HC Deb 08 July 1879 vol 247 cc1866-87
LORD HENRY LENNOX

Sir, yesterday afternoon it was my duty, as Chairman of the Select Committee now sitting, and which has been sitting for the last five or six weeks, to inquire into the desirability of passing the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill, to report to this House the result which had been arrived at by my Colleagues, unanimously with myself, as to what was our duty in this matter. This happened before we concluded the inquiry on which we were engaged, and when it only wanted about three or four hours to enable us to conclude it; and we thought it our duty to ourselves, and still more to the House of Commons, to report the circumstances which had been brought under our notice during the sitting of the Committee. Those facts I will now briefly state. Hon. Members will probably have already read them, because they form part of' the Votes that were distributed this morning; but, perhaps, it may be thought convenient for me to run over them very shortly. I only intend to make a very brief statement, because I do not mean—and, in fact, it would not be right either to myself or my Colleagues to make any comment on this statement. All I intend to do is merely to give the facts to the House, and then to place myself in the hands of the Douse of Commons. It seems that on Tuesday last Mr. Sandi-lands Ward, a solicitor, gave a letter of introduction to a client of his named Mr. Charles E. Grissell, in order that he might go and see the Messrs. Hooker, who are supposed to be the solicitors to the wharfingers, who are opposing the Bill before the Committee. Mr. Grissell went with the letter to Mr. Hooker, and he appears to have had some considerable doubt as to the authenticity of the document. He gave Mr. Grissell a further letter of introduction to Messrs. Cockell, an eminent firm of solicitors, having the conduct of the opposition to the Bill. In order to make my statement perfectly clear and intelligible to all the Members of this House, I ought to state that the Bridge to which the Bill before the Committee relates is one that it is proposed by the Metropolitan Board of Works to carry across the River Thames; and there are certain persons having property on the banks of the Thames, and who are wharfingers there, who consider that if the Bridge should be built at the height proposed by the plans, it will interfere with the traffic of the River by stopping the shipping from coming up, and will eventually have the effect of ruining their business. Messrs. Cockell and Cu. are the solicitors to a great majority of these persons who appear as petitioners against the Bill. Well, on Wednesday last, Mr. Grissell, with his letter of introduction from Mr. Hooker, called on Messrs. Cockell, of the firm of Arkcoll, Jones, and Cockell, and he told those gentlemen that he had most ample powers to treat with regard to the Bill; because, he said, he could control the decision of the Committee, and, in proof of this, he could arrange for questions to be put to the Committee which would lead to the destruction of the Bill. Mr. Cockell told Mr. Grissell that he was too late; that there were no more questions to be put, as the evidence was completed, and a decision was about to bed taken on the merits of the Bill. When pressed very hard as to how he could make such a bargain, Mr. Cockell said— Well, all you have to do is this: promise me, before the very eminent counsel who is conducting the Bill for the promoters makes his summing up, that you will arrange with the Committee that they shall unanimously state that compensation must be given to the wharfingers, which would prove a death-blow to the Bill, as the Board of Works have declared that they will not proceed with the measure if compensation is to be given to the wharfingers and others, as it would thus be rendered too expensive to go on with. This promise was made by Mr. Grissell, and Mr. Grissell expressed his willingness to put the proposition in writing. Mr. Grissell came down to the Committee Room of the House of Commons next morning, and there had an interview with Mr. Cockell; on which occasion, as the Douse will see from this Report mainly, at the dictation of Mr. Cockell, ho wrote out a paper, in which he agreed to control the decision of the Committee in this sense for the sum of £2,000. Mr. Cockell accepted the document, and told Mr. Grissell that he would send an answer; and from what I have heard of the firm of which Mr. Cockell is a member, I should say that Mr. Cockell could only be looked upon as meaning that an answer would be sent back to Mr. Grissell, telling him that he never ought to have made such an offer. Now, Sir, what I have to ask the House to do is to consider the special Report which I promised to lay before it. We do not say one word as to the merits of the case, nor as to the conduct of any of the parties concerned in it. All we have to do is to be jealous of the honour of this Douse. Before I sit down, I wish to be allowed to say a few words, which I am sure will be endorsed by all the counsel and the numerous persons we have had before us during the last six weeks while we have been engaged on this inquiry, which has been one of the most protracted and laborious that has been brought before the House of Commons for many years —I desire to say, on behalf both of the promoters of the Bill and the petitioners against it, that they are most anxious to he allowed to have our decision on the merits of the question. The Bill is one the delay of which involves a large sum of money both to the petitioners and the promoters; and while I ask this House to lose no opportunity to sift to the very bottom every particular connected with this case, I also ask it to recollect the interests both of the promoters and the petitioners, whose money is being squandered in the most alarming manner, as long as the decision is postponed. I may add that our decision was within three or four hours of being pronounced when this interruption took place; and, therefore, while the House will be pleased to deal with the matter as may seem best, I do hope it will deal with it with as little loss of time as possible. With these few remarks, I now move that the House do take into consideration the Special Report of the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill Committee.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Special Report of the Committee on the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill be now considered."—(Lord Henry Lennox. )

