The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-23 00:00:00

N, LONDON, SATUADAY, APRIL 23, 136.

oflired to sell the represerOtton, And the patties referred to hi-
dizinantly rejected the profligate proposition
. , " Oxford, May 12, lifift
debts and circumstances of the city of Oxford ,
ovinf been ialai6etepre aFoWil of the Co held by order of
weMayor,ll lotiday, the TRH of Mareff 'NW and iti Ten ap.
• •
pearing thae the city were indebted to their bond de iterj
in
the sum of 5,6701. exclusive of the annuities, benefactions,
and charities which arc paid by the city, and annually amount
o ,ibere thantheiiet rifecitne of
.their estates ; and
.as some
ti.crLtljdkßooeni tfa4e: Ohon't Consent of titre corrnok of this
citp lac'{
*fin ill&iiSelVO to ekpo'S'e the city to a person
iri
Loudon by Offering to clei;t irf:d Or. ng to be rer•Csen-
for,titis city in Parliathent, at the ne*l gonlirsti election, !
wi ftdyance four thousand pounds. •
;his dnubt the Mazni aMI Council th'ought exor-
bitant demand for the represetadtliAi 4'l their city, and..they
therefore went on to say, "The Mayor and totindji there-
fore, unanimously came to a resolution, in order to prevent all
opposition, animosity, and confusion, and to extricate them-
selves out of their present difficulties, to apply to you and
Sir Thomas Stapleton (in the first instance) for your imist-
once to disciharge the bond debts due from the city, by which
means they will be enabled to do justice to their creditors,
and, as they apprehend, preserve peace and unanimity in the
city. "—(Cheers.) " But if it should not be agreeable to Sir
Thomas to advance the money, the whole Council arc
determined to apply to some other persons in the comity
to do it, and if possible by that means to keep them,
selves from being sold to foreigners."—(Lond Cheers and
laughter.) " We, therefore, whose names are heretinder
written, have by order of the council taken the liberty of
troubling you with the above, and also with the enclosed state
of the city debts and income, and as we are directed by the
council to report your answer to them, so we must beg leave
to trouble you to send your answer to the mayor as soon as it
is agreeable to you, that he may call a council, and lay the
same before them." This letter was signed by Philip Ward,
Mayor, John Treacher, Thomas Munday, Thomas Wise,
John Nicholls, John Phillips, Isaac Lawrence, Richard Taw-
ney, Anthony Weston, and also by Thomas Robinson and
John Brown, bailiffs. In the postscript the writers said—
" P. S. The Corporation think themselves very much obliged
to you for your late generous benefaction to them, and are
sorry their necessities oblige them to trouble you with this
letter.—To the Hon. Robert Lee." This application was in
writing, and was accompanied by a document of the sums for
which the Corporation stood indebted, and certainly the do-
cument was more specific than that given in with respect to
the county of Carlow. The reply of the Hon. Members to
whom this application was made was such as did honour to the
writers, and would do honour to any Member of Parliament,
reformed or unreformed. The reply was dated 10th of July,

1766, as follows :
" Mr. Mayor and Gentlemen—We think it incumbent on
us to return you thanks for the preference you are generously
pleased to give us of purchasing your Corporation.—(Hear,
hear, and a laugh.) But as we never intend to sell you, so
we cannot afford the purchase. —( Cheers.) As it has been
always our determined resolution that, if we could not serve
our country, we would not be concerned in betraying it—
( Hear, hear.) While you remained independent we thought
it a peculiar honour to represent you, and had you continued
in that state, we should have been heartily and sincerely at
your service.

" ROBERT LEE.
" THOMAS STAPLETON."
It was unnecessary for him to detain the House by going
through the journal with a detail of the result. Those Hon.
Members who chose to inform themselves further in the
matter would find, at pages 583 and 597 of the journals of
that year, that the whole of the parties who signed the first
letter he had read were ordered to attend the House on the
Friday following, and were then committed to Newgate, as
being guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and
some days afterwards, on presenting a petition expressing
their sorrow for the offence, were brought up and discharged.
