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

BREACH OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. BLACKSTONE moved that the Order of the Day
for the attendance of Mr. Metcalfe, the Printer of the Morn-
ing Chronicle, and J. S. Poulter, Esq., at the Bar of the
House, be read.
Mr. MIL DMA Y rose to object to the proceeding. He
objected most strongly, and would never lend his sanction to
the House entering into a contest with an individual. He would
not give as a reason for so doing, that he thought the House
came very poorly out of every contest of that sort, inasmuch
as on all such occasions the public invariably sympathised
with the individual rather than with the mass who were
contesting with him.—( Hear, hear.) It was not on that
ground he objected to Mr. Poulter being called in. It was
upon a much stronger ground than that. He had known Mr.
Poulter for a great many years. —( Hear, hear, from the Tory
benches, and loud cheers from the Ministerial.) Mr. Poulter
was as sincere, straight-forward, manly, firm and determined
an individual as any of his (Mr. Mildmay's) acquaintance, and
be knew well enough that when Mr. Poulter brought a serious
charge against any one he was a very likely man to persevere.
—( Cries of " Hear, hear.") In what position would
the House then stand ? Mr. Poulter would appear at the
bar; he would endeavour to show the House that he had just
ground for the accusation he made, and what would be the result
of that? Mr. Poulter's ex parte statement would go forth to
the public, without the public having the opportunity of judg-
ing whether it was true or not, and without any Com-
mittee of the House having the power to disprove
the statement. He would therefore beg leave to suggest
(and he should not have bad taste enough to perse-
vere if he found the feeling of the House against him),
whether it would not be better to postpone this question
until they could have the evidence that had been given
before the Committee laid before the House, so that they
might be able to judge whether the charge was correct or not.
—( Hear.) Otherwise in what position would the house
stand? Supposing, upon the reading of the evidence, the
fact should be so, they must then come to the conclu-
sion that what Mr. Poulter had stated was perfectly cor-
rect.—( Loud cries of " Oh, oh" from the Tories. )
It might be so—he did not say it would be so, but it was pos-
sible it might be so.—( Hear, hear, from Mr. O'Connell.)
Mr. Poulter had brought a charge of corruption against cer-
tain Hon. Members of that House, and that charge might
or might not be true. But supposing it should be
proved to be true, how would the House then stand?—
(Hear, hear.) Why, after sending Mr. Poulter to Newgate
upon the assumption that his charge was false, they might find
upon the evidence forthcoming that that charge was true.—
( Hear, hear.) If he found the feeling of the House was in
favour of his proposition, he should certainly press it to a divi-
sion—( Hear, hear)—and he should therefore now move as an
amendment that the further consideration of this question be
postponed till the 23th of April, by which time, no doubt;
the evidence would be printed.
Mr. BLACK STONE really could not believe that the
Hon. Member had read the letter in question. It was not the
mere fact of the expression of an opinion by Mr. Poulter
that the Committee had decided erroneously, but he had
most directly and distinctly charged them with corrupt and dis•
honest motives.--( Hear, hear, from the Opposition Benches.)
Suppose for a moment that he allowed the motion of the
Hon. Member to eass—what condition would the Members of
the Committee be placed in ? It would perhaps be a month
before they dare chew their faces in public with such an im-
putation as this hanging over them.--( Hear, bear.) But what
would the House itself say if they assented to the motion? Would
it not be tacitly admitting the charge that had been made against
them, and afford ground for further imputations. It was on these
grounds that he felt himself called upon to oppose the motion,
for it appeared to him that it would place the Committee in a
most painful and embarrassing situation.
Mr. O'C ONNELL said that the Honourable Mem-
ber had given the very worst possible reason for op-
posing the motion of his Honourable Friend. The Ho
nourable Member had asked the House what would be the
situation of the Committee if they agreed to the postponement.
What indeed would be their situation if they shrunk from al-
lowing the evidence to be laid before the House ?—( Loud cries
of " hear, hear" from the Ministerial benches.) It had been
admitted by one of the Members of the Committee that there
had been what he called " an honest perversion of judgment"
in this case.—( Pear, hear, and laughter.) Now if it went
abroad to the public that the Committee resisted the produc-
tion of the evidence, would they call it honest ?—( Hear, hear.)
