The Sun.
London, England, 1838-04-10 00:00:00

In a paper which he (Lord J. Russell) held in his hand, there
was a letter appealing to the people of England from a de-
cision of that House, which the letter characterized as
the most outrageous ever perpetrated within the walls of
the House of Commons.—( Hear, hear.) He knew nothing
of that decision, though it was called an act of the Go-
vernment, but it had been debated for some time on a ques-
tion relating to the controverted elections,—and as he was
willing to give the Shaftesbury Election Committee every
credit for having acted according to their consciences in the
decisions to which they had come, he thought that House
entitled to the same credit for the integrity of their decisions.
—(Hear.) Was it to be said that because certain parties
were fond of such proceedings—( Loud cheers)—Mr. Poulter
was to be visited with their punishment, but that Mr. Pigott
was not to be noticed ? ( Cheers, and cries of " Hear.")
If so it would go forth to the public that while one side of that
House could not bear its proceedings to be animadver-
ted upon, that upon the other side of the House any
degree of libel and of calumny might be cast by those
to whom either the religion or the politics of that
side of the House were obnoxious.—( Loud cheers.) He
could not vote for the amendment, which seemed to imply
that when the evidence of the Shaftesbury Committee was
brought before the House, the House would enter into the
question, for of that question he did not think the House
could constitute itself a judge.—(" Hear" and loud cheers.)
He protested, and ever would protest, against the vengeance
of the House being inflicted upon any outbreak of irritation or
language which was the result of excited feeling. He thought
the better course for the House to pursue was to leave it to
the public at large to decide whether the acts of that House
or the allegations of its calumniators were best deserving of
approval. No severity of punishment could ever obtain the
respect of the public for the Commons of England, who, if
they did not rest upon the confidence of the people were
nothing whatever, and who, if they had that confidence, need not
fear any calumnies, any libels, however unfounded.—( Cheers.)

Sir ROBERT PEEL then rose. If he understood the
conclusion to which the Noble Lord had arrived, it was
this—that it should be competent for any individual, with
perfect propriety, to prefer any accusation whatever
against any Members of that House upon whom judicial
duties had devolved.—( Cheers.) No matter how scan-
dalous the insult might be,—no matter how aggravated
the charge of corruption,—still the Noble Lord thought
that the protection of that House ought to be public
confidence, and his opinion is that the House ought to give
notice that all Members of the House of Commons
might proceed in their course with perfect impunity, for
the House would be exempted from all those forms which
gave protection to individuals. With respect to any other
case that the noble Lord might prefer, he should deal withlt
when it was presented. He had now one case before it, and
with that it was his intention at present to deal. Here were
gentlemen who by law were compelled to serve. The House
admitted no excuse, and also told them that unless they performed
the duties which devolved upon them, it would commit them
to prison. If you do not perform the judicial functions that
may devolve upon you, you must be committed to prison, and
if you do, then the doctrine of the Noble Lord was, that they
were to be permitted to receive every insult. If such were
the doctrine of the House of Commons, if such be the doctrine
it intended to maintain, then he for one would advise any indi-
vidual to bring the question before the House. He would ad-
vise them when called upon to serve to say that they would not.
(Great cheering from the Tories.) He would advise them
to ask the House this question— If you place me in this judi-
cial situation, and give me no protection, will you commit me
to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms if I refuse to serve?
—( Cheers.) He ( Sir Robert Peel) would ask whether it
was justice to compel an individual to perform duties in
the performance of which he was subject to insult
from which he had ro protection whatever 1—( Hear, bear.)
The charge was made by Mr. Poulter against the Committee.
He said " that the petition, which under other circum-
stances would have been declared frivolous and vexa-
tious, had been entertained by the most corrupt majority
which had ever disgraced the administration of justice."
There was not oven an allegation of an error of judgment—
they were " the most corrupt majority which had ever dis-
graced the administration ofjustice." The Noble Lord said,
that if an individual Member were charged with corruption,
the House would protect him. Upon what principle
would he defend the exception ?—(Loud cheers.) How
was the House bound to protect the private individual ?
If that person was corrupt, the shield of the House thrown
round him would not make his character more pure. The
Judicial Bench, in order to its usefulness, required the protec-
tion of the public oonfidence; but would ally one for a moment
refuse to afford them also protection for unfounded contume-
lies?—( Hear.) The attack was not upon the party, as the Noble
Lord had found it convenient to state. Mr. Poulter distinctly
avowed that he made no attack upon the party, for he said
that he knew that a large portion of what was called the Tory
party looked at such proceedings with disapprobation.
( Hear, hear.) It was clear that it was not a party at-
tack : it must, therefore, be a personal one—the Mem-
bers composing the majority of that Committee were as well
known as if they had been named individually. The six or
seven gentlemen composing that majority were pointed at as
if individually, and therefore why should the Noble Lord re-
fuse them protection ? He was aware of the disagreeable-
ness of all such discussions—(Hear)—but he felt bound to take
the same course upon that occasion as he had felt it his duty to take
in the case of the Honourable and Learned Member for
Dublin. He considered that it would be exceedingly
unsafe for the House to lay down a rule in accord-
ance with the opinions expressed by the Noble Lord.
He did say they were bound to give protection to a Committee
who had a compulsory duty imposed on them. What course
the House of Commons would take when they heard what
Mr. Poulter had to state he could not tell; but he could not
sit dow❑ and assent to the proposition that hereafter every
man might attack the House of Commons at his pleasure with
every species of corruption and criminality, without being
subjected to any punishment.—( Cries of " Divide, divide.")