When in those unreforming and Tory times gentlemen of
England could be found to repudiate a foul bargain, that
was a violation of the spirit and letter of the constitutional
code of Great Britain—when they said that they would not
purchase a constituency because they would not sell them—
could it now, in these periods of our purgated legislation—in
this reign of a Whig Reforming Ministry, to whom trafficking
for a seat in Parliament was an abomination—could it, he
would say, be defended in these days ; and, oh shame I even
by a Minister of the Crown, himself the vaunted enemy of
election corruption and political jobbing—the Noble Lord, ay,
a Russell—that for a stranger to transfer the representation of
a whole county-to another stringer for a sum of money, was
no political offence ?—(Cheers.) He held another document,
which would clearly establish the fact that the Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. O'Connell) had solely in view to subjugate the whole
county to his own purpose; for one of the purposes to which
the money, after defraying the expenses of the election, was
to be to protect voters from the consequence of annoyance
from their landlords—that was, to create a fund for the poor
tenantry, out of which they might draw their rent and other
charges to be made upon them, so as to enable them to set
their landlords at defiance.—(Hear, hear.) His Hon. Friend
( Sergeant Wilde) said that if freedom of election was not to
be preserved, he would vote for the ballot. Was his Hon.
Friend really serious ? Did he think freedom of election con-
sisted in debauching the constituency of a country—in turning
tenant against landlord—in dissevering the common relations
that bound men together in life 2—( Hear, hear.) He ( Sir
F. Pollock) was no advocate for the ballot, but he would
really prefer it to the system of iniquitous proceedings 133
which elections now-a-days, especially elections on the libe-
ral aide, were attempted to bo oorrica.—( Loud cheers.) His
Honourable Friend must have forgotten his usual good
sense, when he could, even by implication, have advocated
such a system as this, one that was fraught with so much
danger to the freedom of election and the Constitution itself.
Some years ago there used occasionally appear such an adver-
tisement as this—" Wanted a seat in a certain Assembly, for
which the advertiser would advance 1,0001." The case was a
parallel one to the present. Mr. Raphael was the rich man
who advertised in the present case. He paid his money and
got his seat, which, however, he did not long enjoy. What,
he would ask, did Mr. Raphael represent its that House but
his own 2,0001. ? He did not represent the county of Carlow,
of which he had no knowledge, and with which he was unac-
quainted. For what virtue was Mr. Raphael recommended to
the county ? For no other than his money. There was a
fact connected with the whole subject to which he would revert,
that was the offer of the Baronetcy. It was amusing to hear
the tone of exultation in which this question of the Baronetcy
was referred to, when the Noble Lord with an air of presump-
tuous self-complacency, referred to this subject as a proof that,
because forsooth, Mr. Raphael did not obtain the Baronetcy,
the Government could not be said to be the slaves of Mr.
O'Connell, as he said they were represented to be. But he
would join issue with the Noble Lord, and as confidently ask
him—did Mr. O'Connell ask for the Baronetcy, and was he
refused ? Did he apply ; and, if he did, was he refused ?
( Hear, hear.) He (Sir F. Pollock) was anxious to give Mr.
O'Connell the full benefit of the acquittal of the Committee
so far as it went. But when it was said that a new question
as to an infraction of the privileges and rules of the House
were not to be mixed up before the House with the general
question, and that Mr. O'Connell's personal guilt or in.
nocence was the sole consideration, then he should utterly
dissent from that proposition.—( Hear, hear, hear.) The
question was now beyond the range of the Committee, and
it behoved the House to adopt some strong measure upon it.
No matter what might have been the feelings of the Committee,
circumscribed within the range of their real or imaginary
duty, the House should look further, and see whether the law
and the privileges of Parliament were not violated. Such im-
plicit faith should not be placed in the resolutions of a single
Committee as to deter any Member of that House from canvass-
ing afterwards either the justice of the decision or examining
the questions connected with the inquiry.—( Hear, hear.) For
his part having been an unwilling Member of the Committee,
the mere nominee of the House, without the power—or even
if he had the power or intention—of voting, he was from the
outset resolved to act with the utmost caution. He declined
to become a prosecutor, or to sum up evidence. But he was
not, nevertheless, an inattentive observer of the course of the
investigation, and of the facts directly and collaterally as-
sociated with it; and from what he knew about it, he
had not the remotest hesitation in declaring his full
conviction that in the resolution of the Committee the entire
facts of the case were not embraced ; that though Mr. O'Con-
nell might be guiltless of private corruption, yet the Commit.
tee could not be offended if the House went further, and exa-
mined how far his act was, in a constitutional point of view,
justifiable—( Hear, hear)—and if one party took a lenient and
almost a justifying view of Mr. O'Connell's conduct, he or
they could not be offended if others examined it more scrupu-
lously and rigidly. Giving Mr. O'Connell all the advantage
of his acquittal by the Committee, so far as that acquittal went,
he should protest against the doctrine of the Noble Lord oppo-
site.—( Loud cheers. )
Mr. WARD said notwithstanding the Learned Gentleman's
boast of declining to become a public prosecutor, he still in-
dustriously drew every unfavourable inference from the facts
laid before the Committee.—( Hear, hear.) He said that the
bills passed by Mr. O'Connell were accommodation bills ; but
by referring to the evidence of Mr. Vigors it would be found
that he considered them as good as cash, and that every
shilling of the money was forthcoming when he wanted it.
