§ On the Question that the Petition do lie on the Table,
1172Lord Teynhamrose and said, that he thought it due to their Lordships, as well as to himself, to take that opportunity to complain of a most atrocious attack which was made in the Standard newspaper of that evening, upon him and upon the noble Baron behind him (Lord King). In the article to which he alluded, the noble Lord and himself were called "the devil's advocates," "the Church-hating gemini," and were, in fact, represented to be "scoundrels," because they had presented petitions, complaining of abuses connected with the tithe system, and praying for relief. Now he would solemnly declare, that in presenting such petitions as had been intrusted to him upon that subject, and which he considered it his duty to present, he had never been wanting in that respect towards the Church of England which it was his duty as well as his inclination to feel, and which, indeed, it would be a most reprehensible thing on his part not to entertain. He had, certainly, always advocated a proper settlement of the tithe question, conceiving that such a settlement was absolutely required, not only for the peace of the country, but for the preservation of the Church. He had felt it his duty to urge, especially at the present moment, the necessity of such a settlement; and he had no doubt, that the measure which would be brought forward on the subject by the noble Earl at the head of his Majesty's Government, would be calculated to effect such a desirable end. He trusted, however, that, in nothing he had done, he had in any way merited the description applied to him by the Standard newspaper. Indeed, if such a description would apply to him, he should be unworthy to sit any longer in that House. The noble Baron who was also attacked in the article in question, had not seen it until he had drawn that noble Lord's attention to it. That noble Lord was well able to defend himself and, therefore, he would say nothing in reference to the attack upon the noble Baron. He really thought that the honour and dignity of the House required that a stop should be put to such slanderous and calumnious attacks upon Members of it, and with that view he begged to give notice, that he would to-morrow move, that the editor and printer of that paper be called to their Lordships' Bar to answer for their conduct.
The Lord Chancellorbegged to remind the noble Lord, in the first place, that the question to be now put was, that the petition that was presented by the noble Marquess 1173 do lie upon the Table; and, in the next place, that even were that disposed of, he did not conceive that the mode of proceeding adopted by the noble Lord was the usual one in such cases. He apprehended that it was not usual to give notice of a proceeding touching the privileges of that House. The noble Lord must be aware, that a motion of that kind took precedence of all other business whatever; and, therefore, if the House was to take up a matter of this description, their Lordships should, not only in justice to the paper itself, but to the House, proceed to its consideration instanter. Their doing so would not deprive the parties in question of the means of getting full notice to prepare their defence when called on; and, therefore, he would repeat, that if the House should decide—a decision that he for one should deeply lament—to call the printer of this paper to the Bar for such a trumpery article, their Lordships should decide to do so at once. He was sure that his noble friend (Lord King), who, it appeared, had been also attacked in this article, would not join with the noble Baron in demanding to have the printer called to their Lordships' Bar, and, indeed, he hoped that the noble Baron (Lord Teynham) would himself see that the more dignified course would be not to notice such a matter. If, however, the noble Baron should persist in his Motion, the question as to calling those persons to the Bar should be decided at once, for abundant notice would be thus given to them, and abundant time afforded to them to prepare for their defence.
Lord Kingsaid, that he did not at all coincide in what had fallen from the noble Lord (Lord Teynham) on this subject. The noble Lord had shown him what he termed a most atrocious attack in a newspaper upon both of them, in which they were called "the devil's advocates." Now, the only person that he (Lord King) had ever heard of as being so denominated was an extremely honest and respectable personage. The "devil's advocate" in the Court of Rome, was an individual who took care ex officio that the Holy Father should not admit an improper saint into heaven; and as the individual who bore that title had always acted in a most excellent, honest, and impartial manner, he (Lord King), instead of objecting to, was extremely proud at, being called "the devil's advocate."
Lord Teynhamsaid, that if other noble Lords did not care about such attacks, he 1174 should not mind them either. If noble Lords did not care about being called" devil's advocates "and "Church-haters," and if they did not think it necessary, for the preservation of their own dignity, to put an end to such attacks, he would only say, that he should be as ready as any one of them to take his share of the abuse thus cast upon them. After what had occurred, he would not persevere with his intended motion on this subject.