Hansard's Parliamentary Debates

the original number of twenty, he should as the right hon. Member for Cambridge, not go back to a practice which had been and he (Mr. Hildyard) thought it right the advantageously discontinued, but should country should know that the House had constitute this Committee one of five, to no such privilege. be chosen by the Committee of Elections. It was a question for the House to determine in what manner a Committee, having constitutional functions to perform, should be chosen so as to perform them to the best advantage and to give general satisfaction. During the last Session he had the honour to act as one of the Committee of Selection. They had this Session been so good as to relieve him from that obligation; but, without reference personally to himself, he now undertook to suggest to the House that no other course, in appointing a Committee of this sort, could be taken with such advantage as that of referring it to the Chairman and Committee of Selection. There had been a question between a Committee of Selection and the Committee of Elections; but he thought that those matters, not of a party character, should be referred to that Committee the duties of which were more immediately confined to the business of the House, and one from which all party feeling should be excluded; but the other was a different tribunal, to arrange matters in which party balances were taken into

account.

MR. F. FRENCH conceived that the number of the Committee was a matter of very slight importance indeed; the House ought rather to have regard to its ability and intelligence. He, for one, approved of the suggestion thrown out by the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Lucas), and considered they ought to issue a commission. This was the only course to be adopted if the House would show itself properly watchful of its own character, which had been attacked through the Irish Members. This was the only course for the Government to follow if they would avoid the accusation that they had stepped in to shield Members of Parliament, of whose guilt they had cognisance, from the ignominy to which their conduct had exposed them. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. and learned Friend would keep the matter in his own hands, and on the Committee deciding that a prima facie case for inquiry had been made out, that a commission should be appointed with the fullest powers to examine witnesses compatible with the utmost limits of the law. In that way alone could the indiscriminate charges of the Times newspaper be satisfactorily disproved; and on the part of the Irish Members he dared them to the fullest inquiry, and he trusted that from that inquiry there would be no shrinking back.

MR. HILDYARD said, notwithstanding his reluctance to differ from so high an authority, he could not refrain from expressing his entire dissent from the doctrine laid down by his right hon. Friend the Member for the University of Cambridge MR. I. BUTT said, he had waited for (Mr. Goulburn). In answer to a sugges- some time in the hope that a distinct protion of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. position, by way of amendment to his Lucas), his right hon. Friend had stated Motion, would emanate from some hon. that the hon. Member for Meath was in Gentleman; but as none such had been perfect ignorance if he thought the House delivered, he considered himself now as could not indemnify a witness. He (Mr. about to speak in reply. Well, then, if Hildyard) trusted that House never could any subsequent Amendment was moved, he and never would indemnify a witness who should still consider he had an opportunity had violated the law of the land. Suppose for reply. He confessed, however, that the first witness were asked this question he felt himself in rather an awkward posi-"Have you been guilty of trafficking in tion, because, though pressed by the great offices?" Would not that witness be jus- weight of authority brought against him, tified in saying, "I decline to answer his own judgment remained uninfluenced. that question, because it may subject me Two proposals had been made the one to punishment?" Not only would he be that the numbers of the Committee should justified, but probably would do it, and the be reduced; the other that the appointHouse could not treat that witness as a ment of the Committee should be referred witness in contempt, because he would to the Committee of Selection. Nevertheonly have availed himself of a privilege less, the two proposals were perfectly the that already existed. He only rose to same. He wished to deal with both. For make this statement in consequence of himself, he had no other desire but that what had fallen from so high an authority the inquiry should be as full and as severe

tee.

