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

Mr. Poulter was then brought to the bar in custody of the
Sergeant-at- Arms.

The SPEAKER—Mr. Poulter, I have to acquaint you
that a complaint has been made to this House of a letter,
signed " J. S. Poulter," dated the Temple, April the 4th,
and addressed to " the Electors of the borough of Shaftes-
bury," containing matter highly reflecting on the Committee
of this House appointed by this House to try the merits of the
petition against the Shaftesbury election. That letter, pub-
lished in the Morning Chronicle newspaper of Friday, the 6th
of April, contains the following paragraphs :
" An unprincipled combination, to which I have been for
some time exposed, has been but too successful. A petition
which, under ordinary circumstances, and with a fair Commit-
tee, might probably have been found frivolous and vexatious,
has, by the effect of mere chance, been enabled to call to its
assistance the services of the most corrupt majority of a Com-
mittee that ever degraded the administration of justice, and the
name of the Commons of England. The consequence has
been, that I have ceased to be your representative in Parlia-
ment. The printing of the evidence by order of the House
will, I trust, exhibit to you and to the world the full particu-
lars of this most flagrant and wicked case.
" The conduct of a revising barrister of the name of Graves,
in neither giving the overseer of Stower Provost an entire day
for bringing in his list, nor adjourning (as it was his duty to
have done) in such a manner as to prevent even the most tri-
vial and technical objection being raised, was the first cause of
the monstrous injustice which has been inflicted upon rne.
The Committee having decided this point in my favour after
an elaborate and unanswerable argument, found.sd upon reason,
principle, and justice, as well as precedent, subsequently, on
the application of the prisoner's Counsel, re-opened the
matter, and ultimately reversed their own solemn decision.
The revising barrister, a man of long standing at the bar, and
of toe same politics with the majority of the Committee,
whose business it was to know the law and to act upon it, had
not the grace to inform the Committee, according to the fact,
that, having departed hastily, and before the conclusion of the
day, he felt it his duty to return, at the request of the over-
seer, to perform the Ministerial act of revising a list that was
totally unobjected to, but declared that he knew nothing,
and could say nothing, of the law, and begged the Com-
mittee to instruct him. The majority of the Committee,
whose ignorance upon the subject was second only to their
corruption, were thus enabled to put their decision upon the
shoulders of this gentleman.
" The next main feature was this—An overseer, a partisan
of my adversary, had caused by his sole evidence four votes to
be struck off from my poll on the ground of non-pay leant of
rates. On the fifth case his oath was contradicted by two re-
ceipts produced in his own hand writing; and I will venture
to say ti.at no Judge who ever sat in Westminster Hall would
have permitted a case to go to the jury for their consideration
upon the evidence of a man so exposed and contradicted. My
Counsel of course applied for the restoration of the votes.
The Committee refused to allow it. In this way my majority
was destroyed, and my seat as completely filched from me as
ever a purse was stolen from a person on the common high-
way. We then proved a case of treating so extensive and de-
e isive that if any one should desire to state the sort of evi-
dence by which such an allegation should be sustained, he
might be content to take as an example what was substantiated
before the Committee. Ample opportunity was afforded for
establishing this part of the case by the notorious fact that un-
limited treating was the only mode an entire stranger could
adopt of standing against one who did, and does at this mo-
ment, possess the affections and opinions of a large majority
of your constituency. This proof was also treated with the
same contempt as the rest of my just and righteous cause.
" I was unwilling to witness in person these disgraceful
scenes ; but I am assured that all the proceedings of a section
of the Committee were accompanied by such external and con-
vincing signs of partiality to my opponent, and prejudice
against myself, as to excite the disgust of even casual specta-
tors Do not suppose that the high-minded men who consti-
tute a large portion of what is called the Tory party can ap-
prove of these things ? I have reason to know that they regard
such criminal acts with the greatest disapprobation. It does
seem to me that I have been made the victim of a degree of
iniquity, compared with which the irregular acts of all former
Committees may fairly claim to stand excused.