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I think there can be but one feeling in the mind of the House, and that is that the Select Committee, of which my noble Friend (Lord Henry Lennox) is Chairman, have taken the right and proper course in making a special Report of the circumstances which are familiar to us from the Report that has been presented with the Papers this morning, and of which my noble Friend has just now given us a short summary. The question is one which evidently touches the honour of this House; and it is, therefore, important that we should satisfy ourselves with respect to it. But I gather from the statement we have had put before us in print, as well as from the statement of my noble Friend, that a Mr. Charles E. Grissell has in some way or other made a communication, or offered to make a communication, which was intended to persuade a certain body of persons who had private interests in passing a particular Bill that if they would give him a certain sum of money he could and would influence the decision of a Select Committee so as to terminate the matter in their favour. As far as Mr. Grissell's conduct in this matter is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is conduct of a kind which this Douse would be bound to take serious notice of. But, beyond this, it appears from the statement in the Report that various communications took place between Mr. Grissell and other persons, solicitors in the case; and, therefore, I think it would be more satisfactory to the Douse that we should have some fuller communication of the nature of these transactions. This is a matter which, I think, ought not to be left in any degree of doubt, and the course which I would venture to propose to the House would be thins. Instead of making any Order at the present moment for Mr. Grissell to appear before us and offer any explanations he may have to make in the matter, a small Committee should be appointed to inquire into all the circumstances attending these communications, and this special Report should be referred to them. I apprehend that the inquiry of such a Committee would not take very long; and what I propose to do now is to give Notice that to-morrow I will move for the appointment of a small Committee, for the purpose of making inquiry into the whole case. I think that probably a Committee consisting of five Members would be found sufficient; and I, therefore, propose to place upon the Notice Paper a Motion for the appoint. meat of such a Committee, and, tomorrow, I will mention the Gentlemen of whom I shall propose it shall consist. I think that this will probably be deemed the most convenient course for the House to take, especially as it is one that will enable us to ascertain what are the real facts of the case. With regard to the concluding words of my noble Friend, I understood him to mean that he hoped the Committee of which he is the Chairman would be allowed to proceed with its consideration of the Bill before it. He has told us that they had very nearly concluded their inquiry, but that they were interrupted by the necessity of presenting this special Report. He desires that they may be enabled as speedily as possible to bring to a termination an investigation which is highly costly to the parties concerned. I do not know whether it is the wish of the House to make any different Order upon this sub- ject; but it certainly appears to me that it would be a very proper thing to allow the inquiry of the Select Committee to be carried out to its legitimate termination.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to correct him on one point? I had no idea whatever of suggesting that the Select Committee should be allowed to complete its inquiry before the matter now before the House is decided upon; all I did venture to suggest was, that the present inquiry should be proceeded with as quickly as possible.

