The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-20 00:00:00

would not occupy the house with a detailed ex parte state-
ment, but he was most anxious for the fullest investigation
into the matter, and he regretted that the investigation
could not take place in a court of law, in order that he
might have the. opportunity of prosecuting the authors of
the mis-statements which had been publicly ;paraded
through the country by means of this gentleman or this
man. (Cheers.) An action had been tried some time ago
,
at an expense of some hundreds of pounds to (Mr.
Lever), and Mr. Irwin was now passing through the Insol-
vent Court on atcount of the expenses of that action, as he
had not a shilling in the world. It was not right that he
should be continually annoyed by a man without character.
He had documents with him which would establish the
truth of his statements, but he thought the fairest course
would be to appoint a committee of inquiry. He should,
therefore, move that a committee of inquiry be appointed.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM said that the other night Mr. Irwin
was charged with forgery, but he had appealel from his
conviction, and the question was still under consideration.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Hear, hear I Nine months in gaol.
Lord J. MANNERS rose to move that the petition be
referred to a select 'committee.
Mr. ROEBUCK—If a committee is appointed, it ought
to be directed to inquire, in the first place, whether the
matter contained in the petition is of such a nature that the
house ought to take cognisance of it. Would the house
toke notice of it if it referred to the hon. member for
Galway in his private capacity? I say that the accusation
comes from a man who has been convicted of forgery. To
tclt me that the question of his guilt or innocence is still
under discussion is utterly futile and false. The -trial was
in 1835, and the man lay nine months in gaol as a convict.
Mr. CONINGHAM-110 appealed.
Mr. ROEBUCK—Appealed in 1835. We all know the
meaning of that phrase. The man is a convict forger. He
has brought actions against my hon. friend, he has been cast
in them, and he is going through the court because he is un-
able to pay the costs. The whole matter is sub-judice, and.
it would be unworthy of the house to sow broadcast the
accusations contained in this petition. The hon: member
for Brighton (Mr. Coningham) has not even stated that he
is prepared to move for an inquiry. It would be unworthy
of the house to send the petition to a committee without a
preliminary inquiry whether it contains matter into which
inquiry ought to be made.
Mr. BOUVERIE hoped the house would not in if hurry
take a course of which it might afterwards repent. The house
hid better determine the question now before it, namely, whe-
ther the petition should lie on the table, before considering
what further steps should be taken. The proper course
would be, if the house meant to proceed further in the mat-
ter, that the petition should be printed, and that on a sub-
sequent, day, after due "notice, either the hon. member for
Brighton or the hon. member for Galway should move to
refer it to a select committee. (Hear.) They might then
discuss the petition, whether or not it was a Matter into
whiCh the house ought to inquire. If this course were not
taken, they might be embarking upon an inquiry into the
private affairs of members into which they had no right to
inquire.
Lord J. RUSSELL—The course taken as yet is perfectly
regular. I quite agree with my right hon. friend (Mr.
Bouverie), that the hoase ought to take any future steps with
deliberation and caution. The hon: member for Brighton
having given notice to the hon. member whose conduct is
impugned, has regularly brought before the house a peti-
tion containing grave charges against that hon. member.
The hon. member has challenged inquiry, and he was per-
fectly right in so doing. But it is for the house to consider
first, whether this is a sort of charge which ought to be in-
quired into by the house ;, and, secondly, what precedents
there, may be in similar cases. I do not think anything
should be resolved on to-day further than that this petition,
if considered at all, be printed for the use of members only.
Formerly, when petitions cif this kind had been printed and
circulated, it had been justly complained that the house
was circulating libels. He saw no objection tolhe petition
being allowed to lie on the table, and to be printed for the
use of members, and then any hon. member on a future day
might make a motion respecting it, being of course respon-
sible for his suggestion if he recommended an inquiry.
Mr. CLAY concurred in the suggestion of the right hon.
gentleman and the noble lord. He was glad that the hen.
member for Galway was ready and willing to meet the
charge against him, and he remarked that the fact that the
petitioner had been convicted of forgery was not in itself a
reason for refusing an inquiry, inasmuch as the forgery had
been condoned by his subsequent employment by the hon.

