The Sun.
London, England, 1837-05-31 00:00:00

Mr. E. J. STANLEY rose and said that he was most
anxious that the letter should be produced.—(Cheers.)
Sir J. WROTTESLEY said that he bzo. mo'ved that
the witness be ordered to withrio-at-; i,s, after stating that
there was a document it was improper for the House to
hear evidena as to its contents.—(Hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM said that the witness had stated that
the document was not in his authotity anA that
he had delivered. it up ti, a thiti he thought,
therefor% that thett could 1-tb objection to the witness
stating the ''Onteilki! th the House. He admitted that the
Honour Ale Baronet was correct as to the strict rade, bet
the Honourable Gentleman (Mr. stanitY) bmA, she was
anxious that the document sitet4d bO before the House. It
the liencktable Getttteiltan said he would produce the let-
ter, of' courst ho would not put the question to the witness
about it. Was he to understand that the letter would
he produced.
Mr. E. J. STANLIV said I\ Was perfectly ready-, as
soon ZIP tin Right ilen. ilaronet had concluded; to state all
he knew, every ,e!irtninstauce in his knoviltdge, about the
matter. He would also read the letter he had written to
Col. Maberly.—(Cheerz.)
Sir J. GRA LtAisl said that as far as ho, wds Zoncerned it
was not tti intention on that da,F t tnake any motion on
this 'subject.—(Cries of " Oh.") Ail he sought wag 62 di-
cit the facts.—(chters from the Opposition.) fie had stated
on a former evening, on making the motion, that he thought
there were some facts which required explanation. They
must see the necessity for an explanation before they pro-
nounced their opinion, and before he could call upon the
House to pronounce an opinion it was absolutely necessary
that the facts should be known, and some grounds shown
for it. lie therefore submitted that the most satisfactory
course would be for the Hon. Gentleman at once to produce
the later. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Stafford-
shire (Sir J. Wrottesley) thought that the course of the
examination which he was pursuing was incorrect, but if the
House wished he was perfectly willing to proceed. Was
he to understand that the Hon. Member opposite (Mr.
Stanley) had given an assurance that the letter would be
produced ?
Mr. ROEBUCK said it was quite clear that all the
facts were out, except the letter. They bad one witness
who gave the history of the writ, of its going and coming
from the Lord Chancellor ; they had it traced to the Post-
offiee ; they had another witness who told them that he
received the writ, and that an express was sent.—(No, no.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said, that that was the very
point he wanted to get at, namely, that an express had been
dispatched.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. ROEBUCK said, they certainly had not the fact
of the express having been sent. If they had that they
would then have all the facts before them, except the letter.
—(A cry of " How do you know ?")
The witness having been recalled, the examination was
resumed by
Sir JAMES GRAHAM-,--Look at that paper (a paper
was handed to the witness) ; is it your handwriting 2—Yes.
Are you sure that the hour was actually stated on that
paper at which the writ was put into your hand ?—lt is
exact to a minute.
That is, half-past eight on the evening of Wednesday ?
—Yes.

Had the Glasgow mail left ?—Yes ;-it had left half an
hour before.
Had the other mails left ?—I believe so.
Are you certain that the Glasgow mail had left before
you signed the receipt ?—Yes, I am quite sure.
In consequence of the letter from Mr. Stanley, and the
receipt of the writ, what did you do ?—I sent the writ by
express.

Into whose hands did you entrust it ?—To a messenger
of the Post-office.
What is his name ?—I do not know his name.
Are you sure that he is a Post-office messenger ?—Yes,
I know him very well by sight.
Had you ever entrusted him on similar missions before ?
—I do not know.
What instructions did you give him ; were they written
or verbal ?—Verbal.
What were they ?—I told him to take the parcel in which
the writ was enclosed to a place in Holborn from whence
the horses started.
Did you see the parcel ?—Yes.
Was it open at the ends, with a cover ?—lt was rolled
up, with a direction upon it.
To whom was it directed ?—To the sheriff of the county
of Lanark.
Did you fold it up in another cover, and direct it ?—Yes.
To whom ?—To the Post-master at Glasgow.
What instructions did you give with respect to its con-
veyance ?—I directed that it should be taken by a messen-
ger on horseback to Barnet.
And how was it to be conveyed thence was to go
on all tke way by a horse express.
Was that your order ?—That is the customary order, on
such occasions.
I believe the Post office is willing to undertake to for-
ward expresses for individuals who may wish t• do so ;
but on such occasions, I believe, they require a lodgment
of money, to defray the expenses. Is that the case ?—Yes.

Without the lodgment of money for the expenses,
Post•osce would refuse to forward such expresses ?—Yes
In the present case, by whom was the money lodged ?-

We got no money at all.--(A laugh.)
Then, why did you depart from the accustomed prac•
tice, and forward the express without having the money
beforehand ?—Because expresses, on his Majesty's service,
always go free.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear!" from the
Opposition.)
In consequence of the letter from the Treasury which
accompanied this parcel you considered it to be on his Ma-
jesty's service ?—Yes.
And that was the reason why you, without requiring a
deposit of money, sent it in the way described l--Yes.
Election writs are always considered to be on the public
service ?—(Ministerial cheers.)
Have you on any former occasion sent election writs in
this way ?—Nover by express.—(Opposition cheers.)
If this is the first time that you have sent an election
writ in this way, how do you account for your former an-
swer, that such writs are alw..ys sent on his Majesty's ser-
vice ?—(No answer from the witness.)
Mr. ROEBUCK interposed ; but his voice was drowned
amidst cries of " Order, order," in the midst of which the
witness, at the desire of the Speaker, withdrew.
The Hos. MEMBER then said that it was almost unne-
cessary for the witness to withdraw, as he only interposed
for the purpose of having the answer to which the last
question referred read by the short-hand writer from his
notes.--(Hear, hear.)
The shorthand-writer then read the answer as above
given, that " election writs are always considered to be on
the public service."