as it could possibly be; unless, indeed, this further important one, that the public, both in England and Ireland, should feel the most unreserved confidence in the CommitFor unless the names of the five Gentlemen to be appointed, according to the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. E. Denison), were received with the most entire satisfaction, the public could only conclude that they had been nominated to screen the guilty from punishment. As for the numbers of the Committee, he would not himself wish to see them reduced certainly below eleven, though he much preferred they should be fifteen, and more so twenty. No one, however, but himself had a practical cognisance of the difficulty of framing a Committee; for he might observe that there were accusers present on that (the Opposition) side of the House-there was a section on that side of the House-who, though in opposition to the Government, in some degree held similar political opinions with them. A party among the Members from Ireland had made accusations against another party; and would they exclude the accusers from the Committee? And if they did, did they think they would be satisfying the people of Ireland, who placed credence in these accusations? And, then, would they leave the accused entirely undefended, or would they run the risk of allowing the public of both countries to conclude that something had been kept back? For these reasons he preferred the precedent of twenty Members. The case, as the House should remember, was not one of a judicial Committee sitting to inquire into charges against a particular individual; their functions would be infinitely more of a grandjury character-namely, an inquiry as to whether certain offences had been committed. Undoubtedly in an individual case the course to be pursued was entirely different; but in the present one, if the House appointed a Committee of limited numbers, it would be laying itself open to the charge that it had been so limited in order to exclude Gentlemen who might have established the truth of the allegations. For himself he was obliged to confess that the House would be abdicating its highest functions if it referred the nomination of the Committee to the Committee of Selection. However, be that as it might, there was one point at least on which he had made up his mind—namely, that if the Committee was not to be nominated by the House, the proceeding which had been brought

before the House was one of which he could take no further notice. And he must tell the House plainly, though respectfully, that if the Committee were nominated by any any other body than the House itself, that the report of any such Committee would be only regarded as a stifling of the investigation. However, he was perfectly willing to give way as to the numbers of the Committee; but as a matter of principle, if its nomination were to rest anywhere else than with the House itself, he should decline all further responsibility.

MR. HUME was understood to suggest that the Standing Orders should decide the question.

MR. J. O'CONNELL said, he was not aware that any Irish Member on that side of the House had an objection to the inquiry in any form, or to any extent. He believed he spoke for others, and certainly for himself, when he said, all he desired was, that whatever might be the readiest and most searching mode of coming to the truth, in Heaven's name adopt it at once. This was not a light and trivial matter, especially at the present juncture of affairs, when every Member should be free from the slightest shadow of suspicion floating over him, no matter how undefined. If there were any obstruction in the forms of the House to this inquiry, away with them. He most heartily and earnestly seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for the county Meath. Let them have the truth, and the whole truth. Let them pass a short Bill of Indemnity if the forms of the House offered the slightest obstacle to the most thorough inquiry. He hoped, however, the hon. Member for Meath would not confine himself to the accusation he had made in the House the other night. He (Mr. J. O'Connell) had been in the House seventeen or eighteen years, and he had never heard such a speech as that made by the hon. Member. He meant such a speech as that attributed to the hon. Gentleman which had been reported in the Times and other newspapers, in which he deliberately charged the side of the House on which he (Mr. J. O'Connell) sat-charged the whole of them together with gross corruption. In the report he had read of the speech, the hon. Member declared there was no doubt whatever

because he had no doubt, therefore there could be no doubt whatever-that the grossest and most corrupt practices had prevailed among Irish Members. The hon. Member finished with a singular de

the original number of +
not go back to r
advantageously
constitute this

be chosen by

It was a que mine in wha

ing constit should be

the best satisfact had th

mitte sion

tha

SOT

demnity

das & Commission, where they cramine on oath, and give that inwhich was given in the most

petty case of bribery. Corruption could invited/not exist without two parties were cogni*** ...g that he/sant, and the Government were bound to Members, but afford the means of the most stringent inA most titlustrious men-one on the assistance of Members of the Govern* of the dead before them: quiry. He hoped that they would have ** line serators had hung, and to ment, for, though he was satisfied the reham, many a time, the House had listen- sult would be a contradiction of the charges, i dolight-and yet his name had he hoped the Government would give them A newspaper report; and an hon. Member tee of the House. He would have appealed had done all he could to vilify the character to the noble Lord at the head of the Goof that hon. Gentleman. He alluded to vernment to grant a Commission, but that the late Right Hon. Mr. Sheil. It was a he saw he was not in the House.

been dragged from the grave and through

matter of justice to the Irish Gentleman

tervene to prevent it.