" I never sat but upon one election Committee, and on that
occasion, under the strongest conviction of the truth, I did all
that a Judge properly could to deprive of his seat a Member
who invariably eat and voted on the same side of the House as
myself; and I must say that had I been sitting either as Chair-
man or as an ordinary member of an exclusively Whig Com-
mittee upon the case of any one of those gentlemen who have
acted so ruthless a part towards me, he would have received at
my hands the very fullest measure of law and justice which the
honest and uncorrupted mind can conceive.
" In conclusion I beg to offer my heartfelt thanks for the
uniform kindness and indulgence I have received at your
hands during the five years I have sat in Parliament as your
Representative, and I earnestly hope that my conduct during
that period has not deprived me of the friendship and esteem
of any one of those gentlemen who have upon all occasions so
kindly supported me. In the belief that I have not forfeited
the confidence reposed in me, I shall, upon the first opportu-
nity that arises, seek to regain the honour of which I have so
unjustifiably been deprived."
I have now to ask you whether you are the Mr. Poulter who
signed that letter ?—whether that letter is your composition ?
—and whether it was published by your desire and with your
knowledge?
Mr. Poulter answered—That the letter was written by me
—it is entirely mine ; and it was published by my sole and
exclusive authority, given for that purpose to the Morning
Chronicle newspaper.
A pause of a minute then ensued.
Mr. Poulter then said, if the House would permit him,
he wished ;to make some observations on his case.—( Hear,
hear.) He would ask the House as a matter of favour as well
as of justice not to deal with it in the ordinary and usual man-
ner of dealing with matters of the kind, and pray them to
grant that he might be ordered to attend at that bar at a future
day, by which time the whole evidence on which it rested
could be printed and laid upon their table. His constituents
believed that there had been formed a conspiracy either to
frighten him from the field or to ruin him by vexatious opposi-
tion ; and eircums'‘ances had proved that they were right. A
singular circumstance had come to his knowledge in confirma-
tion of the fact. The Hon. Member for Shaftesbury had said
to a friend—and he (Mr. Poulter) could prove it—that but
for the constitution of the Committee he would have abandoned
the case on the first day. —( Sensation.) The Committee had
come to its conclusion against him, not by one, two, or three
general votes, involving principles of constitutional law, but by
four or five discordant decisions, involving glaring and destruc-
tive contradictions and discrepancies, so that he had felt himself
bound to expose the proceeding as he had done in his address to
his constituents, to whom he had candidly stated the strong
grounds of his case, and the very peculiar manner in which
they had been taken front him.—(The Hon. Gentleman here
re-stated the allegations contained in the second and third
paragraphs of his address to the electors of Shaftesbury. )
The witnesses who were brought forward against him had not
denied that the most extensive treating was carried on within
the Statute; for, though they swore it was carried on after the
teste of the writ, they could not deny that it had been prac-
tised up to that moment, for the three or four previous days.
Certainly nobody ventured to accuse him of treating. He
begged to observe that he did not volunteer a personal attack
on the Committee ; on the contrary, he attributed to some of
them the possession of a high sense of justice. Had be, in the
first place, entertained any injurious suspicions respecting the
integrity of his Committee, he might have had the talented
Member for Buckingham on it ; ho might have enjoyed
the valuable assistance and enlightened aid of the Noble Lord
the Member for Buckinghamshire—(Laughter)—and, in ad-
dition, might have secured the impartial and innocent mind
of the Noble Lord the Member for Hertford.—(Laughter.)
The Committee certainly began right, but they went very
wrong ere they concluded. In conclusion, he begged to say
that if honourable and impartial men—and especially the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, and those
with whom he acted—found him guilty, after patiently perus-
ing the evidence, he should submit to any penalty, and utter
any apology the House might prescribe ; otherwise he should
still persevere in the opinion expressed in his letter. He
should, however, feel no hesitation in stating his conviction
that when justice flew from earth to resume her place in
heaven she did not leave the last traces of her steps in the
Shaftesbury Committee.—( Laughter. )
Mr. BL ACK STONE felt it his duty to move that the ex-
pressions contained in the said letter of Mr. Poulter, contain-
ing a charge of corruption against the members of a Com-
mittee of this House, in the discharge of their duty, is a false
and scandalous libel.

