The Sun.
London, England, 1838-02-27 00:00:00

and Scotch Gentlemen.—( Loud cheers from the Opposition.)
If that charge was true, he ( Sir E. Sugdcn) thought the
House would labour under a very grievous imputation. If
it was not true, let them see was that a way in which the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin could arrive at the object he
stated himself to have in view. If he wanted to call attention
to the defective state of our trihunals, was it a fair way of
doing so to bring a gross charge of this nature against a poli-
tical opponent? The Hon. Member for Dublin, to all intents
and purposes, says " There is a petition against me, but I
have no faith in that petition if tried by English and Scotch
gentlemen." He wished to say one word as to the charge
said to have been brought forward against the Roman Catho-
lic Members of what was called wholesale perjury. He did
not think that such a charge as that had been brought against
the Roman Catholic Members ; but he certainly thought that
the oaths taken by them was a very fair and proper subject
for discussion. The Right Hon Gentleman concluded, by
expressing his earnest concurrence in the motion before the
House, and his determination to support it.
Lord JO HN RUSSELL rose and said—Sir, as the Right
Honourable Member who last addressed the House has called
so directly on the individuals who occupy this bench for some
expression of their opinion with reference to this question, I
rise to comply with the call which the Right Hon. Gentleman
has made upon me. At the same time I cannot help feeling
that the Right Hon. Gentleman, and those who sit with him,
impose a hard measure on me and those who sit beside me,
If we remain silent the Right Hon. Baronet says that it is due
to the House that we should state our opinions on the
question now before it. It has been insinuated that, as no
opinion has been expressed on this subject, we are desirous to
screen the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin by col-
lusion ; and now, when I am about to address the House, the
Hon. Member opposite decides the way in which I am to ad-
dress it, because he thinks that I am not likely to take the
course that would be most agreeable to his opinions. I own
that, if I Must state my opinion to the House, that opinion is
that it is not desirable that this discussion should be proceeded
with. I am fully aware that it used to be the custom, and I im-
pute no blame to the Noble Lord who bronght forward this mee
tion for following it, that when anything was found to appear in
a public Newspaper, or was said by a public character, which
could be considered a breach of privilege, it was immediately
taken into consideration by this House, and the offending per-
son, whether a gentleman moving in a high station, the editor
of a newspaper, or an unfortunate printer, was immediately
given into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, or committed
to Newgate. And thus the honour of the House of Commons
was vindicated. Sir, experience in these matters has taught
me that that was a most unwise principle. —( Hear, hear.) I
have never seen any advantage arise from contentions of this
kind, for the case has generally been in one of two positions ;
either it was a matter to which public attention had not been
directed, and to which the discussion gave notoriety, or, if, on
the other hand, it was a question to which the public did
attach importance—one in which the feeling out of doors sym-
pathised with the breach of privilege—then it Was little satis-
faction to the country to be told that the majority of this
House was opposed to public opinion, and vindicated their
privileges by committing to prison those who preached a con-
trary doctrine.—( Hear, hoar.) Why, Sir, I think this is the
case at present.—(" No, no.") Be the opinions expressed as
calumnious as they are stated to be, yet it cannot be denied
that this is ono of those cases in which a strong feeling has
existed out of doors.—( Hear.) Hardly any Hon. Gentleman
..—in fast none—have ventured to say that the present tribunal
for the trial of election petitions gives universal satisfaction—
that Tories have decided fairly in the case of a Liberal peti-
tioner, or Liberals for a Tory. No one, in fact, has said that
we have that pure administration of justice which the adminis-
tration of justice ought to be One gentleman acknowledges
a bias in favour of party, and says that decisions are frequently
governed by it. Another repeats his acknowledgment.
These are different phrases, but all imply this—that you have
tribunals sworn to try impartially, and that deisions which
proceed from them are not impartial—(" Hear, hear," and Mi-
nisterial cheers.) Now Sir, if that be opinion, which I shall
again state—that Honourable Gentlemen are sworn to decide
impartially, and that their decisions are not impartial, will any
man say what good can be effected by our resolving that it is
false and calumnious to use certain words, undoubtedly un-
justifiable—( Hear, hear)—and that the person using them is
as a necessary consequence, to be committed to prison ?—( No,
no.) Why you cannot dissent from the usual custom in this
proceeding ; if you say, in the words of the resolution, that
these words are false—that they are a gross breach of privi-
lege, and stop there, this House will put itself in the most ri-
diculous position that can possibly be imagined. Then, Sir,
look to other consequences with respect to the quotations from
e\eressin•spoaepre. rs
Tusheed
Hin
oh de
e. is
Member
re
for
the Ho
ry
Kilmarnock
aronee.