Sir JAMES GRAHAM said he did not attach much
importance to the distinction in the words used and those
he quoted. If the House would refer to the former an-
swers of the witness they would see that he used the
words "his Majesty's service" in the ssme sense as he had
afterwards used the words " public service."
Mr. ROEBUCK said the witness bad made a general
observation in reference to the conveyance of parcels on
his Majesty's service, but in connection i‘ith the subject
of election writs the witness had used the words " public
service."

The witness was then recalled, and the question again
put to him.

-
Mr. ROEBUCK objected to the witness answering the
question until it was properly worded.
The question was then again read in the following form :
—" If this is the first time that you have sent writs of
election in this way, how do you account for your former
answer, that such writs are always considered to be on the
public service ?" Answer—Because they are always in
covers with " On his Majesty's service" printed on them.
-7( Laughter and Opposition cheers.)
Then we are to understand that the writ was sent by
you by express on his Majesty's service ?—Yes.
How will the expense appear in the public accounts ?
The witness hesitated in replying to this question, which lie
did not appear to understand the drift of, and at the order
of the Right Hon. Baronet it was struck out.
Did you make any advance of money to the messenger ?
r-No.

How are expresses on his Majesty's service paid for, and
by whom ?—By the Postmaster-General, I believe.
Such payments, then, are deducted from the gross amount
of the returns of the Post-office believe they are.
And the expense of this express will form part of such
deductions ?—I dare say it will.
Are you aware whether this writ was actually forwarded
to Glasgow by a horse express, or whether it was sent by
any other mode of conveyance, as a chaise and four, for in-
stance ?—Expresses are always sent on horseback.
Was that your order in this case ?—That is always un-
derstood to be the arrangement.
Then you merely ordered this writ to be conveyed by ex-
press to Glasgow ?—I ordered it to be conveyed by express.
You gave no other order than that it should be conveyed
by express by a man and horse ?—No.
If it happened that it was conveyed by a chaise and four,
such a proceeding was inconsistent with the order you gave ?
—I dare say it would do as well.—( A laugh.)
For anything you know to the contrary, might it not have
gone by a chaise and four ?—lt may have gone so.
By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Did it ever, to
your knowledge, happen before that a writ has been deli-
vered at the Past-office after the departure of the mails /
Never when I have been on duty.
Have they not been sometimes delivered in the evening
between seven and eight, before the mails departed ?
They have been delivered at different times of day.
Was not the messenger entrusted with the charge of this
parcel a person in the usual employ of the Post-office ?
He was.

13y Sir J. GRAHAM—Did the periou to whom you

gaiie the parcel go with it farther than Holborn? Did he
there rive it up to another, or did he leave London with.
it ?—He only went as far as Holborn with it.
Tile person whom it was then entrusted to you know
not ?—No,
By Mr. P.01.:B aliy cailie to the Post-
tjt ee in the course would it not have been sent in
the same manner you sent this ?—Yes.
By Sir J. GRAHAM—If anyoinidualllVA ‘'.,:dme to
you with the writ in oucoieil ant ;dined the money for
the„,exnet.',•e e':'ipress,_and ordered you to forward it
61asgow by express, and that you had had no letter
from the Treasure directing you to do AO, would i_you
have forwarded it by express in the wn.y yak diP;;-:=No,
certainly not:
WARIAtV asked a tinestioni a *Oll as the
reply to it., amidst the ennfinibti which reigned in the
Houto., was 0,14 inaudible.
By Mr. H. GRATTAN—Are you aware that the
Holyhead mail stops at the Angel, at Islington; till a iintit-
ter after eight ?—(Reply inaudible.)
Would not yotir messenger front the Post-office OVer-
Lace the Glasgow mail ?=--,That Wottld depend upon the
time it started
If the express messenger left the Post-office at half-past
eight, might it not overtake the mail before it reached Glas-
gow?—(Reply did not reach us.)
By Sir J. GRAHAM—Were not your orders that
you should express this parcel the whole way to Glasgow?
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL observed that they
would net stand upon technical objections to the course pur,
sued by the Right Hon. Baronet.
Sir J. GRAHAM—I have no technical knowledge.—
(Hear, hear.)
The question having been repeated to the witness, he re-
plied that the letter said that the writ should be expressed
if it were practicable.
By Sir J. GRAHAM—Did you give any order that if

