HL Deb 29 June 1857 vol 146 cc525-32

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE rose to call the attention of the House to what he conceived to be a gross breach of the privileges of their Lordships' House. He wished to draw their Lordships' attention to an article in the Examiner newspaper of the 27th of this month, which was headed a "Libel on a Bishop," and when their Lordships had heard it read, he thought they would be of opinion that a grosser libel could not be penned. The person against whom it was directed was a Member of their Lordships' House, who, from his functions as a Prelate of the Church in Ireland, did not attend in his place in Parliament so frequently as they would all desire. He was a nobleman who was respected by all who knew him, of unassuming manners, of kind deportment, who must have won the regard of every person who had the honour of his acquaintance. Lord Plunket—the noble Lord who was libelled in this article—was the last man to lay himself open to an attack of this kind. He was a most unassuming man, a really hardworking Bishop, beloved by his clergy and by his flock, attending diligently to the duties of his see, and taking little or no part in their Lordships' deliberations. He should be the last man to wish in any way to encroach on the privileges of the press, which he conceived to be one of the most necessary guardians of our liberties; but, considering the unprovoked, unnecessary, and offensive character of this attack, he trusted their Lordships would assist him in vindicating the privileges of their House, and in marking conduct such as this with their disapprobation. The noble Lord against whom this attack was made was the son of, perhaps, one of the greatest men whom Ireland had ever produced. The first Lord Plunket was for years one of the most distinguished ornaments of his profession, and ultimately arrived at the head of it; and, though his son, the present Lord, might not possess all his great genius and talents, yet he had certainly inherited his kindness of heart and all those qualities which had endeared him to those with whom he came in contact. This article drew an ironical comparison between the character of the noble Lord and of his father, and proceeded to attack him most unwarrantably for a, vote which he had given on the question of Ministers' Money lately before the House. In giving a vote against that Bill, this libel alleged that he was an unworthy son of his father. It was not necessary for him to enter into a vindication of the noble Lord, but it did so happen that the first Lord Plunket had always held and expressed in the strongest manner the opinion that the revenues of the Established Church in Ireland ought not to be interfered with. The article was as follows:— LIBEL ON A BISHOP.—Among the proxies against the second reading of the Ministers' Money Bill, in the House of Lords, we observe the name of Lord Plunket, Bishop of Tuam. It is morally impossible that this can be true. In fact, we have no hesitation to denounce it as a libel upon that noble Lord and right rev. Prelate. Lord Plunket, everybody knows, is the son of the late Lord, better known to the public as Mr. Plunket, the orator, the foremost Irishman of his day, as the champion of civil and religious liberty, the Whig, the Irish Chancellor of the Whigs, the man whom of all his countrymen the Whigs most delighted to honour, on whom they showered their favour and their patronage, not satisfied with advancing himself to the highest posts of the law, with the dignity of the British peerage, but lavishing places and preferments upon every member of his family with a profusion and partiality that excited the astonishment and often even the indignation of the public. To the success of Liberal principles, to the Liberal party, and the Governments resulting from its triumphs, the present Lord is indebted for all that he possesses and enjoys; for his mitre, for his coronet, for his wealth, his rank, his luxury, for every shred of his purple and fine linen, for every glass that sparkles, and every dish that steams upon his table. But for the Whigs and for Whig principles he would never have exchanged an Ulster curacy for a Connaught bishopric, and his hot punch for his cool claret. He would never have been translated to turbot, or preferred from the mutton-chop to the haunch of venison. Therefore we do not scruple to affirm it a moral impossibility that he could have voted, either in person or by proxy, in the manner attributed to him. Whoever inserted his name in the minority that voted against the Government and the Ministers' Money Bill virtually branded him both with illiberality and ingratitude, with degeneracy from his illustrious father, with forgetfulness of the unnumbered favours that have raised his family from poverty and obscurity to riches and consequence. We owe it to truth and justice, we owe it especially to the memory of the most eminent Irishman since Mr. Grattan, to vindicate the character of his son from so cruel an aspersion. The noble Earl concluded by moving, that George Lapham, No. 5, Wellington Street, Strand, publisher of the Examiner newspaper, be called to the Bar.