As for the letter, which the Hon. and Learned Member said
was a breach of privilege, that was a matter for the Committee
to consider, and, after the evidence, which had been carefully
gone into the Committee decided that it was not a breach of
privilege.—(" No.") He would thank Hon, Gentlemen who
cried " No," to point him out any part of the report which de-
nounced that letter as a breach of privilege. The Committee
were of opinion, under all the circumstances, that it was not
liable to any such censure. The Hon. Member then went on
at some length to defend the conduct of the Committee ; and
he maintained that, after so many gentlemen of different
parties and opposing sentiments had undertaken the invidious
and unpleasant duty of investigating into these transactions,
their report ought to be considered final. If the House did
not consider the resolution of such a Committee final he did
not see how the House could expect any Gentleman to sit on a
Committee in future.
Mr. LAW said, as far as the breach of privilege was con-
cerned that was proved by the very form of the report. ISo
far as the pecuniary charge against the Hon. and Learned
Member was concerned, no man was more ready to exonerate
the Hon. and Learned Member from it than he was; but •still
it remained a question in this case whether, the want of sur-
plus on this occasion relieved the parties from the guilt of im-
mediato appropriation. The setting apart a fund for the pur-
'
Pof iOdemnifyin,g those electors who voted for Mr. Ra-
phael" agail,zst. any demands which might be made upon them
for arrears of .rent appeared to him to be as complete a viola-
tion of the laws
of election and of the privileges of Parliament
.
bsl imagined. He did not believe that the
as could possibly
House would consent, to affirm the report of the Committee,
bargain that had been established.
in the face of the corrnp

He did not consider that in refdsing to do so there was any '
danger of inculpatiry, those Hon. Members who had been en- ,}
gaged in the intermediatee' inquiry. He wished to speak with
respect of the latio'urs of those Ilon. Members, but he consi-
dered he should fa shoji in his , public duty if he did not soy
that he thought their finding hifolritai and inconclusive.—
".0)1, oh," from the apposition.) The House
could nof afflYrn the,l'esolutions, of the Noble Lord without
acting contrary to flit!' idr,l 'f Patitiament.
Sir B. VERE was understedd ri`g a Member of the ,
Committee of Inquiry, that the Comniltit4l haid' so' strongly
the great importance of any opinion they exprc'..',T
given enrulmoasly, that it had been thought better, for de
sake of suOt unanimity, minor points should be conceded, so
long its they did not intolte any dereliction of principle. He
did then, iis he did now, entirely exonerate the Hon. and
Learned Meurer for from zany charge of pecuniary
cerruption, or even of by cling litho money for Iris advantage.
HA Considered the question one of most vital importance. He
should halvd )I en disposed to vote for the arrienthient of the
Noble Lord on tire side ; but •on reflection, rind after
hearing what the Noble Lord silid on- the subject, he felt that '
he could not do so consistently.—(fiedri ]Near. ) The Com-
mittee, it wo admitted on all hands, had pass'A i strong cen-
sure on the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, tott the
Noble Lord said it was no matter.—( Hear, hear.) He W 244
surprised at the manner,in which a subject so great and im-
portant as this one was allowed to be had .been treated by the
Noble Lord; and that the Noble Lord should have treated it
as n trivial and unimportant thing was what he could not corn-
prehend,--(Hear, hear.)
Mr. BANNERMAN was glad to perceive that the charac-
ter of thn ticia: and Learned Member for Dublin was exone •
rated from did charge of personal corruption by gentlemen of
all parties ; but lie WO sotry to see that many Hon. Members
desired to implicate him in 8 charge of breach of Parliamen-
tary law. When the Committee met it was proposed that the
specific charge made against tile Hon. and Learned Member
should be entered into. But the 140. and Learned Gentle-
man who conducted the case on the other sia. that he had had
no communication with Mr. Raphael, and that ho was not in-
structed to proceed with them. The Committee seemed Daz-
zled, but he (Mr. Bannerman) suggested that, as the sessional
order was read, as the foundation of the Hon. Member for
Bradford's allegation, it should be also made the basis of the
proceedings of the Committee. The suggestion was adopted,
and the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin was tried on

the charge of breach of privilege. 'On that trial the Committee
had reported, and their report was before the House. If they
had considered the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin
guilty of a breach of privilege, they would not have hesitated
to state it to the House, inasmuch as the question was not one
of party, but of right and justice.—( Hear.)