MR. DODSON

I do not understand what objection there can be to the Select Committee proceeding with their inquiry into the merits of the Bill that they had before them. It does not appear to me that the inquiry into that measure can be at all affected by the inquiry it is now proposed to enter upon; therefore, I apprehend that, if necessary, an Order of the House should be made to enable the Committee to proceed. I think, however, that they have full power without any such Order, and I shall be somewhat astonished if I am mistaken. With regard to the suggestion that has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the appointment of a small Committee to inquire into the subject, it appears to me that that would be a very convenient course.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

I should have thought that the most convenient course for the Douse to take in this matter would be to follow the precedents of the House, and to have the person who is accused in the Report brought to the Bar of the House. With regard to the other point, the noble Lord has said that it would be inconvenient if the Select Committee were not allowed to continue their labours, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to be of opinion that they ought to sit on; but it should be remembered that here we have a charge which affects the honour of the House, and I apprehend that it would be more convenient that that should be disposed of in the first instance. If Mr. Grissell were called to the Bar of the House, he would probably be able to make some absolute and complete explanation or apology, with which the House might be satisfied, and which might have the effect of stopping any further procedure. This, I think, would be the most convenient course to pursue.

Sin WILLIAM FRASER

I should like to know what power the Committee proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have of summoning Mr. Grissell before it?

MR. STEVENSON

I should like clearly to understand what course it is proposed to take to-morrow, in case the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bring his Motion for a Committee before the Douse? The House is aware that the Bill which stands first on the Paper for consideration to-morrow is one of which I have the honour to have charge. It is a most important measure dealing with the question of the sale of intoxicating liquors on Sunday, and one in which many people are greatly interested. I am, therefore, very anxious to know whether the possibility of bringing on that Bill is likely to be interfered with?

MR. CALLAN

I find here, at the end of the Report— The authenticity of these Papers having been verified, the Committee feel bound to report the same to the judgment of the House, as a matter seriously affecting its Privileges; and they have adjourned the further inquiry on the Bill until they shall receive further instructions from the House. Therefore, there is no doubt that Mr. C. E. Grissell committed a gross breach of the Privileges of this House; and I apprehend, from precedents that I am aware of, that the usual course would bed to propose a Resolution that a gross breach of the Privileges of the House has been committed, and to order Mr. Grissell to appear at the Bar of the House to-morrow.

MR. MOWBRAY

I think that the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be by far the most convenient for the Douse to adopt, and one that is likely to lead to a better issue than if Mr. Grissell is brought at once to the Bar of the House. If a Committee is appointed, it will be able at once to ascertain who are the various people from whom we can obtain information. The Committee will be able to call them before them in the course of a single day, and will be able to report to the House probably on Friday. I think that course would conduce more to the dignity of the House than the one suggested by the hon. Member for Dundalk.

MR. DUNDAS

A question has been raised whether the Committee should proceed at once with their inquiry, or allow an interval to elapse until the matter about to be referred to a Committee is decided upon. It certainly was the intention of the Committee, when it made this Report, that they should not meet again without farther instructions from the House. But I understand, from what has fallen from the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the right hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Dodson), that it is competent for the Committee to meet again without instructions from the House. I presume, under these circumstances, that it will be left entirely to the Committee to decide whether it is proper for them to continue the Bill or not. Am I right in presuming that it is entirely left to their discretion?

MR,. DODSON

Yes.

MR. SPEAKER

Did I understand that the hon. Member for Dundalk has moved an Amendment?

MR. CALLAN

I did not understand that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had more than thrown out a suggestion. I did not intend, therefore, to make my proposition as an Amendment. However, I beg to move the Motion which I have submitted as a substantive Resolution, and not as an Amendment.

MR. SPEAKER

The Question before the House is that the special Report of the Committee upon the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill be now considered. The hon. Member for Dundalk has interposed with a Motion that Mr. Grissell be summoned to attend at the Bar of the House to-morrow. That Motion he had a perfect right to submit. Does any hon. Member second the Motion?

