary business of the House. The present case was different in this respect— that in the instances referred to the hon. Member for Bath stated in his place that he believed a corrupt compromise had been effected. On that assertion the House had granted the courtesy of privilege, although perhaps it could not strictly have been conceded. The present motion was merely to refer the case of another borough to the committee now sitting.

Mr. C. Butter

was prepared to make the same assertion as that of the hon. Member for Bath, on which the House had consented to treat the motion as a matter of privilege. As to the pressure of the case, he had presented a petition charging Members of the House with bribery and compromise of an improper nature; and in justice to them it seemed proper that the discussion should be brought on immediately.

Sir R. Peel

apprehended that great public inconvenience would arise out of a departure from the ordinary rule. In the case of Nottingham there might be reasons which did not apply to the case of Bridport, and if the question regarding the latter were now brought on, it would be in the power of any Member to obstruct the public business. He appealed to the impartial authority of the Chair, whether the question relating to the Bridport petition could be deemed a matter of privilege.

The Speaker

said, that it certainly was not such a matter of privilege as entitled it to precedence. He would remind the House of the relative strictness with which the rule as to privilege was enforced. If a debate on a question of undoubted privilege were adjourned, on its renewal it was not entitled to precedence. He was, therefore, of opinion, that according to the letter and spirit of the rule applied to such cases, the consideration of the petition regarding Bridport was not to be held a matter of privilege. It appeared to him that the House ought not to allow subjects to be intro duced as of privilege, of which notice for a future day could without inconvenience be given.

Mr. Mitchell

expressed his hope, that the question would be brought forward on the earliest opportunity. He wished to go fully into his answer to the several allegations of the petition, and he assured the House, that to a large portion of them he could give an unqualified denial. The hon. Member for Liskeard was anxious that the question should not be delayed, and he heartily joined in the same feeling. He wished to direct attention to one fact. He believed that where a petition charged a Member with anything wrong, the order of the House was, that it should be printed solely for the use of the Members. If that were the case, he begged to inquire how it happened that on Saturday morning, before any Member obtained the petition as printed for his use, it was inserted at length in the Morning Chronicle,

Mr. C. Butter

said, that he had been no party to the publication of the petition.

Mr. Cochrane

observed, that the petition, to a certain extent, affected his private character, and on this account he wished that it should be discussed in a full House as soon as possible.

Sir R. Peel

observed, that it was his duty to advise the House to proceed to the regular Orders of the Day. His experience was in favour of adhering to the established practice, and if motions of this kind could: be brought on as privilege, there might be no end to the interruption of public business.

Mr. Mitchell

wished to be informed when the subject would again be introduced. He and his hon. Colleagues were charged with a high offence, and they had a right to expect an early opportunity of defending themselves.

Mr. C. Buller

was precisely of the same opinion. He was quite ready to wait until the very end of the night, and then bring the question forward, or to give notice for Thursday next, unless he could prevail upon the House to give him an earlier day. Both hon. Members must be aware, that he was prevented from proceeding by the rules of the House.

Mr. Mitchell

could not consent to have the debate commenced when Members were worn out with attention to other matters. He wished, however, for the earliest opportunity of vindicating his character.

Mr. Cochrane

apprehended that Thursday was pre-occupied. The accusation had found its way into every newspaper, and he urged that the opportunity for reply and refutation ought not to be delayed an hour beyond the absolute necessity of the case.

Mr. Mitchell

should not object to Thursday, if Thursday could be secured. He doubted, however, whether other hon. Members who had earlier notices for that day would relinquish their rights; and unless some assurance were given that Thursday should be applied in the first instance to the case of Bridport, he hoped he should be forgiven if he took a method of introducing the question on Tuesday, notwithstanding what had fallen from the right hon. Baronet. He was almost disposed to ask the House to meet at twelve to-morrow, if the subject could not be discussed on Tuesday or Thursday next. It was most unreasonable and unfair, that it should be kept pending during the whole of next week.

Sir R. Peel

was willing to do all in his power, and to undertake that no Government question should interfere with the discussion on Thursday. For individual Members, he could not, of course, answer.

Mr. Cochrane

said, he had good reason for believing, that one hon. Member who had a notice on the paper for Thursday next, would not be disposed to give way in favour of the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Liskeard. The consequence, then, would be, that this question, in which he and his hon. Colleague were so interested, could not be brought forward, until a very late hour of the evening. He must again express his deep regret, that he and his hon. Colleague should be obliged to remain so long under the charges which had been brought agsinst them.

Order of the Day read.

On the question, "that the Speaker do leave the Chair,"

Mr. Mitchell

said, that he had no wish whatever to obstruct the proceedings of the House on supply nights; but he begged to say, that it was his intention on Tuesday next, to inquire whether hon. Gentlemen who had notices of motions on the paper for Thursday, would be likely to occupy the attention of the House for any length of time, and if these hon. Gentlemen who intended to bring forward such motions did not give way to the question in which he and his hon. Colleague were so much interested, and that the consequence, then, would be a postponement of this discussion to the week following, he should consider it his duty to move to have the subject brought before the House on Tuesday next.