Sir J. Y. BULLER said that, as a member of the Com-
mittee, he had gone to the trial, he had heard the evidence,
and he fully concurred in the decision 'which had been come to.
He entirely acquitted the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin of everything like pecuniary corruption, and he be-
lieved a majority of the House did the same. With respect
to the question before the House, be felt bound to state that it
was not his intention to rote on it. Ile believed that the same
resolution was entertained by other Hon. Members who were
on the Committee.
Sir E. WILMOT considered that the Committee was on
its trial in some measure, and that he, as one of it, was calked
on to defend himself. It was well known that when he was
placed on the Committee his feelings were hostile to Mr.
O'Connell's political course, and he had made up his mind
that that Hon. and Learned Gentleman would extricate him-.
self from the accusation against him with great difficulty. He
( Sir E. Wilmot) had, however, on hearing the evidence, come
to the conclusion that there was nothing to convict the Hon.
and Learned Member of a legal or parliamentary crime.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY could not reconcile the claim to dis-
interested forbearance set up by the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber the late Attorney-General in regard to his mode of con-
ducting this case against the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin. What was the gist of his charges? They inculpated
kimself as well as the Committee. He said that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin was not examined on the subject
of the Baronetcy. The Hon. and Learned Member was ready
to be examined. Why did not the late Attorney-General not
examine him ? Surely it was no part of the duty of the Hon.
and Learned Sergeant who conducted the case on the opposite
side to do so. The Hon. Member then read the Sessional
Order of the House, for the purpose of showing that it was
upon the breach of privilege that the Hon. and Learned Mem-
ber for Dublin was tried by the Committee. He could not,
he confessed, understand the disinterested generosity of Hon.
Members opposite, who affirmed that the Hon. and Learned
Member had violated the Sessional Order and broken the Act
of Parliament, yet would not press for the penalty of 1,0001.
attached to the offence, or instruct his Majesty's Attorney-Ge-
neral to prosecute. Perhaps there was something sympathetic
of Newgate in their minds. The case stood thus. Looking
at the letter of Mr. O'Connell to Raphael and Pearson, it ap-
peared to him (Mr. Harvey) that if Raphael had been re-
turned for the county of Carlow without opposition a great
proportion of the 2,000/. in question would have been paid to
the credit of the Carlow Liberal Clnb. That was his opinion.
Hon. Members on the other side of the House might say the
Club was unconstitutional and the contract corrupt. In that
case what use was there of a Committee at all ? He (Mr.
Harvey) thought otherwise. He thought that the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin had a right to regret the re-
stricted terms of the resolution. He saw in the whole trans-
action only that which entitled the Hon. and Learned Member
for Dublin to praise rather than censure—particularly to the
praise of his own country. It was an effort to save the county
of Carlow from the domination of an oligarchy, such as that
which the House were so familiar with in the boroughs of
Queenborough and Hertford in England. What was the
course which the Hon. Member for Bradford called upon the
House to pursue ? He called on it to pronounce judgment, a
highly penal sentence, and yet up to that moment he (Mr.
Harvey) did not even know the terms of the indictment. The
House was asked by the Hon. Member for Bradford to affirm
two charges—first, that the Hon. and Learned Member for
Dublin had violated a sessional order ; the second, that he had
infringed the Act of Parliament. He wished to know in what
this alleged violation consisted ? Was it in the bare fact of
his having written a letter, or was it in the expenditure of the
money ? In adopting either view they would question the de-
cision of the Committee, already adopted by the House. No
determination they could now arrive at, pronounced by 200
individuals at each side, could possibly equal, in -calmness and
propriety, the sober decision already come to by their Com-
mittee. They were, in point of fact, trying the Hon. Mem-
ber a second time.