After a few words from Mr. HUME and Mr. BLACKSTONE,

Lord STANLEY said that the question was not whether
an Hon. Gentleman against whom a Committee of the House
had decided should be permitted to impugn the want of know-
ledge, erroneous judgment, and indiscretion displayed by that
Committee, but whether he is entitled with impunity to charge
its members with improper motives, in short, with wilful per-
jury and scandalous corruption ?—( Hear.) Before he sup-
ported the motion of the Hon. Member for Wallingford ho
should be glad that the House could take into its consideration
the suggestion on which the gentleman at the bar seemed in
the first part of his address almost prepared to act. Mr.
Poultcr's language, before he entered into the merits of his
case, was so nearly approaching to the wishes of the House,
that he anticipated little difficulty in arriving at the exact ad-
mission which they had a right to expect from him.—(Hear.)
Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN said that when Mr. Poulter appeals to
his political adversaries, and prays their attention to the cir-
cumstances of the evidence on which he founds his charges he
(Mr. O'Brien) for one could not be a party to condemning
him unheard. Neither ought the House to he a party to such
a decision without knowing further. To afford it this oppor-
tunity he would now move the adjournment of the debate to
this day month.
After a few words from Mr. D. W. Harvey, Mr. Villiers,
Lord Ebrington, Col. Wood, Mr. Mildmay, and Mr. Elliott,
Mr. C. W YNN was anxious that Mr. Poulter should havo
an opportunity of saying at the bar that he accused the com-
mittee of an erroneous decision and not of corrupt motives.
Mr. BLACKSTONE was willing to postpone his resolu-
tion, to have Mr. Poulter again called to the bar, and allowed
this opportunity of explaining.
After an observation from Lord J. RUSSELL,
Mr. Poulter was again called to the bar.
The SPEAKER was commanded by the House to put to
him (Mr. Poulter) some questions arising out of the statement
which he had made to the House, and he thought he should
but perform his duty by acquainting him with what appeared
to be the sense of the House upon the proceedings that had
taken place. The question which he had to put to him was,
if he were disposed to retract the charge of personal cor-
ruption in the conduct which the Committee had pursued,
and the language that his seat had been filched from him ?
Mr. Poulter said that he must continue to repeat that his
seat had been taken from him through political rr Itivcs ; but

he did not impute to the members of the Committee any cor-
ruption as to money, or any motive so base, but that Iris seat
had been taken from him for causes not founded in justice,
Mr. Poulter having withdrawn,
Mr. BLACKSTONE said that, in behalf of the Comm'
tee, he must declare that the retractation of Mr. Poulter ram
not satisfactory, and that he must press his resolution to ale
division.
Mr. LANGDALE said that the charge made by Mr
Poulter was made every day in the Newspapers against Con-
mittees and the House itself. " Fraser's Magazine" had ac
cused all Whig Committees of injustice, and that they tile"
served the deep disgust of all honourable men.
After an observation from Mr. MILDMAY,
Mr. HALL said that this was not an insulated case. The
" Monthly Law Magazine" had accused the MexborougYa
Committee, of which he formed one, of being the most cor
rupt tribunal that ever existed in the worst country in th&
vilest age.—( A laugh.) Why, he asked, was not this case,
brought forward ?
Lord WORSLEY said that the Standard had used
strong language in speaking of Mr. C. Buller's Bill oa con-
troverted elections.
Mr. BAINES thought Mr. Poulter had already sufficiently •
retracted the charge of corrupt motives.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished Mr. Poulter's answer to be:
read by the short-hand writer.
The short-hand writer here read Mr. Poulter's answer
given above to the question put to him by the Speaker.
Sir E. SUG DEN said that the observation he had made
to political bias was merely that it was difficult to get rid of
such bias in a Committee. This was different from ascribing
political motives.
Mr. O'CONNELL could see no difference between politi-
cal bias and political motives.
After a few words from Mr. BLACKSTONE in exp!a-
nation,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that if the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman were persisted in, he should feel it to be his duty to
move, as an amendment, the Order of the Day for the thir
reading of the Slavery Abolition Act Amendment Bill.
(Hear.)
Sir A. DALRYMPLE said that as far as he (Sir A.,
Dalrymple), understood the observations of Mr. Poulter the
evening, it appeared to him that he had only withdrawn hi
words so far as they related to the charge of "pecuniary" cor-
ruption.—( Hear.)
