PETITION. (Hansard, 31 May 1858)

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
said, he rose to present a Petition to the House from Mr. Washington Wilks, who was now in the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms. The petitioner submitted to the House that he was not the author of the article which had been contradicted and which had caused the complaint to be made by the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive). He said that the author of the statements contained in that article had misunderstood the information which had been conveyed to him, but that he, Washington Wilks, being the responsible publisher of the paper, and having permitted these sentiments to appear in his newspaper on his own behalf, now stated he unreservedly retracted that passage of the article which imputed to the hon. Member a partial or corrupt motive—namely, the passage to this effect: "Does he stand quite clear of any transactions in Caledonian stock whilst this investigation was pending?"—that imputation having been solemnly denied by the hon. Member, and the information on which it was founded having been misunderstood by the author of the article. Having made this retractation, and having withdrawn a charge which he was not able to substantiate, be further expressed his regret that it had ever been made. The usual course in a case of this kind was, that the petition should be presented, and notice should be given of any Motion which was intended to be made upon the petition. He (Mr. M. Gibson's) first desire was, as this petition of Mr. W. Willis contained an unreserved retractation of the imputations and allegations contained in the article, to move at once that he be discharged. But of course he (Mr. M. Gibson) should be sorry to propose anything which might appear to be a departure from the rules and precedents which applied to the case. He was, therefore, entirely in the hands of the House, and if they objected to the Motion for Mr. W. Wilks' discharge being entered upon immediately, he would move that the petition be printed with the Votes, and give notice that be should move his discharge to-morrow. He further begged to say he had been informed that the rea- 1199 son why the retractation of the obnoxious insinuation was not made at the bar was that, when Mr. Washington Wilks appeared at the Bar, he did not quite understand what was the requirements made of him. He understood that he was required to withdraw the whole of the article; and inasmuch as the greater part of the article consisted of comments and criticisms upon the proceedings of the Committee founded upon general public grounds, and contained arguments for the recommittal of the North British scheme—over which Committee the hon. Member for Hereford presided —Mr. Wilks was not prepared to withdraw the whole article, but he drew a distinction between fairly criticising the public conduct of a Member of the House, as is usually done in the press, and imputing to a Member of Parliament that he was influenced by interested and corrupt motives.

MR. FITZROY
rose to order. He imagined that it was not competent to them to discuss the whole subject and the merits of the petition then, the right hon. Gentleman having already stated that he intended to move that the petition be printed.

§ MR. MILNER GIBSON
granted that he might be in error, but he felt it due to Mr. Washington Wilks to explain why he had not made the retractation before. He begged to move that the petition be printed.