EARL GRANVILLE

I can scarcely think that my noble Friend is quite in earnest in the Motion which he has just made. I do not rise for the purpose of justifying this article nor any other article which seriously or ironically holds up any of your Lordships to censure, but it appears to me that the Motion of the noble Earl will involve us in proceedings which may be endless, and we shall find ourselves in a permanent conflict with that very amusing publication, Punch. I think my noble Friend might have contented himself with calling attention to this attack which has been made on the noble Lord in this very unceremonious manner, but I cannot think that he is serious in asking you to take the step of calling the publisher to the bar.

THE EARL OF DERBY

said, although the noble Earl might consider himself justified in indulging in a tone of levity and ridicule in connection with this question, he (the Earl of Derby) should have thought that he would have taken a little more pains in setting the House right as to the course it ought to take in reference to this gross and scandalous attack on a right rev. Prelate and a Peer of Parliament. He should be the last to interfere with the power of the public press in commenting upon the conduct of public men, and even in holding them up to ridicule. It was, however, a very different question when it came to deal with the votes given in that House, and with the motives which were supposed to influence them—imputing the most disgraceful conduct to some noble Lords in the votes which they gave in that House. What was the present case? It appeared that because the right rev. Prelate had not voted upon a particular question in a manner agreeable to the views of this writer, he proceeded to comment upon the Bishop's conduct, by saying that it was a gross libel to suppose that the noble Lord had voted in the way it was recorded he had done, because if he had voted so he would have forgotten all the obligations he had inherited from his father, and have exhibited an utter absence of those feelings of liberality and gratitude to those political friends, by whose kindness he had inherited his title and position. Let them say what they pleased, that was the literal meaning of the article. It said that by the noble Lord's merely giving the vote referred to by proxy, exercising thereby his undoubted right against the Bill, which threatened to confiscate the revenues of the Church—although the noble Lord by so voting had expressed his opinion in the least unostentatious way possible—he was nevertheless told in this article, that by giving his vote thus as a Prelate and a Peer he had shown himself utterly regardless of the circumstances of his late father; that he had degenerated from his principles, and that he was wholly insensible to every sentiment of gratitude and liberality. A more disgusting attack he (the Earl of Derby) had never read than that made upon the right rev. Prelate. The vulgarity and scandalous tone of the language used placed the writer below contempt; and only that the article imputed improper motives to a Prelate and a Peer in respect of a vote he had given in that House, he should have recommended his noble Friend not to take the slightest notice of it, but to treat it with that contempt which it deserved. At the same time, by imputing gross misconduct to a noble and right rev. Prelate, for the exercise of his right in conscientiously voting against a certain measure—by charging improper motives to a Peer and Prelate who was much respected by every one who knew him, he (the Earl of Derby) felt that this article was a gross abuse of that which was called the privilege of the press, and fully warranted the Motion for calling the writer to the bar of the House. But however desirable it might be to confer on the printer of that journal the distinction of standing at the bar of their Lordships, it was an honour which he did not see thrust upon him—but whoever might be the individual that penned it, it was quite evident that he had shown an utter absence of, gentlemanlike or honourable feeling, and that he was utterly ignorant of the duties and responsibilities of public life. The writer said that the late Lord Plunket owed everything he possessed to the Liberal party. Well, now, that in itself was a libel upon the late distinguished statesman and lawyer. The late Lord Plunket owed everything he had obtained to his own distinguished merit. His services to the Liberal party were great, and undoubtedly they had not been more than adequately remunerated by the simple justice which had been done to him by that party. He (the Earl of Derby) could only say he wished that no one who received the honour of a peerage might deserve that honour less than the noble Lord whose son's conduct was now so bitterly impugned. Was it to be tolerated, because a noble Lord had been raised to the honours of a peerage for services which richly deserved them, that his posterity were to be bound by the public opinions of their ancestor, and should not dare to vote in any other way but in accordance with the sentiments of that Government who were the successors of those that, thirty years before, had obtained a peerage for the head of the family? Was the conscientious expression of opinion by his son to bring upon him accusations of gross ingratitude and of forgetfulness of all the obligations which he owed to the Liberal party? The writer of the article in question had shown an utter ignorance of what the duties of a Member of that House were, and pushed the principles of political gratitude to an absurd extent. Because a man thirty years ago had received the honour of a peerage, was his son to be the perpetual slave of the party who conferred upon his father such peerage? He would not recommend his noble Friend to press his Motion for calling the writer to the bar, but he fully participated with his noble Friend in those feelings of indignation which he expressed. He thought his noble Friend might content himself with having given expression to his opinion regarding this disgraceful and discreditable article, the writer of which had shown entire ignorance both of the duties of a Peer of Parliament and of the obligations of a gentleman and a man of honour.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