Mr. RICE thought that the Hon. and Gallant Gentleman
had not correctly understood what Mr. Poulter had stated, for
that gentleman had said that he did not mean to impute
" base or pecuniary" corruption to the Committee—(Hear)---
but that he attributed the loss of his seat to " political me-
tives."—( Hear.) He much wished that the House should
understand the real facts of the case before they came to a
division. No man could for a moment think that Mr. Poulter
ever meant to make a charge of pecuniary corruption against
the Committee.—( Hear.)
Sir A. DALRYMPLE considered that, according to his
construction of the English language the charge of corruption
still remained.—( Hear. )
Colonel SIBTHORP had no doubt that if Mr. Poulter
had been better advised—( Hear)—and left to his own feeling%
in this matter, that he would have pursued that course which
he (Col. Sibthorp) must say would have been a most honour-
able one on his part.—(Hear.)
Sir R. PEEL then rose and said—With respect to the
immediate question, as it regards Mr. Poulter himself, I can
only say that I have been actuated by a most anxious desire to
devise some means of bringing this matter to a termination
without the necessity of proceeding to extremities.—(Cheers.)
I certainly could not hear the appeal made at the bar by A
gentleman smarting under a severe disappointment and ss
sense of injustice, and witness the tone and temper of the
speech in which it was made, without feeling the great-
est reluctance to visit him with severity.—(Hear, hear.)
If I could even forget his conduct when in the House,
as a political opponent, his conduct here to-night would
induce me to take the most lenient course within my power'
But, I am not to be diverted by personal considerations front
that which I consider the course of my duty and of justice.---
(Hear, hear.) I look to the expressions used in the letter
itself. I look to the first charge made against the Committee
by Mr. Poulter, and I must own that I there find, not only
language of a very strong nature, but an accusation of cor-
ruption broadly alleged. The Noble Lord (John Russell)
says that he considers that letter intemperate and inexcusable ;
but I very much wish the Noble Lord had said so the other
night, instead of making use of expressions with regard to it
which, in my opinion, were eminently calculated to throes
difficulties in the way of a settlement of this question.
terms of that letter are such, that I think no language made
use of by the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin on a re-
cent occasion was more offensive in its nature, inasmuch as &
charge made against individual Members of a Committee is
necessarily more offensive than a general charge against El"'
tion Committees. And now comes the general question...abet:
Mr. Poulter made such a retractation as the House has reasonust
expect? I, for one, most sincerely wish that he had,
and
rather
confess that, were I in Mr. Poulter's situation, I wi°guhltdinir pos.ne
undergo such a penalty as the House of Commons In
than consent to have concessions attributed to
reality, I had not made. I doubt very much whether M
Poulter would like the House to say to him " You have come
very near to an apology—we shall go a little farther—a li.tl
nearer to the wind—and say that you have apologised."---
(Hear.) This I cannot but consider would be unfair towards
Mr. Poulter. I do, then, thiAlc. that the charge of corruption
still remains—for though Mr. Poulter disclaims the charge of
pecuniary corruption, yet he says that there still remained
political bias in the Committee which induced them to take
me which,
_le
the course which they did against him, and that that course
was not a just one---(Hear, hear)—so that there we have a
clear imputation against the Committee of judicial corruption.
Me. S. O'BRIEN then withdrew his amendment.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL rose and moved as an amend-
ment to the motion that the House pass to the Order of the
Day for the third reading of the Slavery Act Amendment
Bill.--(Hear, and cries of " Divide.)
Mr. PRA ED rose amidst noise which rendered him inau-
dible, to call the attention of the House to the fact that there
were two resolutions before it, one of which was the imputa-
tion aeainst the Committee.—(The other was perfectly
auto
owing to the impatience of the House to proceedin to
the Division.)
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and the 1100511
divided, when the nambers were—
Ayes
Noes
Majority against Lord J. Russell's
Amendment
The amendment having been negatived, the original motion
was then put, when
e
An HON. MEMBER (Mr. O'Connell, we believe) me eel,eat
as an amendment, the adjournment of the debate until that
day week.
