§ MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELLwas most unwilling to divert the attention of the House from the important question that was about to be submitted to its consideration; but he hoped for pardon if he ventured to trepass on their attention for a few moments to complain of a breach of privilege, and an invasion on the freedom of the Election Committees. The breach of privilege in question was to be found in a leading article published in the Northern Star newspaper of Saturday, the 26th instant. That article conveyed an impu- 1390 tation against his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War, and the Members generally of the Committee of Selection, and mentioned himself (Mr. O'Connell) byname as the deadly enemy of the hon. Member for Nottingham (Mr. O'Connor). The House could well afford to treat the attack with contempt; but he considered that an attempt had been made to overawe in his person the Members of that House, and that attempt, if permitted to pass unnoticed, might lead to results fatal to the freedom of their deliberations. He therefore felt it to be his duty to lay the newspaper on the table, and to move that the article of which he complained be read by the Clerk.
§ Motion carried.
§
Mr. Ley (the Clerk), read from the Northern Star of last Saturday the following:—
Parliamentary Committees — The Accused his own Judge—It is a farce with which the people should be acquainted, that Feargus O'Connor is the accuser of Whig delinquents, while Fox Maule, the Whig Secretary at War, is the person who has the nomination of the Election Committee which is to decide upon Mr. O'Connor's right to sit in Parliament; while Mr. Morgan John O'Connell, the deadly enemy of Mr. O'Connor, may be, and probably will be, selected as chairman or judge upon the Committee. Formerly, the practice was, that thirty-three Members were balloted from among those present; the petitioners, as in the case of a special jury, struck out eleven names; the Member petitioned against also struck out eleven: and the remaining eleven constituted the Committee. Now, however, the case is altered: the House is divided into panels; Mr. Fox Maule, as chairman of the Committee of Selection, refers the petition to what panel he pleases, and selects his chairman of the Committee. Now this is the tribunal to which Mr. O'Connor's right to sit in Parliament is to be submitted; while, as far as the subscriptions have gone, it would appear as if those for whom he had struggled were determined to allow him to struggle for himself in this instance. We believe that the amount collected in one night for the defence of the seat of Mr. Reynolds, the Member for Dublin, was over 2,000l., while the amount subscribed for the defence of Mr. O'Connor's scat scarcely amounts to 400l. This forms a strong contrast between English and Irish patriotism. The amount altogether subscribed does not exceed five farthings a man of the members of the Land Company. The directors consider this but a poor inducement for any gentleman to struggle for the rights of the poor.
§ MR. MORGAN J. O'CONNELLbelieved, that, at least as a matter of form, it would be his duty to follow up the reading of that extract by a Motion; but before doing so he would take occasion to observe that he had brought the matter forward, not through any persuasion that the Mem- 1391 bers of the Election Committees need care for such an attack, but because he thought it desirable that the public should be undeceived, and that they should understand that his right hon. Friend the Secretary at War, so far from being the person who had the nomination of the Election Committee in his own hands, had of himself no more power or authority than any hon. Member who was now present. It was necessary that he should have a majority of four out of six with him, otherwise no resolution of his could stand. It was also right that the public, whom it was here sought to misinform, should know that if any valid objection could be urged against any hon. Gentleman acting either as Chairman or Member of the Committee, it was quite competent for either party— the petitioned against or the petitioner—to urge that objection at the proper time. They had no power to cause the name to be peremptorily struck off, as in the case of a special jury; but each party had the same right of challenge for cause, which belonged to every subject of the realm. It was right that these facts should be properly understood by the public. As business of a much more important character was about to engage the attention of the House, it was not worth while to carry the matter farther. He trusted that the mere allusion to it in that House would serve the purpose he had in view. In order, however, to keep himself within the rules of the House, he would conclude by making a formal Motion that the Printer and Publisher of the Newspaper in question be summoned to the bar of the House.
§ MR. O'CONNOR, as proprietor of the newspaper alluded to, had always suffered in his own person anything that was to be undergone. This was the first time that the printer had ever been called on. He admitted that he had written with warmth, but denied that in speaking of the new regulations which governed the constitution of Election Committees he had gone as far as many hon. Members in that House. He had not gone as far as the hon. Member for Kerry himself, who had characterised the present mode of selecting Committees by the precise phrase which he (Mr. O'Connor) had used, namely, as "a farce." He spoke from experience; for, on one occasion, when he served on one of those Committees, and gave his vote for the Tory candidate, he was denounced for acting according to the dictates of his conscience. It could not be 1392 said with truth, in general terms, that the parties litigant had under the present system a right of challenge for cause. They had only a right of challenge for such cause as was expressly laid down in the Act of Parliament. When a man was on trial for his life, he could, after exhausting his peremptory challenges, challenge for cause. Had such a privilege been permitted to him he should most unquestionably have challenged the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, and also the hon. Member for Kerry. The latter he would have challenged because of a personal quarrel he had had with him, and he would have done so in justice to himself and to the hon. Member. With respect to the expenses of his election, he had all along stated that he did not expect to gain anything by entering that House, and that he did not think it was right he should be called on to defray the charges out of his own pocket. With regard to the Land Company, he had expended on that project at least 1,000l. He had often defended others at his own charge, who were unable to defend themselves; but one farthing of the money of the people he had never received. He had sat in that House for three Parliaments, and never offended any one, either inside or outside of it. But if he had said anything to hurt the feelings of the hon. Member for Kerry, he requested that Gentleman would accept his apology. He might be allowed, in conclusion, to observe, that he had suffered severely from the decisions of Election Committees, for, on one occasion, he was thrown out for want of qualification, though it was proved that he had 5,000l. a year.
§ Motion withdrawn.