the express overtook the mail dshould be given into the
custody of the guard?—No.
Under the order which you gave, then, you have no
doubt that it went by express the whole way P—No.
Did you receive from the postmaster at Glasgow any re-
turn as to the time it was received ?—Yes ; the way-bill
was returned by the next post.
Is that way-bill in existence ?—Yes, I have it here.
From that way-bill, does it appear that the writ was sent
by horse express, or otherwise ?—lt does not say, as far as
I can see, anything about a horse.—(The witness then read
the way-bill, which was to the following effect ;—" You are
hereby required to use the utmost diligence in the convey-
ance of this letter, and to require and demand of the post-
masters at the various stages through whose hands it passes
a receipt stating the precise time when it was received by
him ; and for this you shall answer at your peril ; and this
way-bill is to be returned by the postmaster at the place
where the letter is finally delivered, by the next post, in
order to acquaint the authorities at the Post-office in what
manner your riding has been performed.")
From that way-bill, at what hour does it appear that this
parcel was dispatched from London P—At 45 minutes past
8 p.m.
When did it reach Glasgow ?—At 20 minutes past S in
the evening of the 19th inst.
At what time would the tnail which left London on
Wednesday evening. in ordinary course arrive at Glasgow ?
two in the afternoon of the 19th inst.
Does it appear from that way-bill whether the express
took the straight and ordinary road to Glasgow, or whether
it went by Lanark ? Will you read the names of the last
five stages to Glasgow ?—(Witness did so, from which it
did not appear that the express went by the way of Lanark.)
Were you, at the time you forwarded this express, aware
of the existence of an Act of Parliament regulating the
mode of transmitting writs for the election of Members of
Parliament ?—Yes.
Had you ever read that Act ?—Yes.
Had you general instructions from the heads of the Post-
office to attend to such matters?—Yea.
Did you, on the following morning, inform any of your
superiors in the Post-office of what you had done ?—Yes,
I informed Colonel Maberly.
Did he approve of what you had done ? No. He
knew it was contrary to the Act of Parliament.
What did he say to you when you informed him of the
circumstance ? The witness was proceeding to answer the
question, when
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL interposed, and the
witness was ordered to withdraw.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he apprehended
that the observations of Colonel Maberlev could throw no
light upon this subject. Colonel Maberley's opinion could
go for nothing in this House. It was for the House to
form its own opinion whether the Act of Parliament had
been violated in the present case, and whether it had been
wilfully violated. The Right Hon. Baronet was, he appre-
hended, stretching his right of examination a little too far,
when he' inquired whether Colonel Maberly had approved
of the proceeding.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM intimated that he would not press
the question, and the witness was again called in
By the ATTORNEY-GENERAL—What is the or-
dinary rate at which Post-office expresses go ?—At about
she rate of seven miles an hour.
By Mr. T. GLADSTONE—Did you give any parti-
cular directions to expedite this express beyond the usual
speed, or were your orders the same as you generally give
in all such cases ?—I gave exactly the same orders as are
usually given in such cases.
By Mr. WEST—You re-addressed the parcel to the
post-master at Glasgow ?—Yes.
By whose authority ?—(Answer inaudible.)
Can you state whether the writ ever went to the town
of Lanark?—Witness intimated that he could not say.
Can you say whether it ever reached the hands of the
Sheriff of Lanark ?—Yes ; I have his receipt for it.
[The witness then read the receipt, which was signed by
James Watson, Sheriff-substitute of Lanark, and was to
the following effect :—" Received from the Postmaster of
Glasgow a writ for the election of a Member to serve in
Parliament for the city of Glasgow this 19th day of May,
at half-past 5 o'clock, p.m."]
Where was that receipt given ?—At Glasgow.
By Sir J. GRAHAM—What distance is Glasgow from
London ?—About 400 miles.
Is it not rather more than that ?—No, it is rather less.
The precise distance is 395 miles.
What is the usual average rate a horse express goes at
per hour ?—About seven miles an hour.
Then must not this particular express, which left London
at a quarter to nine on 'Wednesday the 17th, and reached
Glasgow at about five o'clock on the afternoon of Friday the
19th, have been conveyed at considerably beyond the usual
speed ?—Yes, it appears so.
Are you sure it was cal ried by a horse express, or do you
know anything to the contrary ?—1 don't know anything to
the contrary.
You don't know whether it was conveyed by a chaise and
four, or not ?—No.
Does the way-bill show whether it went by a chaise and
four ?—No.
Is there anything upon the face of the document which
shows whether it wont by a chaise and four, or otherwise ?
—(The witness cursorily read some passages from the way-
bill, in which the words " riding express" occurred.)
Is that the instruction usually marked upon such way.
bills, or is it specially incurred ?—lt is printed ; the words
are "riding express."
Does the entry at each particular stage show whether or
not the express was received and dispatched by a man and I
horse ?—No, it does not.

Who can inform us upon this point ? Can the messenger
who took the parcel to Holborn give any information on the
subject ?—The postmaster at each town is passed through
could supply the information requirad.
Can the messenger who took it from Holborn tell us ?
I don't know.

What is the name of that messenger ?—I don't know.
By Mr. MACLEAN—You arc understood to say that
when the Postmaster-General was absent it is your duty, on
one day in each week to wait for matters of this descrip-
tion, and if they arrived before the mail departed, to send
them by post ? Yes.
Have you ever received and forwarded any such writs on
former occasions ?—I have.
You never had any special directions on the subject of
them before P—No.

By Sir R. H. INGLIS—In the ordinary course of
business, if a writ were delivered at the Post-office after the
mails had left, would it not be kept back till the following
evening ; it would not have been sent off that same night
without some special order ?—No, it would not.
In point of fact it appears that twenty-four hours, or
nearly so, have been saved in the arrival of the writ in ques-
tion, in consequence of the ordinary custom having been de-
parted from ?—The witness was understood to acquiesce.
By Mr. H. GRATTAN—Why was it that the express
had not overtaken the mail ?—(Loud laughter, in which
the reply of the witness was drowned).
Is it possible that a man on horseback cannot overtake
a coach and four ?—The express startml three-quarters of
an hour after the mail.

At what rate do expresses generally go p—Seven miles
an hour.

By Sir JAMES GRAHAM—(The queotion was un-
derstood to refer to the person who delivered The writ and
the letter at the Post-office on Wednesday evening)—wit.
ness—l did not know his name.
Did you ever see him before? I don't recollect ever
seeing him.

How was ho introduced %—I was sitting in tho room,
and he walked in.—(A laugh.)
And what did he say to you %--He banded me) a letter
from Mr. Stanley.
To whom was that letter directed ?—To 'Colonel ma.
berly. .