The hon. Gentle

a tribunal more impartial than a Commit

SIR J. YOUNG said, that the noble

accused that this inquiry should be made, Lord, in consequence of suffering from and that no forms of the House should in- physical debility after his exertions in the the House had put his (Mr. O'Connell's) thing that might be necessary on the part man who had brought this matter before House, leaving it with him to state anyhe might be excused; there was so much question of indemnity, he believed it would

early part of the evening, had left the

the House Committee, but he hoped that of the Government. As regarded the

That was the case

und he was rather apt to push an in- the law that the House had in itself ample quiry on somewhat too hotly; he had, too, power to protect witnesses who appeared been engaged in personal conflict-though before its Committees. in public matters with some of the Gentlemen who would have to be examined before the Committee. With that single exception he was prepared to give every facility to the fullest and most searching investigation.

COLONEL DUNNE said, he would remind the House that the notice that had been given by his hon. and learned Friend referred to the libels in the Times newspaper, and to those alone. Those libels made two charges of corruption against Irish Members, which applied to the whole body. His hon. and learned Friend had very wisely taken little notice of the Times newspaper, but had confined himself to the two assertions reported to have been made in Ireland. The Irish Members had for a series of years been accustomed to the libels of that paper, and he never recollected any great change in Ireland that was not preceded, speaking in a professional phrase, by a skirmishing fire of libels before the measure was brought forward. Those libels might be written by Members on the Treasury bench, or they might not; but whether they were or not, the charge was a judicial one, and ought to be met by a judicial tribunal; and he quite agreed with the hon. Member for Roscommon, that a Committee of the House was

undoubtedly, and a Bill of Indemnity was perfectly needless in the present instance. With regard to the second point, the whole question was as to the number of the Committee. There was no question as to whe

ther the nomination of the Committee should be in the House, or should be referred to the Committee of Selection, or the General Committee of Elections. The question was, whether this Committee should consist of twenty or a smaller number. Without giving any opinion on the part of the Government, he would refer them to the very high authorities who had already spoken, and to the fact that the House had been gradually reducing the number of Members on Committees with very great advantage. He was, therefore, of opinion that the proposition for the larger number ought not to be entertained.

MR. J. G. PHILLIMORE said, he could not hear the declaration just made without expressing his dissent altogether. He thought the right hon. Gentleman was quite incorrect with respect to the power of the House to grant an indemnity. In the case of Sir Robert Walpole, the prosecution was dropped in consequence of the rejection of a Bill of Indemnity, and some of the finest speeches ever made in the

casion.

SIR J. YOUNG: I did not say this House had power to grant a Bill of Indemnity, but I said the House had within itself ample power to protect the witnesses examined before its Committees. There is a remarkable difference between the two things. One does, and the other does not, raise the question of privilege which was raised by the hon. and learned Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Hildyard).

House of Lords were made upon that oc- | adopted-I doubt not with the sincere be lief in the soundness and the peaceful ten dency of their policy-measures which necessarily involved us in hostilities, and which are the cause of our being, if not actually, certainly on the brink of being, engaged in a great war. I cannot avoid saying that I do not see in their conduct of diplomatic negotiations those signs of vigour and that determination of purpose, by the display of which, in the first instance, they might, I think, have avoided the predicament in which we are at present placed; and by which alone they may be able yet to preserve peace or to bring war to a satisfactory and early conclusion. can assure your Lordships that I am not going into a minute and detailed review of the papers which have been laid before you. Let me, however, say that they are full of matter of the deepest interest, and that they appear to me to be for the most part written with great ability. I shall only shortly refer to some passages in them in support of the view which I have from the first taken of these transactions; but, as I have already said, I will not detain your Lordships with any detailed examination of their contents.

MR. ROEBUCK: But, suppose a witness makes a confession of corrupt practices before a Committee, can the House shroud him? I should believe, from all my experience in matters connected with the law, this House would not and should not endeavour to do so. If a man were to make a confession, and I indict him, he having confessed he was guilty of an act contrary to law, this House could not interfere.

MR. I. BUTT said, if the House would permit him, he would withdraw the Motion for twenty, and substitute fifteen.

MR. SPEAKER said, it would not be necessary to resolve that fifteen should be the number, as the usual constitution of such a Committee was that number. It was only necessary to withdraw the Resolution.