MR. PARNELL

In rising to second the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dundalk, I wish to ask you, Sir, whether we ought not, as a point of Order, to discuss the Motion that the Bill be now considered? If that Motion has been put, and if we are acting in pursuance of that Motion by considering the Report, I imagine that the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk would then be a substantive Motion, and not an Amendment to the original Motion. Under the idea that it is a Motion, I beg to second it; and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exche- quer what he proposes to gain by appointing a Committee to consider the question? We have already before us the Report of the Committee, who have considered the question, and have reported to us upon it. They were just as able to inquire into the matter as the Committee which the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes to nominate; and I am unable to see what we shall gain by postponing the matter, except, perhaps, a little time—although, in reality, instead of gaining time, we should lose it; because, instead of being disposed of now, we shall have to devote another hour or so, and perhaps longer, to the consideration of it when it comes again before the House. I wish now to direct the attention of the House to this fact—that we have before us, in evidence sent to us by the Committee, a copy of the letter from C. E. Grissell, of 36, Curzon Street, Mayfair, written on the 2nd of July— Asserting that I can control the decision of the Committee now sitting upon the Tower High Level Bridge Bill, I am willing to use that influence in favour of the opposing wharfingers upon certain terms; and I will undertake that the Bill shall be thrown out, or otherwise dealt with by the Committee in such a way as would make the Board of Works withdraw it, by reason of compensation or other clauses being required by the Committee, provided a sufficient guarantee is given to me for the payment of £2,000 immediately on such an event happening. Now, this Committee have inquired into the matter, having taken all the evidence it was possible for any Committee to take. They have decided that it is a matter that seriously affects the Privileges of the House, and have reported to that effect to the House. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the House would lightly regard a matter seriously affecting its Privileges, if it remitted the question back again to another Committee. No Committee could come to any other conclusion from the facts of the case than that which the Select Committee has already arrived at. If the facts are true, it is a matter affecting the Privileges of the House, and any other Committee would so report to the House. The only result would be that we should, after an interval of two or three days, have to do the same thing we ought to do now—namely, direct that the individual whose conduct is complained of should be brought to the Bar of the House, in order to offer such explanations as he may be able to offer in regard to the serious charges brought against him. In all probability he may be able to offer explanations that will be satisfactory to the Douse, and there may be no further occasion to proceed. De thought this certainly the proper course to take.

MR. SPEAKER

On the considera1 ion of the special Report of the Select Committee, a Motion has been made and seconded—that Mr. Charles Bissell do attend the House to-morrow, at 12 o'clock. Before I put the Question, perhaps I may be permitted to say a word in reference to the competency of the Select Committee on the Bill to sit, notwithstanding the incident that has now taken place. I apprehend that that is a matter within the direction of the House itself, and upon which special direction may be given. If the Select Committee are of opinion that justice to the parties can be done, no doubt it will be open to them to proceed with their inquiry, notwithstanding the appointment of the Committee proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

MR. CALLAN

My Resolution is, that a gross breach of the Privileges of the House has been committed by Mr. C. E. Grissell, and that the said Charles E. Bissell be ordered to attend at the Bar of the Douse at 12 o'clock to-morrow. I believe it is not in our power to order anyone to attend at the Bar, except in consequence of a charge made against him.

MR. SPEAKER

Will the hon. Member bring up the Resolution?

MR. CALLAN

did so.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member desires me to put the Motion from the Chair; and the Motion having been seconded, I am bound to put it. But I think it right to state to the House that it has generally been the practice of the House, before a person has been censured and condemned for breach of Privilege, to allow him to be heard at the Bar. This Motion certainly condemns Mr. Gissell.

MR. CALLAN

With the permission of the House, I will amend the Motion by leaving out the first portion, and will merely move that Mr. Grissell be ordered to appear at the Bar of the House, at 12 o'clock to-morrow.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Charles Grissell do attend this House To-morrow, at Twelve of the clock."—(Mr. Callan. )

MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSEN

The vindication of the Privileges of the Douse should always be short, sharp, and decisive. Any delay would be objectionable, and it would also be objectionable to take any other course than one which, if possible, commands the unanimous approval of the House. The only reason why I rise is to say that there was once a Committee, of which I was a Member, in which something of the same kind occurred. It was now a good many years ago, and the present Member for Hereford (Mr. Clive) was the Chairman. Something appeared in a newspaper article reflecting upon the character of the Chairman of the Committee. The Committee considered the matter and reported it, and the House directed at once that the publisher of the newspaper in which the article appeared should be called to the Bar of the Douse. If I recollect rightly, the man was committed to the custody of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and afterwards made a humble apology for what had happened. The case, after all, appeared to amount to nothing, and the matter was settled without any Committee being appointed or any necessity arising for any further proceeding on the part of the House. I mention the case because it might happen that if the gentleman were called to the Bar of the House that the same course would be followed. Mr. Grissell might make an explanation, and it would be for the Douse to judge whether the explanation was satisfactory. If so, the House might be disposed to take the course of discharging him. It is impossible to condemn Mr. Grissell for a breach of Privilege of the House without giving him an opportunity for explanation. But I think when such questions arise it is to the Leader of the House we should look for guidance; and it would be far better, even if it was against our own view, that, in a case involving the procedure of the House, we should follow, if we possibly can, the recognized Leader of the House. We are an Assembly which, after all, is guided very much by precedent, and whatever the precedent is in such cases as this it may be desirable to follow it, and not form another, which, on some other occasion, may prove inconvenient.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Undoubtedly, what the right hon. Gentleman has said is perfectly correct in such cases as the one to which he has referred, in which there was only a single Member implicated. No doubt, in that case, the person who had written an offensive article was called to the Bar and gave his explanation of the proceeding. I do not know whether the right lion. Gentleman has read the special Report; but, in this case, there are several transactions which appear, on the face of them, to call for a little further explanation, because it is stated that there were other proceedings that took place one or two days before the memorandum was drawn up. It appears that on Tuesday some communication was made by Mr. Ward to Mr. Hooker as to this gentleman (Mr. Bissell) wishing to be placed in communication with the opposing wharfiugers on the ground that he could control the decision of the Committee, and was willing to dog so on terms. Then some further communications took place. Mr. Hooker referred him to other persons; and, on the following day, Mr. Grissell called upon Mr. Cockell at his invitation. There was a further discussion as to what was to be done, and questions were put to Mr. Grissell in order to draw out from him what he could do. Eventually, Mr. Grissehl wrote a paper to which reference has been made, and in a great measure it was written at Mr. Cockell's dictation. Mr. Grissell took it away with him, as he wished to see others upon it, and arranged to see Mr. Cockell in the corridor of the Douse later in the day. He did so about half-past 12, and then stated that all was satisfactory, and at Mr. Cockell's request signed the paper. Under all these circumstances, it seems to me that it might be for the convenience of the House that they should have more information with regard to these proceedings than simply calling upon Mr. Grissell to attend at the Bar, to say that he regretted having written the memorandum, and then dismissing the case. It is possible, when we know the whole circumstances of the case, that that will be the conclusion at which the House will arrive; but I think it will be hardly consistent with the dignity of the Douse that we should even appear to slur over a question of the kind, in which it undoubtedly does seem that Mr. Grissell has been led on by conversation with others to explain what the proposition was he wished to make. I cannot help thinking that we shall save time if a small Committee is appointed to inquire into the whole of them circumstances, to examine all persons who have had any share in the transaction, and then report to the Douse. I understand that there is a Motion before the House upon which an Amendment can be moved. Do I understand that?

MR. SPEAKER

Yes.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

Then, as there is a substantive Motion before the Douse upon which an Amendment can be moved, I will move, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word " that," for the purpose of adding these words— That the Special Report from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills in the case of the Tower High Level Bridge (Metropolis) Bill be referred to a Select Committee. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word " That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words " the Special Report from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills be referred to a Select Committee,"—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, ) —instead thereof.

MR. WADDY

I wish to point out that the Amendment is almost a necessity in the case, and for this reason. At present we do not know whether one person or two should come before the Bar of the House. There is a serious discrepancy between the statement made by the noble Lord and that contained in the Report. We do not know which is correct, and it is a much more serious matter as it appears in the Report than the noble Lord has said. According to his statement, what took place is this—that this gentleman, Mr. Grissell, obtained a letter of introduction merely from Mr. Ward to Mr. Cockell; but according to the Report Mr. Ward went in person, and being at the time a solicitor of the Supreme Court of Justice, made an arrangement with Mr. Grissell, and was made aware of the real nature of the transaction. In point of fact, he was a party to it. The Report says— On Tuesday, Mr. J. Sandilands Ward, of 51, Lincolas' Inn Fields, solicitor (admitted 1870), called on Mr. Hooker (Wyatt, Hoskins and looker), and stated a client of his wished to be placed in communication with the opposing wharfingers as to the Tower Bridge Bill, as he could control the decision of the Committee, and was willing to do so on terms. It becomes, therefore, a very serious question indeed whether Mr. Grissell is the only person who will have to be brought before the Bar of the House. I think, therefore, the course proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer should be adopted. The Committee will be able to investigate the matter, and to find out all that we want to know, and, at the same time, save us from the necessity of calling upon a person to appear at the Bar who ought not to be so called upon.