kasnad Learned
ys that
tas
for the Morning Chronicle and the Times, he shall treat thorn
with the contempt they deserve, but allow me to tell him that
if he permit newspapers of either party to say that our deci-
sions are unjust--that no justice is to be had from Election
Committees—that risen act in open violation of their duties in
this House—if this is said day after day by these newspa-
pers—you may put what words you please in your resolu-
tions—you may act on them as you will—but you will produce
no effect on the; public mind—it will remain prejudiced as
before. What, then, is your ether course ? To put down
breach of privilege by force, to bring the editors of newspa-
pers to the Bar of the House and to punish them—does any
man believe that good would be effected by this course?—
( Hear, hear.) Sir, in what I have said I have spoken en-
tirely with regard to the policy of such proceedings, and have
I proceeded in confocmity with the course adopted in similar,
cases lately. For instance, in 1833, when the House, on the
motion of Mr. O'Connell, ordered persons to the bar, that
order was discharged, from a general opinion of the impoliey
of rigorous measures.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the
case which is to be the subject of this resolution, does it re-
solve itself into a substantive charge ? No, it resolves itself
into the use of a very gross term—perjury.—( A Member—
" Foul perjury.") Yes, foul perjury. Sir, Idono in any way
mean to justify or to palliate those words, but I do not think
that the use of words of this kind by persons engaged in the
heat of party contention ought to be made the grounds of pro-
ceedings in this House. We have heard repeatedly for the last
thet o
Membersl oroi
v te hs
troesfeo
uy
thisre
ea
er
ss
chargesof ruos me the. T
of
hfo ispgeehrGej
isletrnyauthorities aov sem waf
nee le
Catholic
iaans from
tghsoloe
be wounded as well as other Members, yet they did not make
it a question of privilege ; but, when allusion is now made
to matters which none deny, we are required to notice it di-
rectly. A Right Hon. Gentleman has said that Roman Ca-
tholic gentleman may act inconsistently with their oath without
going to the extent of perjury; but t must say that his defi-
nition comes to something not very different.—( Hear.) It is
said that men take an oath and afterwards act otherwise than
in conformity with it, and that charge is made over and over
again, day after day, and men who know and feel it to be
groundless bear it in silence; but the moment a similar charge
is made against an opposite party it is to be borne no longer,
and the House must interpose. Some observations have been
made about a notice which I gave, not of an amendment, but
a conditional notice I gave on Friday last. Sir, I will the
House at once my purpose in giving that notice.—( Hear,
hear.) I wished to warn the Noble Lord opposite and this
House of the danger of entering on proceedings of th:s nature,
and I thought I could take no better example than I did.
I think that, with regard to men engaged in violent popu-
larcontention at elections and public meetings, carrying to
a licentious extent the use of political language, that that
is a matter to be corrected by public opinion, not a ques-
tion for legal proceedings, more especially as no obstruc-
tion has been offered to the proceedings of this House, nor
has it been threatened with popular violence. If the House
entertained the motion of the Noble Lord, I should then go
on to show that in my opinion a public man was the more to be
pardoned, because a person who, from his venerated station,
ought to be quite removed from all party contention, had in
his pastoral charge to his Clergy allowed party violence to
stain his language, and, forgetful of his duty as a Christian
Prelate, had charged Members of this House with treachery,
aggravated by perjury.—(klinisterial cheers.) I alluded to
this fact last year, and said I hoped no one would take any
notice of it in the House, but I now say that if party heats
and contentions pervade so rauch the whole of society in this
country that even a Bishop cannot refrain from using the term
perjury as applied to Members of the Houso of Commons, and
that it is to be passed over, surely there should be some allow.
ance made for a man engaged in the heat of these contentions,
and one who, if he has not spared others, has never been
spared himself by the party opposed to him.—( Cheers. )
Sir, two of the Honourable Gentlemen who have spoken
alluded with great triumph to what they termed my collu-
sion with the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. I wish
them joy of their -finding of a topic which has before been
worn threadbare. I can assure them that no accusation of this
kind—no triumph on their parte—will prevent me making
myself subject to their accusations when I believe myself act-
hile I
Government believe I
of
which
eAtn
Ido am it
act-
ing for the benefit of the country, for the benefit of any part
niointys'oforthwe
consls
teobject be to give new importance to the Hon. and Learned
Member—if a member.—( Hear, hear, and Ministerial cheers.) Sir, if
the
ember—if the wish be to elevate him in the eyes of the
of
her
Majesty's
e6t7
with's thed dominions,
people of Ireland, and of this country—l should then say,
s this resolution—( Hear, bear)—condemn the Hon. and
Learneda Member, send him to Newgate, and tell the world
you have no other way of vindicating your decisions on elec-
tion petitions.—( Cheers.) At the same time take into con-
sideration a measure for altering the constitution of Commit-
tees, and avow that you are not ignorant of their defects.
The
people of this country would then say, "We heard be-
fore that those election decisions were partial, and when we
see the person who told us so made the victim of injustice and
imprisoned, we will stand by that man, and elevate him to the
utmost of our power."—( Hear, hear.) That would be the
most likely effect of your resolution. If you wish to consult
your own dignity—if you wish to do that which is most pru-
dent—you will adopt the motion of my Noble Friend ,• but if
you wish to give popularity to the Honourable and Learned
Member you will adopt the resolutions proposed by the Noble
Lord opposite, with a feeling and spirit which does him high
honour ; but with little knowledge of the world, or of the cus-
toms of this House.—(Ministerial cheers.)
Sir R. PEEL—Sir, before I notice the speech of the Noble
Lord who has just sat'clown, I much refer to ono remark
made by the Noble Lord who moved the previous question,
and which appeared to mo to betray a very incorrect memory
with respect to what passed in regard to the Bill to amend
the mode of trying controverted elections. The Noble Lord
represented her Majesty's Government as most anxious that
an improved system of constitutiug tribunals for the trial of
controverted elections should be adopted ; but the Noble Lord
says that the benevolent intentions of Government were de-
feated by the opposition offered at this side of the House.
Now, I never recollect in any one instance Government show-
ing any desire to introduce this improved system. Ido re-
collect the Noble Lord speaking something like these words
I will on a given day state to the House what course I mean
to pursue with respect to using a day for the trial of controverted