Motion withdrawn.

My Lords, I have said, on a former occasion, and having examined the blue books before us, I say again, that the great error committed by Her Majesty's

House adjourned at half after Nine Government was the course they took o'clock.

HOUSE OF LORDS,

Tuesday, February 14, 1854.

MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILL.-3a Assessed Taxes
Act Amendment.

RUSSIA AND THE PORTE.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE: My Lords, I rise to call your Lordships' attention to the Motion of which I have given notice. And in doing so I feel it necessary, in consequence of some observations which fell from the noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) on a former occasion, to assure your Lordships that no person is more anxious than I am at all times to preserve peace, if that object can be attained consistently with the interests, and still more if with the honour of this country; and that any ground of quarrel which I may have with Her Majesty's Government is not that they have not earlier engaged us in war, but that they have VOL. CXXX. [THIRD SERIES.]

when, having had a full report made to them of the warlike preparations of Russia, and of the menacing attitude which she had assumed, and having received information of the important mission of Prince Menchikoff-and of intentions which were suspected throughout Europe-they were invited by the French Government to consider the whole aspect of affairs in the East, and to come to a common understanding as to what should be the course of the two Powers on the occurrence of the contingencies to be anticipated. My Lords, I entirely concur with the course taken by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the origin of this unhappy affair-I think that we had nothing to do with the question of the Holy Places, as it is called. I think that the instructions contained in Lord John Russell's despatches upon that subject on the 28th of January are excellent. They simply instruct our agents that with that question, we have, and will have, nothing to do. But on the same 28th of January, the communication from the French Govern

not so good as a Commission, where they could examine on oath, and give that indemnity which was given in the most petty case of bribery. Corruption could not exist without two parties were cognisant, and the Government were bound to afford the means of the most stringent inquiry. He hoped that they would have the assistance of Members of the Government, for, though he was satisfied the result would be a contradiction of the charges, he hoped the Government would give them a tribunal more impartial than a Committee of the House. He would have appealed to the noble Lord at the head of the Government to grant a Commission, but that he saw he was not in the House.

claration for a Member of the House of Commons-that he would not prove it. What was the reason? Why, because he could not. Let the Committee be appointed to enable him to do so. They invited him to do it. It was astonishing that he should not only attack living Members, but drag the name of the dead before them: one of their most illustrious men-one on whose lips senators had hung, and to whom, many a time, the House had listened with delight-and yet his name had been dragged from the grave and through a newspaper report; and an hon. Member had done all he could to vilify the character of that hon. Gentleman. He alluded to the late Right Hon. Mr. Sheil. It was a matter of justice to the Irish Gentleman SIR J. YOUNG said, that the noble accused that this inquiry should be made, Lord, in consequence of suffering from and that no forms of the House should in- physical debility after his exertions in the tervene to prevent it. The hon. Gentle-early part of the evening, had left the man who had brought this matter before the House had put his (Mr. O'Connell's) name on the Committee, but he hoped that he might be excused; there was so much unpleasantness connected with the matter, and he was rather apt to push an inquiry on somewhat too hotly; he had, too, been engaged in personal conflict-though in public matters-with some of the Gentlemen who would have to be examined before the Committee. With that single exception he was prepared to give every facility to the fullest and most searching investigation.

House, leaving it with him to state anything that might be necessary on the part of the Government. As regarded the question of indemnity, he believed it would be admitted by all parties acquainted with the law that the House had in itself ample power to protect witnesses who appeared before its Committees. That was the case undoubtedly, and a Bill of Indemnity was perfectly needless in the present instance. With regard to the second point, the whole question was as to the number of the Committee. There was no question as to whether the nomination of the Committee should be in the House, or should be referred to the Committee of Selection, or the General Committee of Elections. The question was, whether this Committee should consist of twenty or a smaller number. Without giving any opinion on the part of the Government, he would refer them to the very high authorities who had already spoken, and to the fact that the House had been gradually reducing the number of Members on Committees with very great advantage. He was, therefore, of opinion that the proposition for the larger number ought not to be entertained.

« Eelmine Jätka »

Books