MR. FREMANTLE

As a Member of the Committee, I concur very much in the remarks made by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I think my noble Friend fell into a mistake in saying that there was a letter of introduction. According to the evidence which was given before the Committee, Mr. Ward personally waited upon Mr. Hooker at the Committee Room, sending in his card, and stated to him that ho had a client who was able and desirous to control our decision upon terms. Of course, a Committee could consider the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it was not one person only, but two, who ought to be required to attend here to answer for a breach of Privilege.

LORD HENRY LENNOX

Perhaps I may be able to say one word in answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. I used the words "letter of introduction," when I should have said "personal introduction," most innocently.

MR. COURTNEY

I rise to offer one observation to the House. It appears to me that the arguments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer for referring this matter to a Committee are almost conclusive upon it. It is too complicated a matter for us to inquire into in the House. But if it is understood that it is to be referred to an ordinary Select Committee, instructions can be given to that Select Committee to take evidence on oath. There is also another point which I wish to suggest —namely, whether precautions ought not to be taken to secure the attendance of the two persons who are primâ facie implicated in the matter—namely, Mr. Ward, and Mr. Grissell, especially if evidence is to be taken on oath. I would suggest that you, Sir, should issue your Warrant to secure the attendance of both, otherwise it is obvious that they may disappear before the inquiry commences, and it would be very unsatisfactory if they were not found when they were wanted.

MR. DODSON

I should like to say a word as to one point raised by the hon. Member. [Cries of " Spoke!"] I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. Since I spoke last a Motion has been submitted. The only point I wish to speak upon has reference to the ability of the Committee to examine witnesses on oath. By an Act passed, not very long ago, every Committee has that power.