On our re-admission to the gallery we found
Mr. HAWES on his legs seconding the amendment.
Mr. Sergeant WILDE could not see how it could be con
sidered a breach of privilege that a Committee not sitting
iun-
der the authority of the House should be accused of actin
from political motives.—( Hear, hear.) About twenty years
ago a case of murder was tried at the Old Bailey, whe,lll,o
libel was published against Mr. Justice Le Blanc. .f,
parties, however, were proceeded against by criminal
•
dictment—(Cries of " Hear, hear")—and tried and eons
victcd. In that case the Court itself never thought of illterdo
fering. Now, a doubt had been expressed by an Honourabibe
Gentleman opposite whether the offending party in tall
present instance was liable to a criminal prosecution. But el
who recollected the case of the King v. Williams, fora Iwe
on the Clergy of Durham, could not for a single moment Oa
tertain any such doubt.--(Hear.) The House was not called
upon to interfere, either on general principle, or with regar
to the circumstances of the particular case.—( Hear.) It, It;
peered to him that Mr. Poulter had not been fairly ocil-f,
with. Mr. Poulter had made use of two different words. L"-,
had begun by stating that he considered he had lost his gent
owing to political " motives," and afterwards he had attri-
buted such loss to political " causes."—(Hear, bear.) 146
came back to the bar of the House, with a motive, as it ‘44P:
peered, to do all that was expected of' him, and he (
Sergeant Wilde) would put it to the House, whether, after he
had said that he considered he had lost his seat from political
motives, they were disposed to interfere further in the Ma!:
ter ? (Hear.) He had spent the greater part of his life It
Westminster Hall, and he had constantly heard the questil
asked, " What is the consequence of this or that Committee ?
It was universally conceded that political bias operated up°°'
and produced, the decisions of Committees of that Hous„ei
This was a fact which no one denied ; but then it was I.',r
every man who said this would impute corrupt motives totnd,
members of those tribunals. Knowing Mr. Poulter as he d'
having gone the same circuit with him, he did not hesitate tic,
say that if Mr. Poulter had a friend at his elbow when
he wrote the letter in question, to point out the constructio,
which the language that he employed would bear, he was too
much of a gentleman, in mind and feeling, ever to have C°",,
descended to express himself as he had done towards the ggt
tlemen who composed this Committee.--( Hear, hear.) 'lie
what was the situation in which the House was now place
Why, they were discussing a matter relating to a/tribunal the
was at a discount.—( Hear, hear.) The House had come te
a resolution that Mr. Poulter had published a false and 5e711.,
dalons libel ; but could they do this in the face of what Najd
Poulter had said ? Now, what was it that Mr. Poulter
say? Why, ho did not say that he could prove by "ho
nesses, or by the declarations of any of the gentlemen woe
sat on that Committee, that their decision was bad or
just ; no, but he said that he would show the House that tto!
was in a situation to make out his case from the notes taken
of the evidence produced before the Committee.—(Hear.
There was scarcely a Member of the House who really kll
what the evidence contained, and therefore all that Mr. Peue
.t
ter asked of them was, " Hear, before you decide." Withou,
in
knowing what it was that made so strong an impression
Mr. Poulter's mind—without having ascertained whether
the view lie took of his own case he judged partially or imPaorn
tially—it was clear that no honourable man ought to
the question.---( Hear, hear.) He trusted that the 4
would understand what had fallen from his Learned r Iv7a,
in the milder sense, and that what he meant to impute •
that he had lost his seat from political and not from actual
justice. It was clear that Mr. Poulter could not have
alnl
to impute pecuniary corruption to the Committee ;
meant to say was that political considerations had
against him and that the evidence adduced ought to ba
had arrived, This was what he (Mr. Sergeant \Vlfird
to a very different conclusion from that at which the Co.M:,litX,
pool-
lieved his Learned Friend intended to say, that if
N .ou,ht,
ter gave this explanation as to his meaning the House b
cially
ded for a
as the division was 120 to 124. Could it be conten
as (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) thought, to receive it, (We
cl-
ing ? What respectability could these Comrnittee_eng,Tcracni
single moment that this result did not proceed from psart_s:nt
such a course, or could it be thought by the Hon.
itpevreatleedd

124
.....