Then how did you come to open it ?—He said. might

open it. Besides, the orders are that we are to spen letters
addressed to Colonel Maherly in his absence, unless they
are marked " private."
Then a person, whose name you did not know, and whom
0)0 had never 'nets teNre; tqld yO3 t till lit Open a letter.
tiddreiSed.to tolonel Mabetiy:. td ?1-;:itiriel tjf
" No, nO.") Did lie tell YOU yod Might obeli it
Hadyett 4riy.i.erbd dr Wittetl cdrafthnitatidti before; it
'Jiiir;j'ki 8f thit 6ii lhti ihje4 Bfdd alie6ied
writ ?—No.
Then the first communication you had on the subject, was
conveyed in the letter alluded to from Mr. Stanley ?—Yes.
Had you any further conversation on the subject with
the person who delivered this letter to you ?—I told him
it Was contrary to the Act-of Parliament to forward writs
by eipregs.
And what answer did the stranger make to you ?-1-Ie
said that he remembered cases in which writs had been for-
warded not by the regtilar course of post:
And upon the aiithority of this stranger; thena person
VrtiliSe yeti, did tilt litidW, and Adititii yfiti had never
seen before—you departed from the law laid down by the
Act of Parliament ?—I acted as I did upon the authority
of the letter from Mr. Stanley.
You then, being aware of the provisions of the Act of
Parliament in question, were guided in your departure from
them by Mr. Stanley's letter?—Yes,
By Mr. A. TREVOR (whose questions were inter=
rupted by strong manifestations of impatience): How long
have you been employed in the Post-office?—[Witness's
answer inaudible].
Did you ever hear, since you have been employed there,
of writs being received after the mails had departed ?—The
witness was understood to answer in the affirmative.
By the CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER—
How are clerks in waiting appointed ; arc they taken indif-
ferently, or are they otherwise selected ?—Tney are taken
by seniority.
Was it the regular course of your duty that you were in
attendance as clerk in waiting on the evening of the 17th
instant, or out of the usual course ?—lt was out of the
usual course of my duty. I
How came you to be there in that capacity ?—I changed
places'with another officer.
Was that upon a private arrangement between you and
your brother officer, or was it in compliance with an order
from the head of the department ?—lt was a private ar-
rangement between myself and the officer whose place I
supplied.
When was that arrangement entered into ?—The night
before.

Was that arrangement in any way connected with the
expectation of the arrival of this writ 2—No, not at all.
The witness was then ordered to withdraw ; and on the
motion of the ATTORNEY-GENERAL, the first wit-
ness was again called in.
First witness re-examined by the ATTORNEY-
GENERAL:—
How long have you been employed as a messenger to the
Great Seal ?—Ten years.
During that period you have frequently carried writs for
the election of Members of Parliament to receive the Great
Seal ?—Yes, I have.
Have you ever carried a writ for such purpose to or from
the present Lord Chancellor 7—Yes, I have.
I belie,;e the residence of the Lord Chancellor is in
Bruton-street ?—Yes, it is.
Can you tell us at what time you received the writ for
the Glasgow election to carry for the purpose of being
sealed ?—At five minutes past six on Wednesday, the 17th.
If you had found the Lord Chancellor at his town resi-
dence when you arrived there, would not the writ have re-
ceived the Great Seal in abundant time to be delivered at
the Post-office before eight o'clock that evening ?—Yes.
Were you on this occasion kept an extraordinary time
waiting for the seal of the writ ?---I was kept waiting some
short time.
How long were you kept ?—I cannot exactly say.
According to the common course, if no cause of delay
had occurred, would not the writ have been sealed, and
gone down the same evening to Glasgow by the mail 7—Yes.
Was it not because the Lord Chancellor was not at his
residence in Bruton-street, but at his country residence at
Wimbledon, at the time you sought him, that you were
prevented getting the writ sealed in time to deliver it at the
Post-office before eight o'clock ?—Yes.
Was not this and this alone the cause of the delay ?
Yes.