Mr. C. W. WYNN had heard with surprise that the Com-
mittee was on its trial, and that the House was precluded from
exercising its judgment on the evidence that Committee had
brought up. He was surprised to hear the assertion that it
had been intended to commit the whole case to that Com-
mittee as to a jury, whose opinion was to be conclusive, and
who were to apply the law of the case to the facts and pro-
nounce authoritatively thereupon. He most distinctly denied
that the House was precluded by the terms of the appointment
of that Committee from examining into the facts adduced in
evidence before it; and nothing was more common than that
the House should disagree with the Report of their Com-
mittees, even where they were unanimous, and appointed for
the purpose of arriving at a final determination. The most
important part of the question seemed to him to arise out of
that part of the agreement that Mr. Raphael should not pay
more than his legal expenses, and the House ought to determine
one way or other in respect to the considerations involved in
that understanding. He thought that the Oxford case, alluded
to by the Hon. and Learned Member for Huntingdon ( Sir F.
Pollock), was very much in point, and precisely similar to
the Carlow one touching this portion of the transaction. It
would scarcely, he thought, be contended that Mr. Raphael
was legally under any engagement to pay the debts of the un-
seated Member—( Hear)—or that it was a fair legal arrange-
ment to appropriate any portion of his contingent 1,0001. to
pay the expenses of the defence against the previous petition.
—( Hear.) That was precisely the point of the Oxford case,
and it was clear that to call on any Member to pay a certain
sum on his nomination must be considered a violation' of the
rules of the House. If the House wished to prevent such
practices in future, they must now record their decision, that
the present was a violation of their rules.—( Loud cries of
" Question," " Divide.")
Mr. GROTE said that it was very remarkable that while
every one on the opposite side of the House who spoke on the
subject of the Hon. Member for Bradford's motion had ex-
pressed their opinion that a gross breach of privilege had been
committed, they had also expressed their willingness to vote
for the previous question, and so get rid of the question alto-
"ether.—(No, no.) The motion of the Hon. Member for
Bradford showed an anxious disposition to abolish the good
effect of the unanimous Report of the Committee. That
would look very bad before the public, and singularly con-
trasted with his silence on the subjects of one or two Commit-
tees which were before the House last Session, namely, York
and Yarmoutli.—( Cheers.) If that House were to pronounce
a censure upon Mr. O'Connell now, after the acquittal by the
Committee, that censure would only tend to raise him still
higher in public opinion. He would be looked upon as a man
treated with injustice and oppression.
Sir J. GRAHAM had no predilection in favour of the re-
solutions of the Hon. Member for Bradford, but he had in
favour of the previous question, for which he was prepared to
vote. When this subject was originally brought before the
House, he had a strong opinion that there was evidence which
went far to bear out a charge of corruption against the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dublin. There was no doubt upon
his mind that this charge of personal corruption was the whole
gist of the case submitted to the Committee.—(Cheers.)
Since the Committee had made their Report he had carefully
read the whole of the evidence, and the result was that be
had come to three conclusions—First, that Mr. O'Connell
throughout acted as an agent, and not as a principal ; second,
that his being employed at all was not of his seeking ; and
thirdly, that in no part of the transaction did Mr. O'Connell
ever contemplate any benefit to himself, nor was it possible
that he could derive any.—( Cheers.) The Committee had,
therefore, most properly pronounced a decided and unequivocal
acquittal of Mr. O'Connell. Here, perhaps, the matter
ought to have rested ; but the Honourable Member for Brad-
ford would revive, the 49th Geo. 111. Now this Act, he
( Sir J. Graham) looked upon as one of very difficult con-
struction ; and he believed that no Court of law had ever yet
pronounced any judgment upon it. For himself, he confessed
that he was not very learned on such subjects ; indeed, so
little so, that he could not say that he had never himself vio-
lated this very Act. He should, therefore, be sorry to ex-
press an opinion how far it had or had not been violated by
others.—( Cheers.) Mr. O'Connell had been put upon his
trial before a tribunal worthy of the confidence of the House
and the country ; and if it had been shown, as it clearly was,
that he had hot been guilty of the major offence, he thought it
was going rather too far to say that he was to be tried again
for the minor offence.—( Cheering.) It might be asked why
after this was he prepared to vote for the resolutions of the

)

-----
--------
-.