member.
Mr. MALINS said that a•petition containing charges of
fraud against an hon.. member required the serious considera-
tion of the house, but considering the position of the peti-
tioner, the statements in the petition ought to be received
with the greatest caution. Before the house embarked upon
an inquiry into the conduct of any, one, of its members, it
ought to be considered whether such conduct could be in •
quired into by any tribunals of the country. If the charges
were of a civil c.r criminal nature, the petitioner could pro-
ceed in the courts of law or equity in England or Ireland ;
and if the charges were substantiated, it would then be for
the house to consider whether the hon. member should be
expelled or not, as in the case of James Sadleir. Suppose
the petition were read, and ordered to be referred to a select
committee, in what capacity were the members of the com-
mittee to act ? (Hear.) Were they to act on the same as
judges in the courts of law or equity ? If so, then he would
merely say the ordinary tribunals were open to the peti-
tioner. For this house to enter upon an investigation of
this kind would be going far beyond their jurisdiction, and
would be a course fraught with great inconvenience and
danger.
Sir S. NORTHCOTE said he thought the hon. member
fer Hull (Mr. Clay) had, in taking notice of something said
about the character of the petitioner, stated that the hon.
member for Galway was not in a posi+ion to refer to the
charge of forgery, because he had, by employing Mr. Irwin,
condoned that crime. It was not fair towards the hon. mem-
ber to make that observation, and he rose to claim fair play
for him in this matter. The house would not act upon the
statements of the hon. members for Galway and Sheffield,
but upon the statements of the petitioner made in the courts
of law and before a select committee of the house, and it
appeared that when the hon. member for Galway made the
acquaintance of the petitioner he was utterly ignorant that
ho had been convicted of forgery, or of his antecedents.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. CLAY rose to explain, and also to express his regret.
The observation which he made was addressed to the hon.
member for Sheffield, who had stated that the petitioner
was unworthy of their notice because his character was bad.
He did not wish to state anything unfairly against the hon.
member for Galway, or to prejudge the question.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said it was hardly necessary that
the house should dwell longer upon the matter, and he
thought it was the wish of the house to pursue the course
pointed out by the right hon. gentleman the member for
Kilmarnock.
Mr. PAULL said it seemed to him that the house should
not give notoriety to this petition, and they ought to be en-
treutelyjealous before they consented to assist the petitioner
in making these charges against an hon. member. The
house had heard sufficient of the allegations, and they
ought not to encourage such persons as the petitioner to
come before them, but leave him to the proper tribunals of
the country. He begged to move that the petition be re-
jected, because he thought the matter ought not to go further.
Col. FRENCH thought that if the petition was to be
printed, the usual course should be followed of giving notice
or leaving the matter to the committee on printing. He saw
no reason why they should depart from their rules.
Mr. PAULL rose to explain, but was met with loud cries
of "spoke" and' order," and consequently he resumed his
seat.
The house divided—

Ayes . __
99
Noes
Majority
The'petition was then ordered to be laid on the table.
Mr. HOPE said he had twice voted for the reception of
the petition, and he had done so, net because he had a good
opinion of the petition, and still less as to his case, but
of re-
he
felt that it was impossible, on the general principle
ceiving petitions, to shut their doors against a petition of
this kind, and thus give to members an immunity which
the allega-
fothe hon.
for the
other persons did not possess. (Hear, hear.) Having
voted for the reception of the petition, he might now
state that he thought, before a member presented
a petition of this kind he ought, to a certain extent, satisfy
ground
whether
thi himself that
contained there
member for Brighton was prepared to follow up this matter
by moving that the allegations of the petition be inquired
into ? iwt."Hperiwmiashefadd:oe " o
The SPEAKER—The hon. member ought to have
ar.)
con-
cluded his inquiries with a motion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. CONINGHAM said it had been his • intention to
move for a select committee to inquire into the matter of the
petition, and he would now give notice that he would do so
on a future day.
The SPEAKER—This is a question of privilege, and,
therefore, it is competent for the hon, member now to move
that the petition be printed. The course pursued in cases
that analogous to this is, without notice, a motion may at
once be made that the petition be printed, and for the use of
members only.
Mr. CONINGHAM then moved that the petition be
printed for the use of members only.
Colonel FRENCH would not oppose the printing of the
petition, if it were distinctly understood that the hon. mem-
ber would found a motion upon it. (Hear.)
Captain JERVIS thought that something should be said
for those who had voted against the reception of the petition,
because it had been stated out of doors that the house wished
to cover an hon. member from any inquiry into his conduct.
It was perfectly well understood that the house could reject
a petition. He did not see why they should receive a peti-
tion which was presented against a member, but which they
would not receive if presented against a private individual.
If the petition had not been presented against the hon. mem-
ber for Galway, and directed against the Galway contract.
the house would not have heard a word about it. It was an
attempt on the part of those who disliked that contract, and
wished to get rid of it—(hear, hear)—to bring the matter
under the notice of the house.
Mr. CONINGHAM begged to say that if Otose observa-
tions were directed against him, he wourd give them the
most distinct and emphatic contrinuctiou lb had no per-