By Sir J. GRAHAM—What time does the Crown-
office usually open and close?—lt opens at three, and
closes at six.
Was there any departure from the usual hours and
course of business on the 17th inst. ?—Not any.
By Lord STANLEY—Did you take the writ direct, or
did you call anywhere on your way P—l took it direct,
without calling anywhere.—(Hear, hear.)
The witness was then ordered to withdraw.
Sir J. GRAHAM said that since the letter which had
accompanied the writ to the Post-office was about to be
produced, he should like before the witness withdrew to
call upon him to identify the letter as the one he had
carried.
Lord J. RUSSELL—Sir, the Right Hon. Baronet
can have an opportunity of identifying the letter if he
wishes to do so ; hut he seems, in the observation he has
just addressed to the House, to insinuate a reflection upon
--.—(Tremendous cheering from the Ministerial side
drowned the conclusion of the sentence.) The Right Hon.
Baronet, after having brought a charge against my Hon.
Friend of having sent down a writ so that it should
arrive too early, now seems to charge him with having
forged a sham letter to vindicate himself from that accu-
sation.—(Renewed cheering.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—I know not, Mr. Speaker, whether
there has been anything in my demeanour to justify the
insinuation of the Noble Lord—(Opposition cheers)—or
the tone and temper in which it was uttered —(Renewed
cheers.) But neither by the tone nor the temper, nor the
manner which the Noble Lord has thought fit to assume,
shall I be deterred from the execution of what I conceive
my public duty demands.—(Opposition cheers, ironically
repeated from the Ministerial side.) I did not mean any-
thing disrespectful to the Hon. Member in the remark which
I threw out ; but as we are now proceeding judicially, and
a witness tell you that he was aware of the Act of Parlia-
ment which he was about to violate, and that he did so vio-
late it under the directions of an officer in his Majesty's
Government, a Secretary of the Treasury, and when he
says that he received that letter from the hands of a
stranger, that the letter was addressed to Colonel Ma-
berly, but that upon being told by the stranger that he
was at liberty to open it, he did so, and that on reading it
he found it contained directions that a certain writ should
be expedited by express to Glasgow, I think it of impor-
tance that that the witness should have an opportunity of
recognizing the letter upon the authority of which he acted.
The witness stated that he received the letter from a man
whom he never saw before ; that in obedience to it he
acted in violation of an Act of Parliament ; and that he
gave the letter in the morning to Colonel Maberly, to
whom it was addressed. Now, if the witness had given
it to the Hon. Member, and not to Colonel Maberly, he
(Sir James Graham) should not have offered the least ex-
pression of desire to trace the authenticity of the docu-
ment further. But the letter having been handed by the
witness in the first place to Colonel Maberly, he thought
the Hon. Gentleman could not offer the least opposition,
when he produced the letter which lie had written, to the
witness's looking at it to see whether it was the same let-
ter as that which the stranger bad given him.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that undoubtedly
if the letter had been tendered by the witness, or by any
other person but an Hon. Member of the House, then the
Right Hon. Baronet might have bad some grounds for such
a proceeding as that which he now proposed. But he would
have the Right Hon. Baronet to recollect that his Hon.
Friend, in order to prevent any inconvenience which might
result from the singular departure from not only the or•
dinary course of judicial proceeding, but from the course
which common sense dictated in such inquiries, which
seemed to be about to be taken up, of inquiring into
the substance and tenor of a document which was in
existence, and which could best explain itself, came
forward and said that he had the letter in his pos-
session, and was ready to produce it.—(Hear, hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet had endeavoured to point out the pre-
cise grounds upon which he denied the authentication of
this letter in the present case. The Right Hon. Baronet
understood a fine distinction as well as any one—(lronical
cheers)—but was there any one who had heard his propo-
sal on whose mind any than the one impression had been
made by it ? He believed that by the rules of Parliamen-
tary law no evidence at the bar of the House, no docu-
ment put in there, was of greater validity as affected any-
thing relating to the privileges of Parliament, than a state-
ment made by an Hon. Member in the House, or a docu-
ment produced by him.—(Hear.) Now he wished the
House first to notice the distinction which had been made
by the Right Hon. Baronet by the question which he had
put. If the Right Hon. Gentleman did not show any dis-
position to depart from the ordinary rules of the House or
the usual line of courtesy which Members showed to one
another, how did he raise the point, and suggest the possi-
bility of a forged letter being transmitted to Colonel Mo-
berly ? Did not the very doubt thrown on the proceeding
lead to the supposition that there was a forged letter?—
(Hear.) What he wished to know was this—did the Right
don. Baronet believe that was a bona fide letter? Did-be
doubt that ? If he did not doubt the genuineness of the let-
ter for what purpose did he wish to have the letter 'pro-
duced at that particular moment in order that he might exa-
mine the witness as to the identity of the letter which bad been
sent to the Post-office ?—(Hear, hear.) If he doubted
the genuineness of the letter, then it was relevant for him
to move that it be produced in evidence ; but if he had no
doubt, why should he propose a course that could even in
,the least possible degree be derogatory to the privilege of

fjhat 11%-itise, and cast some doubt on the course of pro-
ceeding which they hid hitherto uniformly adOpted ?
Loud cheers,)
Mr. ROEBUCK thought the Right Hon. I:Let:net had
shown a small inconsistency in the course which he had
Ptlqkt.l with respect to the question before the house.Whoti h iitphint the 39hiect forward the other night, he
Said he twat indt;t4 In do it (in the undoubted authority
Of a letter Which he had rectii4 and When he was asked
fedAjbie iliS aiithb'rity on which he tibMit to bring
a charge, what was ,_t:,40,`,,0t "las a Afernt,er of
Parliament have stated that I have kei*ed such informii,
tion,"—(Hear.) And when the Secretary for Etta Trea-
sury got up and stated that he bad written a letter lo
Colonel Maberly,- and that he was ready to produce it,
the flight Honourable Baronet got up and threw a doubt
on the statement of the Honourable Gentleman, though
the other night he had appealed to the honour and word
of a Member of Parliament.—( Hear, hear.) The Right
lion. Baronet on that occasion considered that on his
Word and honour he ought to be believed, and claimed that
privilege to himself which he would now deny to another,
(Cheers.)
Sir JAMES GRAHAM cottld not concur in the kite
ment made by the Honourable Member. for Bath as to the
rules of the House. When he brought forward th' ques-
tion he stated, that on the undoubted authority of a letter,
he charged his Majesty's Government, or Boltriq person con-
nected with the Govetnment, with having committed a
breach of the privileges of Parliament. But the issue, it
would appear, has now changed; and he was put on
his trial,—(oh ! and hear, hear!) Was there not an
accusation made against him ? (Heat; heat; hear !)
The Honourable Member for Bath must kyle* there
was a natural distinction between the two cases. The other
evening he asked for an inquiry into the ea.le pursued by
his Majesty's Government, and stated, as a Member of
Parliament, that he had ample grounds for the inquiry ; but
when the House proceeded—when the subject matter of
inquiry was gone into, and the witness was questioned as to
the part which he bed taken in the proceedings—he an-
swered that he acted on a letter from the Secretary to the
Treasury, Now, he said it was the duty of the House to
trace the identity of that letter. If the Noble Lord, and
the other Members on the other side of the House, thought
the question could terminate satisfactorily without the iden-
tity of the letter being proved, let them say so ; but while
they did not say so, and while the House had to act in a
judicial capacity, he contended that the course which he
proposed was necessary. If the Secretary to the Treasury
would state that the letter was written by him, he should
consider the assertion of the Hon. Gentleman in his place
entirely satifactory. But what was the case ? The clerk
of the Post-office received a letter from a person not
known, and delivered that letter not to the Secretary of
the Treasury, but to Colonel Maberly, and all traces of it
were afterwards lost. He thought, therefore, that till
the letter was shown to the witness, they could not come
to a full conclusion as to the authority on which he had
acted.