Mr. WA RBUR TON wished the House to take into
consideration, that the breach of privilege here com-
plained of was not a breach of privilege in which
there was any direct interference with the business of
the House itself—it was merely a constructive breach
of privilege.—( Hear, hear.) The whole argument of the
Right Hon. Baronet was founded on this, that there was
no other mode of protecting the dignity of the Com-
mittee but by the House itself interfering.—( Hear.) He
begged to ask whether a prosecution for libel on the part
of any Member of that Committee would not lie against
Mr. Poulter.—( Hear, hear, hear.) If a similar act were
done by Mr. Poulter against the Court of King's Bench,
that Court would not call before it Mr. Poulter, and com-
mit him at once to Newgatc, but would institute a prose-
cution for libel.—( Hear. hear.)
Mr. M IL DM A Y had only brought forward his amendment in
justice to both parties, but he now begged leave to withdraw it.
Mr. WARBURTON then moved the previous question,
whereupon
Mr. NI IL DMA Y said he would withdraw the amendment.
—( Hear, hear, hear. )
Sir CI-ARLES G. GREY rose, amidst loud cries of
" Divide, divide." He contended that Election Committees
were constituted by Statute, and not by any mere act of the
House, which accordingly had no authority to review their acts.

Lord HE NNIK ER-Could not allow the question to go to
a division without formally and loudly protesting against the
observation of the Honourable Member for Dublin, that if the
party unseated by the Committee on the Shaftesbury election
petition, had been a Tory, a different decision would have
been come to. He did not regret a single aot, a single ob-
servation, or a single proceeding of his in that Committee, and
he trusted that the House would bear him out by its deci-
sion.—( Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL, notwithstanding the great anger of
the Noble Lord, did not regret either a single observation he
had made, a single action he had done, or a single proceed-
ing in which he had taken a part connected with the conduct
of that Committee. The Noble Lord wished to have the mi-
nutes of evidence laid on the table of the House, but he also
wished that Mr. Poulter should be first called to the bar, and
dealt with accordingly. Did the Noble Lord wish to punish
Mr. Poulter first and try him afterwards? All his excellent
anger then was thrown away, unless he wished to reverse the
the measure of justice in this case, as he (NIT. O'Connell) be-
lieved the Committee did in the other.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Honourable Baronet opposite had facetiously said
that this was a case of peculiar hardship, inasmuch as the
parties attacked were compelled to serve; but he (Mr.
O'Connell) would ask whether every one of those voluntary
victims did not get a circular ticket from the Carlton Club,
requiring their presence at the ballot, as two or three seats
were in question ? It might be said that his (Mr. O'Con-
nell's) side of the House did the same thing. They did ; but
they, at least, had not the hypocrisy to deny it.—(Laughter.)
And these compulsory volunteers complained of being obliged
to bear attacks upon their proceedings. He (Mr. O'Connell)
did not, indeed, know, but that the Noble Lord opposite, who
was so indignant on the subject, had himself received one of
those very circulars, telling that there were three seats
in danger, and that his presence was needful to put the
Speaker into the Chair. To decide the question at issue then
he (Mr. O'Connell) asserted would be for the House to make
a mockery of justice. The facts of the case should be first
made apparent before judgment was pronounced on it. Mr.
Paulter had lost his seat through " the honest perversion of
judgment"—he (Mr. O'Connell) would say—(A laugh)—of
the majority of the Committee, and he spoke under the in-
fluence of a sore feeling. Would the Right Hon. Baronet do
otherwise if he had been put out of his seat by the same
means ?—( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. O'Connell) thought the li
House had better adopt the amendment than enter into a con-
test with an individual—nothing was ever gained by such a
course of proceeding.

Sir E. SUGDEN—lnstead of inviting Mr. Poulter to the
course proposed by the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin, he should sincerely advise him to admit that the letter
in question was written in a moment of anger, to deprecate
the wrath of the House, and to throw himself on its mercy for
forgiveness. It was said, why not bring this case as one of
libel before a Court of justice ? But that question was easily
answered ; for if any one only looked for a moment at the
tenor and the expressions of Mr. Poulter's letter he would find
that no allusion was made to any particular section of the
Committee, so no action would lie on the face of the do-
cument.

After a few words from Lord J. Russell, Mr. Blackstone,
and Mr. Villiers,

A message from the Lords was announced, requiring the
attendance of Mr. F. Baring before a Committee of their
Lordships' House, which permission was accordingly granted.
Mr. WARBURTON then said he would not divide the
House on his amendment.

The amendment was accordingly negatived, and the motion
for calling Mr. Poulter to the bar of the House agreed to
without a division.