MR. CALLAN

When I came down to the House to-day I was wholly unprepared to enter into this discussion. If my memory serves me rightly, there is no precedent whatever on the Books of the House for the proposition which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With a great deal of diffidence I have ventured to suggest that the usual course should be followed. Since then an Amendment has been moved, and I have taken the trouble to look over a book which we all regard as an authority. I find, in page 96 of the last edition of Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, that it is there stated— That libels on Members have also been constantly punished; but to constitute a breach of Privilege it must be a libel upon the character of a Member in that capacity. A Member of a Committee is acting in the capacity of a Member of Parliament. I find in this Report, that— On Wednesday morning, Mr. Charles E. Grissell called on Mr. Cockell, and stated his ability to control the decision of the Committee either way on terms, and as a proof of his ability volunteered that in the course of examination of witnesses, he would arrange that such questions should be asked by the Committee in favour of the wharfingers' case as would indisputably prove his assertion. Mr. Cockell explained that the examination of witnesses had concluded and on being pressed to suggest some means whereby this proof could be afforded, explained to Mr. Grissell that the Board of Works had announced their determination of not proceeding with the measure if compensa- tion was granted to the wharfingers and others injuriously affected, and put it to Mr. Grissell whether he could induce the Committee, immediately prior to Mr. Pope's speech to announce that they were unanimously of decision that the fullest compensation should be paid, and that they would not report the Preamble proved, unless a clause to that effect were inserted in the Bill. It was then arranged that it should be reduced into writing, so that there could be no question as to the terms of the proposition, and the condition was a bribe—the corrupt and criminal taking of £2,000—a matter which affects seriously the character of Members of this House. Now, I find that in 1832—and it is the first ease quoted—in the case of " Gibson and Wright," they were admonished for writing a letter reflecting upon the character of a Committee, copies of which letter had been circulated in private handbills. In 1844, a Member having made charges at a public meeting against two Members of the House, was ordered to attend in his place, and, after he had been heard, it was decided by the House that the charges were of a calumnious and unfounded character, and reflected upon the character and honour of a Member of the House, Sir Erskine May states that in some cases the House has directed prosecutions against persons who have published libels against a Member, in the same way as if the publication had affected the character of the House collectively. On the 2nd of May, 1695— The offering of any sum of money or advantage to any Member of Parliament for promoting any matter whatsoever depending or to be transacted in Parliament, is constituted a high crime and misdemeanour, tending to the destruction of the Constitution. In this view, the offer of a bribe is treated as a breach of Privilege, not only to the Member himself, but to the House. I find that the present practice, as laid down here, is that when a complaint is made, the person complained of is ordered to attend in the House, and, on his appearance at the Bar, he is examined, and dealt with according as the explanations of his conduct are satisfactory or otherwise, or according to the contrition he expresses for the offence he has committed. The invariable practice of the House is to order a person to attend at the Bar of the House. If Mr. Grissell attends to-morrow, and gives explana- tions that are deemed satisfactory, then there is an end of the whole affair; ii his explanations are not deemed satisfactory, then a Select Committee could be appointed. I am not aware that there are any questions affecting this particular case that should induce the House of Commons to overrule every precedent that has hitherto been adopted, and to create a new one. I consider that the creation of a new precedent in regard to any question of this character is a dangerous practice, which cannot be too strongly deprecated; and I, for one, with great respect to the Leader of the House, am convinced that the Resolution I have submitted is the proper one for the House to adopt.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I presume, Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt, as stated by the hon. Member for Dundalk, that the ordinary practice is to summon the person complained of at the Bar of the House; but I believe there is no exact precedent for this case. None have been mentioned to the House this morning as an exact precedent. I think that, under these circumstances, the House ought to consider, rather, what is the most convenient course, than to hold itself absolutely tied down by any precedent. From the statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, it appears to me that, although there is no doubt whatever about the facts that have been reported by the Committee as far as they go, there may be other facts which have not been reported, which may be essential for the House to know, before they arrive at a conclusion. If Mr. Grissell were to come to the Bat to-morrow, it is possible, as has been suggested, that he might make such a statement as would be deemed satisfactory, and the matter might end; but if, on the other hand, Mr. Grissell attempted to justify his conduct, or made any statement affecting the character of a Member of the Committee, or took any of a hundred courses which might suggest themselves, it would be necessary that he should be examined, either by a Committee or by the Whole House. I think, therefore, that, on the whole, the course suggested by the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be the most convenient one; and as to the point referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney), I presume it would be convenient when the Com- mittee is nominated, if it is nominated to-morrow, that such instructions should be given to it as will meet all the necessities of the case.

MR. SHAW

It appears to me that precedent is entirely in favour of the Motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundalk; at the same time, I can understand why the course he suggests should not be adopted. If we were to summon Mr. Grissell to appear at the Bar, any explanation he could give would not stop the case, or clear away the imputations that have been made. Matters cannot stay where they are, and I cannot see any way to a satisfactory issue except the appointment of a Committee. I do not see why precedent should bind us, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should withdraw the Motion; and I think it would be somewhat novel, and exceedingly awkward, that the Select Committee should go on with the Business they have been inquiring into, seeing that imputations have been thrown out of such a nature that no decision they can arrive at would be satisfactory until those imputations are cleared up. I hope the Committee will not take a single step in regard to the Business of the Committee until the matter is fully cleared up.

MR. PARNELL

There are just two precedents for referring a question of Privilege to a Committee, and only two precedents, as far as I can discover, and they are not precedents which govern the present case. On the 18th of February, 1575, a Committee was appointed to examine the matter touching the case of Hall's servant. That matter was treated as a question of Privilege. Also, on the 3rd of December, 1601, a complaint was made to the House of an information having been exhibited by the Earl of Huntingdon in the Star Chamber against Mr. Belgrave, a Member. The matter was referred to a Committee of Privileges, who reported upon the 17th of December. But we have no precedent at all for the Report of a Select Committee which complains to the House of a breach of Privilege against itself of a most offensive character—there is no precedent whatever for sending such a Report to a Select Committee. On the contrary, all the precedents go in the direction of showing that these matters have always been considered by the House at once, and decided upon as a matter of Privilege. There may be some advantages in the course proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, although I am afraid that it would be rather a more severe course to take against the person accused than that which the hon. Member for Dundalk wishes to take. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman should not come to the conclusion that the matter has already been fully discussed, and withdraw the Amendment which he has proposed.