Mr. E. J. STANLEY said he was not surprised at the
conduct of the Right Hon. Baronet. He (Mr. Stanley)
had been asked if he would read a copy of the letter which
he sent to Colonel Maberly. He stated gratuitously and
spontaneously that he Iva+ ready to do so ; and he must
therefore say that the conduct of the Right Hon. Bert.
was somewhat extraordinary, and that it was quite unusual
for one Member of Parliament to require another to ad-
duce some statement or evidence corroborative of his word.
—(Cheers.) It would be in the recollection of the House
that on a former occasion he was ready to say what he
knew on the subject, and would meet the charge of the
Right Honourable Baronet fairly.----(Hear, hear.) If he
did not do so on that occasion, he believed the House
would attribute it to the circumstance of his being taken by
surprise in the manner he was.—(Cheers.) He was taken
by surprise. He had had no communicat►on with a single
person on the subject, He had not had time himself to
consider even what answer he should give, or how any
answer that he should give might affect other persons ; and
he, therefore, asked the House if he had not a right to
complain of the mode in which the Right Honourable Ba-
ronet had introduced the question, and which prevented
him at the time from giving the fullest explanation. The
Right Honourable Baronet (continued the Hon. Mem-
ber) on Friday last spoke to me behind the chair, and ex-
pressed a wish that I should be in my place, as he had a
question to put to me. I asked what was the nature of the
question. The answer was " I will not tell you—you will
hear it when I rise."—(Loud and continued cheering from
the Ministerial benches.) I ask if there is another Mem-
ber in the House who would act in such a manner—in a
manner so contrary to the practice and courtesy of the
House ?—(Loud Cheers.) Even in ordinary matters, what-
ever may be the subject, it is usual to give notice that a
question will be put, the subject to which it relates, in
order that the Member to whom it is put may be pre-
pared with an answer.—( Hear, hear.) But I believe it is
quite unparalleled to put without notice a question affect-
ing, as this does, the personal conduct and personal cha-
racter of a Member of Parliament ; and going to the extent
of charging him with violating an Act of Parliament, in
trampling on the privileges of Members of that House, and
interfering with the freedom of election.—(Loud cheers.)
When charges so grave were brought, I ask is there ano-
ther Hon. Member who would have done so?—(Cheers.)
I do not believe that any other Member would have acted
in that way ; I do not believe there is one who would not
have given notice, in order that the Member questioned
might be prepared to answer to the appeal.—(Hear.) The
Right Hon. Baronet had indeed given as an excuse for not
having given notice, that the fact was so incredible that he
did not believe it had taken place ; and vet at the same
time the. Right Hon. Baronet had stated that the autho-
rity on which he acted was so undoubted that there could
be no question at all about it.—(Hear, hear.) I leave the
Right Hon. Baronet to reconcile these statements. I

leave it to the House to say what object he had in view
by taking any Member by surprise.—( Hear, bear, hear.) But
that is the courtesy which we may expect from the Right
' Hon. Baronet when he becomes the leader of that party
for whose favour he now bids so high, though he has assailed
their principles and their conduct for the last twenty
years. This is the courtesy one may expect from one who
is the eager volunteer in every forlorn hope against his
former Noble and Right Honourable Friends and Col-
leagues, and even his quondam associates and more hum-
ble supporters.—(Loud cheers.) I may have spoken
strongly, but after the provocation I have received 1 trust
the House will excuse me.—( Hear, hear.) But (said the
Hon. Member), after having made this observation, he would
come to the main subject, and state the facts as they
passed. He moved the new writ for Glasgow at four o'clock,
and in ordinary cases the writ ought to have gone that
evening by the ordinary post. He desired the Clerk of the
Crown to be in attendance, in order to forward the writ to
the Lord Chancellor, in Bruton-street, to have the great
seal affixed to it. The Lord Chancellor was not in Bruton-
street, and the writ was forwarded to him at Wimbledon.
After the writ came back he questioned a clerk of the
Treasury as to the practice, and his answer was, that in his
own recollection he had known writs to have been sent by
express. He produced an instance which had occurred in
1829, when a writ was forwarded by the Treasury to the
Post-office with directions that it should be forwarded by
express.—( Hear, hear.) Believing, therefore, that such
things had been done before, he had sent the following let-
ter to Colonel Maberly

" May 17, 1837.
" Dear Maberly—lt is of the greatest consequence that the
the writ for Glasgow should go by to-night's post, so that it it
should not arrive in time by the Glasgow mail, I should wish
it, if possible, to be forwarded by express to-night, and directed
to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire, at Glasgow.
" The delay has been occasioned by the Chancellor being
at Wimbledon; but I believe tho writ will be back in time, or
soon after.