1 ebet Is.,
Ivo. 'jell,
Honourable Member for Bradford.—(
His reason was this. The previous question was ,_ mod, et
well known and • understood by Parliamentdid 4
not wish t °
passing off any question which the Patio
the Noble
entertain. For this he was prepared to vote; .
dlow biln th'
Lord opposite (Lord J. Russell) would not _ . .1, ,st on at
opportunity of doing so.— leave
so.—( Cheers.) He wolulaele: insist ti
specific judgment of the House, and woult e
......,,,heers.)
matter to rest upon the decision of the Committe .t
et_`:bodyina,
and he t 'Sir
the Nuble Lord would not be satisfied withou 1' s
Ministeraia a
certain resolutions for the adoption of the House,:
compelled
J. Graham, being' thus pressed into a corner,
House,
those resit'
to' look into the evidence to enable him to judge d• ,be did,
laic,* of the Noble Lord.—( Cheers.) Taking!°, pe little
this view 64 ti•liig. subject, he confessed that it was witu
i !ht tsefere'
surprise that he tataird the Noble Lord opposite the n .11
lice the
and the Hon. Alemter for London for that night, Pr°Hoenuouratyle
question before the House it trumpery one.
transaction must be a pure one tlecause it was
thepebl' , , of
‘N nolo
bis (Sir J. Graham's) answer to the was, that
but
pr.cate
the transactions were never intended to
and Learned Sergeant ( Sargeant Wilde) badbsetate.det.hatlitalivve
there,
—(Cheers)—and the only•
wonder was the betrayal voere
which made them public.—(Cheers.) It lv:15
irruption log
was the corruption? He answered that the n" , of Car-
the sale of a county.--( Cheers. ) Was not the couatcat
span.
hawked about for sale as a damaged article, h 0 t
nv,ifine 0
lation, s7ith which nobody in Ireland would have a !. °No
do ? Mr. Latouche refused it—Alr. Wallace refused "t 0,, to
s VI a
one who knew it t;tould bid for it, until at last it wa i,
after
a sort of Dutch auction here in Engltind—an° rnaa
down to
great deal of mock bidding, sold and knocked .
hless person,
be public,,a,
of 1
who was described by the vendors as a most fait
at
regretting
with whom a man never yet had 'a bargain without imeinatile
it, in short, as the " most incomprehensible 11
he should have gladly concurred in the motion for ti.ecrse:dcd
vagabonds."—( Cheers and laughter.) As he bad aliree3_3_,Ylasiaouti;
question, rather than have gone again into this sub,J_ co,,,,it-
as he considered it ought to have been finally by titn,,ependene
tee. But the Hon. Member for Bradford was au .a q stiea
Member, and had a perfect right to bring forward yiey.
buer' baa
he thought proper. He was sure that Hon. 31 in, side of
never consulted any persons on his ( Sir J. Graham 114.05 t car-
iLe House.—( Ministerial cheers and laughter.) Li":
subject
tainly he ( Sir J. Graham) had heard nothing en t" „tad the
until after the Hon. Member had given his notice.,, have
Hon. Member for Bradford consulted birth
cidedly advised him against the coursg he bad
,1,30-0,1 be
voting
The Member for London observed, that
obtainable in 1111
sine periculo et sine timore. This might be nt
state it
Utopian state of society, but he feared in the Prese •d last
vilde) said he
was unattainable. The Learned Sergeant ( \\'- , to t
night that he would have vote by ballot in preferen %ea as
present system, unless accompanied by protection, P4,lernee
that afforded by the Carlow Club. Would the
support Gen. the
he shen!° ".,t5.
opposite support that proposition ? Would they cain°
Learned Sergeant's view, that unless Liberal candidat ._ fa,
forward and contributed large sums of money to assist
_lsl' tag
warding the objects of the Clubs in protecting frontYooter' the
would support rote by ballot ?—( Cries of " No, no, .. the
and the.b`'u deei:
Ministerial benches.) For his part, he should prefer e.Y..: 00
ballot, without this arrangement, to open voting with tlidect
question now wat, whether e Carlow Club,
of all other parties concerned, was to be justified bY '._ferre°
sion of that House. The Member for Londones'!_et to
to circumstances which occurred .last session, with r
cPr`mne,
other Committees. For his part, he lamented *or_ 'art of
stances, because he saw in them a disposition on tri%ctieu
the House to act with more than usual soveritY 5 otable
eases. This was manifest in their sending down 4,11,Par, hea"
gentleman in custody of a gaoler to Norwich.---(.aerPe
from the Opposition.) He disapproved of sucb notices'
then, and he would not concur in punishing rahluraigheick...