MR. CALLAN

In deference to the opinion expressed by the Leader I recognize in this House, and wishing to pay him that deference which becomes the followers of any Leader, I intend to take his advice, and I intend to withdraw the Motion. But, before doing so, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to assure the House that this Committee, which he proposes to nominate to-morrow, shall be nominated by the Douse, and shall not sit in camera.

MR. SPEAKER

The Amendment must be withdrawn before the Motion can be withdrawn.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I am not prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question, whether the Committee is to sit in camera?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

I am unable to say whether the Committee ought to sit with closed doors or not. I should propose, of course, that the Committee be nominated by the Douse. I would propose that it should be a small Committee. I think the most convenient course would be to allow the Amendment to be put as an Amendment to the Motion. I should then place names upon the Paper to-morrow. But it would be indifferent to me whether the names are taken to-morrow, or whether I give Notice for the appointment of the Committee to-morrow with the names. If the Amendment is accepted, I will tomorrow give the names.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY

There is one course which I might suggest to the right hon. Gentleman. It is important in this matter that we should not actually, but that we should appear to be, guided by the Leader of the House. The right hon. Gentleman has given Notice that he will, to-morrow, take the very convenient course of referring this matter to a Committee, and that he will then nominate the Members of the Committee. There has been a Motion made since and an Amend-merit; but it is hardly right that the Leader of the House should carry his Amendment against a Motion which my hon. Friend has declared his readiness to withdraw.

MR.SPEAKER

Does the right hon. Gentleman withdraw the Amendment?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

No. I think my Amendment had better be put.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question," put, and negatived.

Words added.

MR. CALLAN

Before you put the Question, Sir, I must express my regret that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has allowed himself to impart a little feeling into this discussion. [Cries of " No !"] Yes, Sir, he did; and he declined to accept the general feeling of the House to allow me to withdraw the Motion. He persisted in that course, and he declined, further, to answer the question put to him both by myself, and by my hon. Friend the Member for King's County (Sir Patrick O'Brien). I will not, however, put the House to the trouble of a Division, though I feel very strongly the course I proposed was the right one; and unless the right hon. Gentleman places on the Committee a Member of the Party to which I belong, as a safeguard for the honour and Privileges of the House in the question upon which we are deeply interested— [Laughter]—the House may laugh, but this is a very serious case—and, further, unless there is a distinct undertaking given that this Committee shall not sit and inquire into a matter so deeply affecting the honour of the House in camera, I shall give his proposal a direct negative.

SIR PATRICK O'BRIEN

I think I was entitled, at least, to the courtesy of an answer. There may be reasons, no doubt, why this case is of such a nature that a different course should be pursued with regard to it from that which is generally taken. But, except the case be an extremely special one, and outside the ordinary Rules of the House, I think that for the sake of the public, and for the sake of the proper administration of Business, in which all classes of the public are interested, I was entitled to an answer whether this is to be a public Committee, or whether the inquiry is to be held in camera. Nothing can be further from my mind than to say that whether the Committee be a public or a private one its decisions would not be right, honourable, and just. I am perfectly certain that it would be so, and I should be the last person here to insinuate anything else. But we are to regard not only the Members of the House, but the general public outside, whose interests, pecuniary or otherwise, are committed to Members upstairs. And we ought to consider the large amount of public opinion that exists out-of-doors; and, in the interest of the public conduct of the Business of the House, we should see that this very serious matter should be not only fully, but publicly inquired into. When I read the letter which appears in the Votes this morning, I must confess that the first thing that occurred to me was that the person accused was labouring under some mental derangement; and I trust that, for the honour of the country, although it may be unpleasant to the individual himself, that that may be the correct view. But, whether that is so or not, I think that as regards the Public Business of the House, we are entitled to demand that the inquiry should be public; and I venture, a humble Member as I am, to state that if, before the appointment of the Committee, some statement of that kind is not made by those who, in a great measure, are authorized to arrange the Business of the House, I shall myself propose a Motion to the House that this inquiry should be held in public, and not in camera.

Main Question, as amended, put.

Ordered, That the Special Report from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills be referred to a Select Committee.