was understood to say that the language of the article might be very improper to be applied to Lord Plunket, but it was one of those hoaxing and bantering attacks to which all public men were subjected every day; and if their Lordships were to notice it in the way proposed, it would end in the necessity of having Punch permanently laid down on the table, for that publication contained similar attacks every week. The article alleged, somewhat ludicrously, that the noble Lord was very unlike his father, of whom the editor of the Examiner had a very high opinion, while he had a rather low opinion of his son. It could hardly be denied that he had a right to his opinions. He thought his noble Friend would do well to take no further notice of the article.

LORD BROUGHAM

concurred with his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) in saying that a more harmless and inoffensive individual, independent of his other merits, than the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Tuam) never sat in that House, and he believed that he was universally respected and beloved in his diocese. The libel which had been read spoke of what his father owed to the party of his noble Friends opposite; but a more unwarrantable statement he never happened to see; for what the late Lord Plunket owed to that party was as nothing compared with what the party owed to him. His services at the bar, in Parliament, and on the bench were during his whole life of the highest value to his country; and throughout he was one of the most distinguished ornaments of the great party to which he belonged. With regard to the article which had been read, it was, no doubt, strictly speaking, a breach of the privileges of their Lordships' House, but of what use would it be to contend with the press in such cases as these? He remembered that on one occasion his friend Mr. Marryatt was represented in a newspaper as having said at a public meeting in the city that he would not go in procession to that "d—d cold church," meaning some particular church in the city of London. He felt much annoyed at the circumstance, and wrote a letter to the editor, in which he stated that his actual words were that he would not go to that "damp cold church." The next day there appeared in the newspaper a statement to this effect:—"We have given a place in our columns to the contradiction which Mr. Marryatt has made; hut at the same time, we think it right to say that we have referred the matter to our reporter, who is certain that he used the words 'd—d cold church,' and to add that we have the most perfect confidence in the accuracy of our reporter." The gentleman complained to him of that treatment, and he (Lord Brougham) recommended him in future not0 to be too hasty in contradicting any statement that might appear in a newspaper.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said, he did not intend to press his Motion, but regretted that the two Members of the Government who had spoken had not expressed a stronger feeling upon the subject of an insult offered to one of their Lordships.

THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

was understood to disclaim the smallest sympathy with the alleged disrespect shown towards Lord Plunket, for whom, on the contrary, he had the very highest respect. As the noble Lord took little part in public life he had not the pleasure of his acquaintance, but at the same time he had no hesitation in saying that the Government could not feel otherwise than deep regret that the noble Lord had met with such apparent disrespect.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

must express his entire concurrence with what fell from the noble Earl near him, (the Earl of Derby), namely, that the writer of this article was utterly unworthy of putting his foot even as near their Lordships as the bar of the House. He therefore greatly rejoiced that his noble Friend had withdrawn his Motion, but inasmuch as the freedom of debate in their Lordships' House ought to be protected as far as circumstances would permit, he thought it was greatly to be regretted that the noble Marquess had not treated the insult offered to Lord Plunket in a more becoming tone. He was utterly astonished to hear the noble Marquess advising their Lordships to treat the matter as a joke. Doubtless the criticism in question might be intended for a joke, but if so all he had to say was that it was a great pity people were unable more easily to determine when these Whig gentleman were speaking seriously, and when in joke. As for himself, he must be allowed to observe, that he had but little appreciation of such wit.

LORD DENMAN

was understood to complain generally of the manner in which their Lordships' debates were reported. He might ask their Lordships, did they believe that their impressions were adequately conveyed to the public? The other night a noble Baron near him (Lord Wensleydale) had addressed their Lordships upon a legal subject, a matter upon which his Lordship might well be supposed competent to speak. Nevertheless all mention, or nearly so, of his speech was omitted in the public press. The fact was, the press of the country went hand in hand with the Government. Still it was true there were those amongst their Lordships, and he confessed he was of the number, who, unlike the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), were in the habit of addressing themselves to their Lordships, and not to the press.

Motion withdrawn.