The Sun.
London, England, 1836-03-30 00:00:00

to the Secretary of State for the Home Department any cor-
rupt motives; but he agreed with the Speaker that the charge
reade was one of a very grave nature, one which, as a Member
of Parliament, it was perfectly competent to the Hon. Baronet
to prefer, and one, indeed, which it was his duty to prefer, if
he had information to sustain it. The charge was, as he under-
a;ood 1!, thus—that the Noble Lord had exercised the discre-
ilyi ifi,iefecd in him as Secretary of State- for the Home
DerartiVg do officer peculia ly charged with the pure ad-
ministration of jusl'ces fur corrupt and party purposes, and
for the advancement of pets interests. The Hon. Mem-
ber distinctly charged the Nobie Lord with corl.:yti".
Now he would ask the Right Honourable ilafoeat was L"'
prepared to substantiate the charge, or would he Yetract
it He would wait for his answer.—( Hear, hear.) (The
Hon. Member paused, and Sir R. Vyvyan remained silent.]
The Hon. flacon& was, he perceived, silent. What feelings
must lie bare of justice? What inure he think of the opinion
of the country Wlrat must be his raytiarnt of character when
he could advance stieh iert accusation, and afterwards decline
to produce evidence of it ? 'What was the substance of his
allegation ? Why, that certain narriesii which were transmitted
to the Secretary of State were passed by and others substi-
tuted, and on this circumstance he thought fit to impute cor-
ruption to his Noble Friend while discharging a meit solemn
duty in the administration of justice, as if he had polluted
justice at its very source, for party purposes. What will the
Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir R. Peel) think of such an
act? Will the House bear such an attack as this, after the
author perseveres in his silence—silence that argues his inabi-
lity to substantiate the charge ?—( Cheers from the Ministerial
side.) Let the country after this know the Hon. Baronet's
sense of justice.
Mr. W YNN said, by the explanation which the Hon. Ba-
ronet gave of the words, and the fact that the Noble Lord was
not charged in his private capacity with any deviation from
purity of conduct, but he was charged in his public capacity
with certain improper acts, it was quite clear that the House
could not interfere, and that beyond that the explanation could
not be carried. The words could not be taken in a personal
sense.—(" Hear, bear," from the Opposition, and a laugh from
Mr. O'Connell.) This pacific view of the case might pro-
voke the risibility of the Member for Dublin, but he would
not be deterred by his jocularity from using his best endea-
vours to prevent consequences that the Hon. Member seemed
to treat so lightly.—(Cheers from the Opposition.)

Mr. O'CONICIELt —No one deserie'd less the censure of
the Right Hon. Gentleman, or cared less for it, than he did.
—(Cheers from the Ministerial side.) The fact was, he
laughed at an observation of an Hon. Member near him.—
(Oh, oh from the Opposition.) He ought to laugh at the
Right Hon. Gentleman, but he did not.—(Cheers from the
Ministerial side, and general confusion for some minutes. )