" Yours ever, " E. J. STANLEY.
" Lieut.-Colonel Maberly, &c. &c. &c."
If the Right Hon. Baronet thought the words of the Act
of Parliament were liable to any other construction than
those he had put on them, he certainly was at liberty to
state these doubts. For his part he made no secret of
what he had done, and the clerk had no doubt that similar
instances had occurred. Shortly after the occurrence he
looked at the Act, and he thought it possible that the
words of that Act of Parliament would bear the c nstruc-
tion put on them by the Right Hon. Baronet ; hut he
would ask what was the object of that Act ? Was it not
to remove all causes of delay in the transmission of writs ?
If the Lord Chancellor had not been at Wimbledon the
writ would have gone in the usual way, and as it was it
arrived in Glasgow four hours after the mail on the evening
of the 19th, when the Sheriff of Lanarkshire had left the
town. The Sheriff, of course, did not execute the writ
till next day, by which time it would have arrived by course
of mail.—( Hear, hear.) So far no advantage had been
gained, and if he had erred, he erred on the authority of
those he considered were most competent to give informa-
tion as to the usual practice. But after all, though the
writ was sent by express, it went through the Post-
office ; and it might fairly be contended that a Post-office
express was as "such a post as the mail-coach itself.
It was as much a felony to stop an express as to rob
the mail. A post was a post, whether forwarded by the
Postmaster-General on horseback or in a coach—on foot
or in a steam-packet. If the Right Hon. Baronet thought
the words of the Act of Parliament were liable to any other
construction than those he had put on them, he certainly
was at liberty to state these doubts. For his part, he made
no secret of what he had done, and was unconscious that
any unjust course had been adopted. The writ, besides,
never went out of the hands of the proper officer—it was
carried by him to the Lord Chancellor, and, after it had
received the Great Seal, was carried by that officer to the
Postmaster-General, transmitted to the postmaster at Glas-
gow, and by him delivered to the Sheriff of Lanark. if he
had exceeded his duty, he trusted the House would believe

he was not aware of having acted irregularly, and that every
one would egret: with him, that in forwarding the writ by
express., instead of by
against the letter of the Act, and believed he %vas only c..iiir-
r7ing into effect the spirit of the Statute.—(Hear.) He
mail, he bad not offended knowinglf
believed he had stated fully all that had occurred, and be
would only add, in the course he had pursued, no on-
Ow
fair advantage had been taken by any party.—(Loud cheers.)
The Hon. Member then read the following extracts from
the Post-office express-book, relative to the writ sent by
express in 1829 ; and begged to leave his case in the hands
of the House :
Extract from Express-book, March 23, 3829'
On his Majesty's service.