allowing wholesale trading in bribery to go WV"' t
(Cheers.) 50 10'4.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUP'neneit sake
if there was in this cp.se, as the Right Hon. should '-o
wholesale corruption and breach of privilege, why s the g•-
wish to give the inquiry into such important mattertbe Itb-
by, by voting for the previous question.—(Cheers fret% they
e
nisterial benches.) How was it possible to recenell ,cecil.
things ? This fallacy ran through the whole of .s
'trevioas
What was the inference to be drawn from voting theorrly thie,
question ? What would such a vote convey ? 1 too vet'
that the House of Commons was perfectly ready not oluyv 010 Y
0
look this case of alleged corruption, but even t 0 Pla CO
no opinion upon it, or upon the conduct °I. no P;
raittee appointed by themselves, whose condo alt 01e
son doubted, but yet whose decision was to a', 017,
and purposes called into question by the resoluti°ll-ce f(ea,,
Member for Bradford. It was said that the ComioittiorDer
not here upon their trial. But did not the Meinheratoth4
vonshire, did not the Member for Warwickshire,did n tie
_a e 4
members of the Committe declare that they considet het 11'
selves placed upon their trial by the motion of the coned 0..
t
Bradford ? Whatever might be the view of a roaPriti opirliP
House in affirming the resolutions would it not be the f Ceisti
of the people of England to-morrow that the H
_ °use ale, lc
mans had exposed themselves to a charge ohscar to ',
the Committee to a charge of partiality, by selt„lsilte resod
previous question ? They were not called upon lq bet.
lutions of his Noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) to gtetbc eit
the finding of the Committee. It was insinuated !hag the sdai
ject was to entrap the House into an approval 01 $ 08 Ito
cumstances connected with the Carlow election..l4 pint
congratulate the Member for Bradford on the Cutthter.) he
of the course pursued by him.—(Cheers and bu" port
.„.
was a singular proof of his consistency, and of the strotise'f-or
received from his friends on the other side of the, „ober
go
(Hear, hear.) When they were told that the the,
as :re
Bradford acted upon his own responsibility, atra ulietro
independent Member of Parliament, he must usZin t, f,,,
they should a second time have heard of this su'rtche vi;
did not refer to an individual who gave his suPP°rt „te Get :
vernment ?--( Cheers from the Opposition.) 13%hat tA.",,,0
men opposite might cheer, but this he would sali_ii;seat ",;1,1
was no occasion on which he did not express hirthe : a
that individual when he thought him wrong ; uti,.) ogawto
never hesitate to defend him, or any other individtu and 0:0
charge which he believed was originally get 11P' o°lo
brought forward a second time, for no other reasit tass!„,
being a strenuous supporter of the Government. 1 charraid
effect, now brought forward again as a persenaliaree.gt
sO,,
(" No," from the Opposition.) The Right Hoti• the luir
not state correctly what fell from his Hon. Friend, at be -c1
ber for London. What his Hon. Friend said was °libel °lrs
proved of the conduct of clubs, not as aiding in brine Oteerp
corruption, but in the justifiable sense of prate The ild
against oppression.—(1-fear, from Mr. Law.)
__A „5 ab,,rena-
Member for Bradford brozight the question forwaru 'die '',7o(
of privilege, and in that si:ape it was referred Ifetobe'ar
mitten. The tendency of tho motion of the Ho 0.00
Bradford was to bring the question again into discuss: coati ao
fore the House, and to take "won themselves theoo,se,,c,
which they had delegated to the Committee. T,_ll;° trial ,'",,,a•
trusted, would not be so unjust ila to put upon I ton. eto
cond time a party who bad been aLready tried au
atri Wfrbe
—per(fCeehtelyerasa.
t)isfieHdewbitehlietah-eedfiathdeingHooasf.eolacndcothtneoleiOeee c'oli:
House ought to be cautious how they ap,nointed their dee
~,,e to a ,sitY,
mittees, but, once appointed, and once ham"' cc).- neee'
sion, that decision, except in cases of overwOming 0 pi,
ought to be conclusive.—( Hear, hear.) „ end , 5 of
Sir R. PEEL rose amidst cries of " Question,
pith ale , I
iht,
vide," from the Ministerial benches, and cheers, iab '',4
uponsei ti
atgh emyself questionfro nmo
the
eb before
House.
.
