The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-19 00:00:00

THE

That was no new discovery. But he hoped the Hon.
Gentleman viouli discover that that House wee no
willing to entertain charges like that which he had made,
nub Ss they were brought forward in a distinct shape;
and indeed, were the case otherwise, the House would
become the refuge of licensed libel and defamation.—
(Loud cheers.) Now, the Honourable Gentleman was
teltirely wrong with respect to the practice of the
Houao on the subject of impeachment. He (Mr.
Gladstone) did not say that when a complaint was
made, articles were invariably exhibited; what he said
was, that when there was to be a criminatory proceed-
ing, the House always proceeded on the defined basis of
a criminatory document. In the case of the ship money
in the reign of Charles 1., the matter complained of
being perfectly notorious, the House at once entertained
the question, and proceeded to vote impeachment; but
where there was no such notoriety the House always
proceeded on something of a documentary character;
;sometimes on a petition, and sometimes on a document
of some other kind. In the caso of Sir Jonah Barring-
ton, the report of a Commission accidentally brought
to light the grounds of accusation; and the case of Lord
Melville arose in the same way. Its both cases docu-
mentary evidence formed the basis of the charge. The
Hen. Gentlemen said the charges were never exhibited
except in cases where impeachment was intended. On
that point he was entirely wrong. The Hon. Gentleman
seemed to think that impeachment depended entirely on
the judge' ut of individual Members of that
House. Is was no such thing; they could not speak
of a private member impeaching, except by a looseness
of language which did not express the mind of the con-
stitution. If the Hon. Gentleman thought that written
charges were never exhibited in that House, except in
cases of impeachment, he would recommend him before
he next introduced such a subject to refer to the
case of the Bishop of Worcester, vol. 14, p. 37, of
the Journals. The Right Hon. Gentleman than read
the case in support of his view. If it were the prac-
tice of the House, as appeared from that case, to re-
quire written chargea when evidence was to be taken
at the bar, much more necessary was it to require
them when it was to bo taken before a Select Com-
mittee, composed of a small number of Members.
The Honourable Gentleman's objection did not touch
the principle, which was that when there was
criminatory matter against a party, the House should
proceed except on the basis of written documents
or of facts which were notorious. That principle
he challenged the Hon. Gentleman to shake. Had the
lion. and Learned Gentleman proceeded according to
precedent to justice, and bad he intended to abide by
his motion, the heads of charges ought to have been
drawn up. If the Hon. and ',tamed Gentleman did
not do so in a matter which he (Mr. Horsman) had
stated warranted impeachment, it would have been com-
petent for any other Hon. Gentleman to have taken the
case nut of the Hon. and Learned Member's hands. But
whether the case was one calling for impeachment or for
any other class of criminal proceedings, he (Mr. Glad-
stone) thought he had shown the House that the prac-
tice, even in former times, had invariably been to show
to the accused that shelter, that though they might
have no remedy or redress against accusations
made in Parliament; yet that they should have
such a defence that serious injury might not be
done to their characters by Honourable Gentlemen going
into Committees of the House, and fishing for informa-
tion criminatory to the accused, producing new, and
omitting other portions of that evidence, as they pleased.
_-(Cheers.) Such a proceeding was more worthy of a
southern meridian than that in which we lived, and one
which be was sure that House would not sanction.
Mr. HORSMAN explained that in the case of Sir
John Pakington and the Bishop of Worcester, to which
the Right Hon. Gentleman had alluded, though the al-
legation against that Prelate was drawn up, heads of
charges against him were not exhibited.—(Oh, oh.)
Mr. GLADSTONE would not quarrel with the Hon.
Gentleman about the term heads of charge.---(Hear,
bear.) The principles which he sought to establish were,
that a Member of the House accusing a great officer of
State of any offence against the law was bound to pat his
accusation in a defined and written form in conformity
with the principle and practice of the House, and with
the principles of British and universal justice.—(Hear.)
Sir W. P. WOOD would correct a misapprehension
of
rthe
of what he had stated with reference to the
case. He denied that he had in the face of the judg-
ment
in the cue of" Bishop of Exeter v. Gorham', made
any statement in that House diametrically opposed to
that judgment. lie would show there was not a word
in his statement but what coincided with that judgment.
He had never said anything so absurd as that the Bishop
could not institute after 28 days. He had said the
Bishop was protected for 28 days from a quare impedit.
The law watched jealously over the conduct of the Bishop
in the matter of institution, on account of the double
office held by him. All he had asserted was, that in
order to protect himself against costs, the Bishop had
only 28 days allowed him—formerly the canon law gave
two months—now it only gave 28 days. He was there-
fore correct in what he had formerly stated, that the
Bishops bad only 28 days, and that he was protected
from costs for non-institution during that period. With
regard to the common law on the subject, which was
contained in an Act of Henry VII., it was stated if an
ordinary had not examined a clerk, it was a good excuse
to plead that he had public business to attend to.
The common law therefore protected an ordinary
for non-institution on certain stated grounds. The
Honourable and Learned Gentleman here quoted a
case from Hobart, in support of his statement of the law.
