HL Deb 19 July 1850 vol 113 cc4-5

Order made on Tuesday last, for the attendance of Joseph Byrne, Joseph Hinde, and Duncan M'Arthur, at the bar of the House this day read.

The EARL of EGLINTON

stated, that only two of the persons charged with the offence were in custody, and begged, therefore, to postpone the calling of the parties to the bar until Monday.

The LORD CHANCELLLOR

said, he had suggested to the noble Earl, and also begged to suggest to their Lordships, that a question might arise as to how far they could act upon the evidence given in this case. They had only the evidence of the parties themselves, and it would be expedient to have some persons in attendance to prove the handwriting of the parties.

LORD BROUGHAM

We always act upon the person's own answer. It is not necessary to call witnesses to prove the handwriting. The party charged is called to the bar, and is made aware of the charge against him, and he either confesses or denies. If he confess, we then deal with him upon his confession. If he denies, then evidence is called; but it is not necessary to call evidence before the party has been placed at the bar.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

What the noble Lord says is correct in one view—where the offence is found by a Committee, or where the offence is apparent on unobjectionable evidence. Then the course is to let the party hear the evidence read, and then ask him for an explanation. But the point in this case is—there is no evidence to affect the party except his own. It appears that there are many names to the petition, all in one handwriting, and when proof of that handwriting is given, there is little occasion to refer to the evidence of the parties.

The EARL of EGLINTON

There are two gentlemen who tender their evidence if called upon, who were instrumental in getting up the petition.

LORD BROUGHAM

That would be altering the whole course of practice. We must not alter our proceedings now, when we have examined the parties who have confessed before the Committee.

The EARL of EGLINTON

I now move that the order be discharged.

The EARL of MINTO

having said a few words,

LORD BROUGHAM

proceeded to add: I must say I cannot at all consent to this total innovation on our ordinary course of proceeding. That ordinary course of proceeding is that the parties themselves should be called to be bar, and if they denied tin-charge made against them, to call witnesses, but not till then. If they admitted the charge, of course no evidence was required.

The LORD CHANCELLOR

What my noble and learned Friend has suggested relates to the course of proceeding generally adopted where there has been a report of a Committee that has fixed a charge. In that case you tell the party what he is charged with, and ask him what he has to say; but where there is no report charging any individual, the case is totally different. If your Lordships read the report in this case, you will find no names are mentioned, no particular individuals are described.

LORD BROUGHAM

The report does not state the names of persons, but it states that certain individuals committed a certain act, which is a gross breach of privilege, and the parties having been ordered to attend before the Committee, were examined. One of the parties (Duncan M'Arthur) had those questions put to him and gave the following answers: "You say you brought in four or five sheets?"—"Yes." "Were any of those names written by yourself?"—"A good many of them." That is a breach of privilege.

The EARL of EGLINTON

I now move that the parties be ordered to attend on Monday next.

Motion agreed to, and previous Order discharged.