" Hear," from the Opposition.—l certainly & Wit to
air
could have felt it consistent with my public duty tOO% 50 015 if)
Tlhmerieghatreh, alivoewcie.';:cer; the :tile'
which a Member cannot absent himself. I cons' tiding co'
course here to be to strike a balance between conteo this° feet
culties. It is my wish and my intention to act dr ther ',JD!
sion in a judicial capacity. Before proceeding. fLu. ropos
~.
myself bound to say that I am no party to them ot.ionPsowtiol2
the Hon. Member for Bradford. I never saw his
this floes.,„het
knew nothing of them till I heard them read in tn.on. Ate-
for Dublin. hiseurbsii).. 1 ami desirouskne%N.
not to o
fd strictothe p justiceroeeed l
r,
~,rl,tilii
ice._
dui ...
0, a 5) idoneepo
sot;
contemplation of the Hon. Member for Bradf°l obsecl what
took place upon his motion. A proposition wag to de' A"Ci
made, which, if agreed to, would have enabled info 00-.60
I considered it my duty to do, as regarded ti't ace' for
Learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin. 1.11,,a,, rinOtileel
was to adopt either the original resolution or
question,t"-n al-
the question. And by whom had the previous p 01
moved ? Was it by a Gentleman who could be si,4°ol). ft the
different to the character of the Committee??, Ngel,l,' I3S
moved by no less a person than the Alemb leirided Pittee'
Chairman of that Committee, and was seeh°o coluelobt'
Noble Friend, also a distinguished membe rods, t as I thie car
The proposition of the Hon. Gentleman lead, as alob,li
seconded by my Noble Friend, and thus w° lof nIY that '0
ceived, the testimony of the Chairman an` littee--!, Deco
Friend—two 'eminent members of the (%0 Bare hart wit,
their opinion, at least, that course would net, °c-005ist!,b1 sclie
reconcileable with the principles of justice awl niitY wl` det)..j
the feelings of the House, but in perfect confor. oublicoepte 1
they considered as a due performance of the,lrec:;nitera froti
Why the motion for the previous question bastu,nis ari.,e eV:
I am at a loss to cmajecture ; but I supposee, `_,,„nsibte! iil
some deliberate suggestion of the Noble L rUo/rd tqed that
advising the present course to be taken, Pre'netioe. Itild "10,„,
Gentleman from fulfilling his original int: Lord el° t if se't
motion been made and seconded, the Noblo, ,inn ; D:'ia err
have been able to bring forward his res
_luil'ire) wa- toot to
Noble Friend (the Member for South Lanets ought beews 1:,
in the line of conduct which he pursuer°
an err a 05°,
have been told that he was acting ti de ~o nrigil.l,l-nraleca,
pression, arid allowed, if be thought proper!, iiiee, %vita%
_to 0
lifted( Cheers. ) Sir, I must say bataidevotiai co
ii:ta DeDeer
H disapprobation the disclosure of eo u lad if ''' Afeln,ess
allowed to give the go-by to the
tions, and therefore I should have beeu gd Lorne boil
ii,
other eirau:(ss
1-I°n. en" the
for Bradford's motion by passion- 01'
before us, and thereby ~,. the , ;"" pile ~vl2O
stances, the only proper way 'of That wow" bat ''' hy
under '.ll „iitboctioo been
proposing the previousjrnPqiYuiens'tio7nh.at'
the No use' ail,' die
satisfactory to the Committee and to ,a has spini„to
has the Noble Lord done ? Whye",,
rail c to g°ositio,lo3oo
the course which he has taken, fore
.fifferent Prlsciog li lif
consideration of another and a very u
_,,,a• nce in aeclultribueB die
( Cheers.) Sir, there is a great utaerF of th t Re- do
adjudication and adopting the verdict, . wuato yo.,u sie
whom that adjudication has been dictate ,1 vo.oo
Noble Lord, do ? Why, he says, ,
~,,n curb utoLco` jecisiva
precise, the express' terms of the deei.n-i„to t°relP ~51
nto ul'.ownts I°' tiro
to come. I require you not onlythe ,enti f that
to 1
t
of the Committee, but to adopt, no :nation o .ii,,, ~0,0
in,,alu,,cv Al
the precise words in which the deterrninerfoetl)., wile
tf,‘, ti,o.bc
P • .ina 0' t rie.hi
is conveyed."—( Hear, bear.) I lithe deer' Ju' d
has a Ile 13
Mr. O'Connell the full benefit o.
that Ile
ith him ere. „ 1 tit 4.,
mittee, and I entirely agree w
not only to refer to but to stand,.t.tp_
_oech, ref; be tie r
deny t" 4t
more than once, in the course of Ins 'l' h
t mean t°
on the report," and I do no
on that r , at, 5::