After the 28th day the Bishop would not have a good
defence to an action by only saying he had not examined
the clerk. That was the case he had formerly put be-
fore the House. The case of Gorham was this, that it
was pleaded the examination was a nullity, because not
gone into before the expiration of the 28 days. This
was an absurdity. He admitted that ttiti DISCOp was
bound to finish his inquiry within 28 days, if he com-
menced it, unless he could fairly plead public business
as an excuse for delay. He repeated that he had not
stated the Bishop could only finish the inquiry in the
28 days; what he said was, that parties had no right to
throw on the Bishop the costs of proceedings to which
he ought not to be exposed. Then with regard to ex-
penses, it was laid down in " Burn's Law," that in a
duplex querela, if judgment was pronounced against the
Bishop, the Bishop was condemned in expenses. He did
not make any complaint on the matter, because he did
not think that any one had any right to make com-
plaints if they were in a situation to make replies.—
(liea,r.) He had denied that the charge of indecent
imste was correct, and he now asserted that his state-
ment was borne out by facts. His purpose in rising was
to justify himself to the House; the propositions he
then laid down he adhered to, and he should have had
no justification had he misstated the law on the case.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here
rose, and trusted that the subject would be deferred to
the next Parliament. There was no regular discussion
before the House. He would not interfere before, be-
cause the matter had assumed a somewhat important
character, in consequence of the way it had been put
before the House by the Hon. Member for Cocker-
mouth. He trusted the House would support him in his
desire to confine the speaking to motions regularly
before the boast, otherwise it would be impossible to
carry on the public business; for no public business
could go on if Hon. Members would persist in availing
themselves of the privilege of introducing questionable
matters on motions which were for the dispatch of busi-
ness. It was his painful duty to make a respectful re-
monstrance against Hon. Members using that privilege
to the obstruction of public affairs. lie would take the
opportunity of saying, with reference to the subject
under discussion, had the Right Hon. Member for the
University of Oxford proceeded with his amendment, ho
should have felt it to be his duty, in conformity with the
principles of justice, to support it.—(Hear, hear.) It '
was useless, however, to recur to the past. The ques-
tion of law was, however, left in such an unsatisfactory
state that it will be the duty of Government to take it
into consideration, with the view of remedying this
grievance of the present law of instituting clerks by
bishops.—(hear, hear.)
Sir A. COCKBURN would not impede the wish of
the Home to proceed to business. He must, however,
not be understood as implying by silence content to the
legal doctrines laid down by the Right Hon. Gentleman.
—(Bear, hear.) To those doctrines he begged to say he
dissented in tote.
Mr. NEWDEGATE must take this opportunity to
clear up a misapprehension which prevailed widelye withter
respect to the opinions of many of those who
evnottledmfan
the amendment proposed by the
the Right Hon. G
motion of the Hon. Member for Cockermouth, and
on that account were held to have voted directly
against the appointment of a Committee to inquire into
circumstances connected with the institution of Mr.
Bennett to the vicarage of Frome, and thereby to have
concurred with the Right Hon. Member for the Univer-
sity of Oxford in expressing their approbation of the con-
duct of the Bishop of Bath and Wells for instituting Mr.
Bennet. Ile (Mr. Newdegate) begged distinctly to state
that he participated in the disapprobation of the
institution of Mr. Bennett, which had been expressed by
the majority of the House, although he had preferred
the amendment of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for the University of Cambride to the motion of
the Hon. Member for Cockermouth, and had voted for
the amendment, and therefore against the motion. In
his opinion, the Bishop of Bath and Wells had exercised
a most unwise discretion when he instituted the Rev.
Mr. Bennett to the vicarage of Fromo; but he knew,
that in so doing, the Bishop had acted in accordance
with the latitude of discretion allowed him bylaw, and
was not therefore legally culpable; and he (Mr. Newde-
gate) voted for the amendment with a view to amend
the law, in preference to the original motion; because,
however sincerely he deprecated the manner in which
the Bishop had exercised the discretion allowed him by
law, ho did not wish to see that House constitute itself
a court of appeal in ecclesiastical cases, or arbitrarily
interfere with the legal exercise of the discretion en-
trusted to bishops in such matters.—(Hear, hear.)
MR. MATHER'S CASE.
Mr. ANSTEY rose, he said, to call the attention of
the House to the principle upon which Lord Malmes-
bury represented himself as acting when called upon to
ppiriowt eecr tsi. lle o Britishbegged subjectt
e eeils
thweheanttien--
on. Gentleman the Chancellor of the
the dispatch of Lord Malmesbury of the
Exchequer to
jinu
lionrtee interfere
by
hfie.oorrße itigghneh t
29th April. The Right Hon. Gentleman had promised
nished to the House months ago, but the promise had not
that papers which bad been moved for should be fur-
been redeemed.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER here
rose, and said the Hon. Gentleman had a resolu:ion
on the subject for 'the 29th inst. He did not think he
was in order in making a similar motion now. As for
the papers promised,' he had to reply that the negotia-
cions had been resumed, and the papers could not be
produced. Negotiations were now terminated, and they
would be laid on the table in time for the Eton. Geatle-
EVP'B motion on the 29th.
jolt, ANSTEY said, if the House was then in exist-