No, they would not; for there was a perversion of justice, and
a grievous injury done to Mr. Poulter on the facts, as stated
even by the Hon. Member himself. He was not so unparliamen-
tary as to attribute motives to any Hon. Member—( Laughter)--
but what were the facts? 31 votes were tendered to the Re-
vising Barrister—no objection was taken to them at the time,
and they were placed by him on the list. On whose evidence
were those votes struck off by the Committee ? On the evi-
dence of this very officer himself. Now after this, was there a
single individual in that House who would get up and say
that if Mr. Poulter was a Tory, the Committee would have
urseated him ?—( Hear, hear.) These things ought to be
fairly and honestly avowed. There was not the slightest
doubt that if Mr. Poulter had been a Tory he would still be a
Member of that House.—( Hear, hear.) He thought that if
the House took any further steps in this matter, they
would be placing themselves in a most ludricrous posi-
tion. What was to become of their consistency ?
Did not his Honourable Friend the Member for Cork,—
did not his Honourable Friend the Member for Fal-
kirk—did not the Member for Sligo tell them the
same thing to their faces, and that too with impunity.
They all said it in the face of the House, and even so humble
an individual as himself said it—( Laughter)—and was repri-
manded. But after that did he shrink from repeating it
No : he repeated it after the reprimand, and not a man
rose to move that he should be censured. And because
Mr. Poulter had been put out by the grossest injustice
ever done a human being—(Cheers)—they shrink from
allowing the evidence to be compared with the deci-
sion.—(" No," from the Opposition.) They did—they
wanted to punish Mr. Poulter first, and try him after-
wards.—( Laughter and cheers.) That was Tory justice.
—( Continued cheers.) And then, according to the state-
ments made, the grossest treating had been practised, public
houses had been opened, and drunkenness was going on from
hour to hour, the agent of the sitting Member paying for
that treating. And that party, which was so attached to
religion, and had such a horror of everything irreligious,
that they would not allow a loaf of bread to be baked
on a Sabbath day, gave countenance to these abominable
practices.—(Cheers.) He would not say these were the
facts, but they were stated in this House to be so. If they
were facts, what would the House do by proceeding criminally
against Mr. Poulter? They were here parties to the cause,
and they sought to criminate a man in the absence of evidence,
which might justify him to the public.—( Loud cheers. )
Until these tribunals were altered they would never
receive the respect of the public. Proceeding vindic-
tively against Mr. Poulter would not do their characters
any good, and would show a disposition on the part of the
House which the public would say had actuated the Com-
mittee. The manly way was to have the evidence printed,
and then let them enter into the subject; but let them not, in
the absence of that evidence, convict Mr. Poulter now and
try him after wards. —( Cheers. )

•
Mr. MIL DMA Y explained.
Sir R. INGL IS said the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin, with the ingenuity of a special pleader, worthy the
lore of place—(Laughter)—had taken advantage of an ex-
pression of the Hon. Member for Roxburghshire, who had
called the decision an honest perversion of judgment.
The Honourable Member with singular ingenuity omitted
the word " honest, " and substituted the word " justice "
for " judgment."—( Hear, hear, and laughter.) He said
on the confession of an Honourable Member of that Commit-
tee, that they were guilty of a perversion of justice ; whereas
the Honourable Member for Roxburghshire said " an honest
perversion of judgment." He thought the Honourable
Member for Wallingford had led therm into an error in
entering on the merits of the question on the last occasion.
Even admitting—which he ( Sir R. Inglis) did not—the truth
of the allegations of the Hon. Member for Dublin, nothing
could justify the expressions of Mr. Poulter. Tho Hon.
Member for Dublin had forgotten, when he characterized
the Members on his (Sir Robert Inglis's) side of the
House, as the promoters of Sunday legislation—as desirous of
preventing a loot from being baked on a Sabbath—was not
aware that his friend, Mr. Poulter, was equally the supporter
of such legislation. But the House was wasting time on this
subject._( Ironical cries of " Hear" on the Ministerial
Benches.) The real question was, whether the letter before
the House was a breach of privilege. If it was, it
ought to be taken into consideration. The merits of
the decision to which the Committee had comp
were not a fair subject for consideration in that House.—
( Hear.) The House had never taken upon itself to re-judge
the decisions of Election Committees. Undoubtedly the
greatest security for the present system was publicity._( Hear. )
And it was quite right therefore that publicity should