" To Sandwich.
" A pae.ket for the Mayor, at 25 minutes to one, pm:,
(Signed) "G. WELCIIi
Sir ROBERT INGLIS said, that making every 3
,o-
unce for the manner in which the Hon. Member had ad,
dressed the House, he could not help thinking
friends had combined with him in withdrawing the attenn%
of the House from the real point at issue. It ought tonlive
resollected that they were sitting there judicially'. rt
Hon. IVl?mber continued to address the House for a 511.°0
lbsie, but the noise which prevailed prevented us heai' °
what he said. isIVRAL'
After a few tvorcls from the ATTORNEY-GE,'Th
Sir JAMES GRAHAM asked if the Hon. Gent'mad?
had any objection to put in a copy of the letter be had re tit
Mr. E. J. STANLEY said he had no objection l° P
in a copy. ulna'
Sir JAMES' GRAHAM then said that notwiths 11.4
that
.10
bug the observations which had been made respecting' win
political and his private character, lie would not be drinto
by any taunts from the Gentlemen opposite to enteir
say vindication of his conduct. That conduct was deo,
the public, and the public w( it'd adjudicate between th ft,
and decide whether lie .'as influenced by private feelings °_,e
low, mean, despicable character, or whether his motives vfe'o
pure, and would appear to that public as they aPPeareadtte
his heart and conscience. With respect to the 'l' gred
he would say that the Hon. Gentleman had answ-c to
candidly ; and that when he gave his private assu"l4ols
that House, or out of it, he was ready to believe ll'. oil
oh, and Hear, hear.) Was that the way that an 'tar
was to be met by Members opposite ? And
hers on the Treasury Bench seemed to enjoy it. Ai
that the way in which the House was to conduct a ill-cao
discussion ?--(Hear, hear, hear.) If the Hon. Gentlealer
had given the statement he had made on the former be
sion he would have given him credit for it ; but ifit'ttber
said was, an Act of Parliament had been violated. A°,°;se
Hon. Gentleman produced what he called a paral%Tie',e-s;
though it did not appear altogether parallel. 11°,",,1es
yet the Po'rsi
would say, his purpose would be answered if care wasZitiolt
such a course of proceeding should not occur again• men,
mischief would be the consequence if an Act of Parlity
was to be dispensed with by the Executive. The fse.e.
tive had in that instance been tied up within narrow hen
the
they were directed by the Act to transmit the writ to ;II
Postmaster or his deputy, to be sent by the mail, but 1°:,(10
express, by which means the writ might get into the "'-0
of thirty or forty post-boys between London and 0186„,";
thereby endangering its safe custody. He would aolr 11
a writ issued at the rising of the House, and sent truly'
express in the middle of the night, and so cotuPetila
might the electors
.be taken by surprise, that they vi°se
not have time to choose a proper candidate. lie 118-An
dICI
charged his duty before the House, and after the ea- his
explanation of the Hon. Member he would not carry
motion further.
Mr. E. J. STANLEY could assure the Right
Baronet, that if he had only communicated with bin'lirod
vately, he would have given the very explanation he -
given that evening. -
rder
On the motion of Sir JAMES GRAHAM the °
was then discharged.
Mr. BAINES wished to know if the Right fiCin. 136;
ronet would give up the authority on which he had °
the charge. „bet
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said if the Hon. Ne--eoe
brought a charge against him for violating an Act of fra-K1
liament, or infringing the privileges of the House, he °-
give it up, but not till then.
PUBLICATION OF PRINTED PAPERS'
Lord HO WICK rose to move resolutions foundePea
the Report of the Committee on the publication of Pti,Dte,
papers, and considered that motion had precedence, as It"
lated to the privileges of the House.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH denied that it was a g-tbe
tion of privilege, and thought his motion should hay°
precedenc.
Lord J. RUSSELL said that the question affected tilt:
privileges of the House, and it was necessary to come
some decision on the subject. erted
The SPEAKER said the subject was one which aeren..
a most important privilege of the House, and, in his cirl
nion, was entitled to have precedence of other business'
Sir W. MOLES WORTH was still of opinion that "
should be allowed to go on with his motion first. tier
The SPEAKER put it to the Hon. Baronet whet— t
question, exceedingly important to the House, should
be discussed, and whether it was not desirable to have 1"
opinion of the House on it without delay
Sir W. MOLESWORTH would give way, though he
still believed he had the right. „ore
Lord HO WICK proceeded—His object was to 'reds
certain resolutions founded on the report of the Comiu.';,‘
on the publication of printed papers, of which Comilfr',"
he had had the honour to be Chairman. To that C° d•
mittee had been referred the consideration of the procej.,"
ings at Nisi Prius in the case of Stockdale v. Hansard off,
others. Since the presentation of the report of that ,- ;
mittee a second action had been brought by the samor,ot
tics in the Court of King's Bench ; and it became exPe°l;e•
therefore, on the part of the House to take some eel' PO
liminary to that proceeding, in order that all doubt °I, be
subject might be set at rest. The Committee to which
had alluded reported it as their opinion, met
" That the power of publishing such of its reports, iyiss
and proceedings as it shall deem necessary or conducive t° 01
public interests, is an essential incident to the constitoti°oo
functions of Parliament, more especially of this House, As
representative portion of it : s
,
'.' That, by the law and privilege of Parliament, this ti°-the
has the sole and exclusive jurisdiction to determine urn all
existence and extent of its privileges, and that the instinino
or prosecution of any action, suit, or other proceeding, fbribtra
purpose of bringing them into discussion or decision he,b
any court or tribunal elsewhere than in Parliament, is 6 3-ca
breach of such privilege, and renders all parties cones emit
therein amenable to its just displeasure, and to the punislinie
consequent thereon : ,o 0
" That for any court or tribunal to assume to deciae uI of
matters of privilege inconsistent with the determinati,°°,, of
either House of Parliament thereon, is contrary to the o• of
Parliament, and is a breach and contempt of the privilege'
Parliament." LI use
Those resolutions he was about to propose that the Al 0.
should affirm. The Noble Lord proceeded, at consi°°ol
ble length, to recapitulate the various facts of the case'Ll-de
the law and practice of Parliament on the subjeet i°use
fiq
tion. It might be said that the privileges of the P,itlt
were liable to be abused. The same would hold goad "le
respect to the rights and privileges of any human instl,oo
tion or any human being. But if the House of C019°,1, it/
were to be denied the authority of declaring what wer,`"l,o
own privileges, the danger arising from liability to 0" ts
would not be escaped. The power of any other authoriil,
to which the right of controlling the exercise of time Priehj
leges of the House of Commons might be intrusted Woo
be liable to be abused. If that right were given to mini tiid
of the courts of law, what security was there that it to; of
tr
not be abused ? The proper appeal against the a hLudsool,
authority was not to a court of law or any other iu'ajo
but to public opinion. With reference to the Partic,,ie'
privilege now under consideration, it was the clear c°°,,eth
tion of
_the House and of the public, not only that its
by law and by usage that privilege existed, but titer"
existence was indispensable to the due discharge of the The
tions of the House of Commons as a legislative body. 000
question on which they were now called upon to pronOl b/
was not whether parliamentary papers should be s° „joss
Mr. Hansard or not, but whether the House of C°laviith
should or should not be excluded from communicat4 Tba
those whom they represented by means of the press.. h 110
Noble Lord concluded by moving the resolutions will°
had read in the course of his speech. er if
Sir R. INGLIS thought it would have been bettlao
the Noble Lord had postponed the discussion anti,. the
other opportunity. He could not look round and se7the
thin attendance of Members, without being conscious apse
little interest taken in the q wuestion, and that thely
had been taken by surprise upon it. He "
whether, supposing a judge disregarded the order ° ofer
date of the House, were they prepared to send a ofviimice
ger to seize the judge on the bench, to compel af°l%
with such order ? The house was an unfit haul "re- far
late upon any matter if they did not antielPili
diffe
a case. He bad contended that there was a br°°o"wo
rence between the House printing papers for its looa°
only, and printing for time use of other persons. Theo
.srbiall.
had the right, he had contended, to publish rep°rKe
bad
did not go to affect the character of individuals• shi6
distinctly endeavoured before the Committee to drritho it
se
line—that the House was not at liberty to PriDisras
papers, except for the use of its own Members.
..id be
libels sh°P 00'
necessary for the public advantage that 11 tart
Was it not,
at taw
published over the whole country ?
libel
of the evil to the individual libelled', notuallio
libel should be published over the country, sPiaieed ebb,
circulated at the public expense. When,
the
q' otos-
Honourable Member for Middlesex monledeoing tiled
tion of publishing parliamentary papers, and to that, enni
to the public, he (Sir R. Inglis)
had raid that if they printed them for prunt_,ve`d eione!
" No, no ! no profit")—well, then, if they receo'_seuid ei
for them—they might be said to be a great 1)0 6
objeCted crief