Mr. WYNN would take the observations of the Hon. Gen-
tleman, and the cheers of his followers, as a panegyric, and
he wished the Gentlemen opposite joy of their good opinion of
him.—( Cheers and laughter from the Opposition.) He (Mr.
Wynn) never was in the habit of exciting acrimonious feelings,
or using provoking and unwarrantable words ; and if he did,
he had no vow registered in Heaven as a shield under which
to sktlk from the consequences.—( Loud and protracted cheer-
ing from the Opposition.) Be the charge right or wrong, it
was brought against the Noble Lord in his capacity as a public
functionary. The statement he made was the only way of
supporting his charge. He thought the explanation of the
Hon. Member should be considered perfectly satisfactory. It
was not his intention evidently to impute bad motives to him
as a private man, and it was only on such grounds that the
question could be taken up personally. Considering all these
circumstances, he was fully of opinion that this part of the
question should be dropped.—( Cheers. )
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER would
beg to call the attention of the Hon. Baronet (Sir R.
Vyvyan) to a distinction that it was fair to draw. If the
words applied to a plain Member of Parliament in his indivi-
dual capacity, then they would be disorderly, and deserve to
be noticed. But when the applied to a Minister of the
Crown in his official capacity they were not personal ; and
the orders of the House were beside the question now at issue
between the Noble Lord and Hon. Baronet, for the charge
involved the character of the Ministers of the Crown. The
Hon. Baronet did scarcely state every thing that was satis-
faCtory in his preliminary explanation. If he contented him-
self with stating that the Noble Lord in these appointments
did his best for the interest of his party there could be no ob-
jection to that. The Right Hon. Baronet certainly was mainly
instrumental in keeping his party bound together, and by his
exertions he contributed to bind them to himself. He (Mr.
Rice) and those who sat beside him were at first delighted
with the explanation given; but when the Hon. Baronet
subjoined that he retracted nothing, then the charge assumed
a new aspect, for it then became a serious accusation against
g Minister of the Crown, imputing to him corruption.
How could his Noble Friend face his Sovereign, or the
country, or that House, if, without dealing with it personally,
he did not challenge the Hon. Gentleman to the proof, and
give the most unqualified contradiction to the charge?—
' ( Cheers from the Ministerial side.) He claimed for his Noble
Friend a right to deny Ole charge, though he did it not as a
personal one ; and he hoped the Hon. Baronet, for whom he
(Mr. S. Rice), entertained the highest respect, would con-
sider it fairly, in the general nattze of an imputation against
the Government, and either bring foiward proof, or honour-
ably retract it.—( Hear from the Miniateria side.) The Hon.
Baronet, he must say, overlooked the real features of the
Bristol case, on which the Noble Lord rested theexpressed
disinclination of Alderman Daniel to serve. This taPt was
given in evidence before the Committee of the Hous of
Commons. He hoped the Hou. Gentleman would see theo
was no foundation for the charge brought unjust the Noble
Lord in the case of Bristol. He only omitted six names, arid
he averred that he had no other alternative left than to pursue
the course he did. In the borough of Cambridge the number
of persons returned to the Home Office was greater than those
appointed ; many were necessarily rejected. Several Hon.
Members, the Member for Leicester, for instance, had com-
municated with the Noble Lord respecting the appointment
of magistrates, and they had no grounds of complaint against
his selections. If any grounds for complaint existed they did
not rest with the Government, .which was always open to re-
monstrance ; but with- Gentlemen who held them back and
came down to the House to publish them.—(Hear, hear, from
the Ministerial side, and Oh, oh, from the Opposition.) The
charge implied a political crime, not a personal one, and it
was a duty which a Minister owed to the King, to himself,
and country, to contradict it, and the Hon. Baronet was
equally bound to retract the charge if he could not substan-
tially prove it to be true. He was sure the Hon. Gentleman
would not object to the admission that the words were incon-
siderately used.
Lord SANDON said that the real question was an accu-
sation against a Minister of the Crown in his official capacity,
and it was the first time lie ever heard that a Member of Par-
liament who explained should be required to do more than
state the reasons for his bringing the charge.—(Cheers from
the Opposition.) If a gentleman charged a Minister with
an improper exercise of his power, and stated the grounds of
his accusation, it was bearing down the freedom and privi-
leges of Parliament to call on him to retract. What was the
charge of his Hon. Friend ? Why, that Government, in the
election to magisterial office, just did what their own partisans
said they ought to do. Their constant inculcation was, that
they should appoint men of their own party.—( Opposition
cheering.) Sir R. Vyvyan said he thought this a corrupt
practice. The supporters of Government said Government
ought to do so. The preference to their own partisans was
not a novel feature in the conduct of Gentlemen opposite ;
they said that Lord Grey and,others did so. The Gentlemen
opposite should not blow hot and cold at the same time ; let
it be distinctly stated and understood on what principle Go-
vernment patronage is to be exercised, whether partisanship,
or even justice and respect for character. Is political partia-
lity or fair dealing to be the rule of action—are they to be
guided by character, or their politics ?—( Renewed cheers
from the Opposition.) What could he expect from the con-
duct of the Government when it was found that they super-
seded the advice of the Lord Lieutenant ? Oh, but it was
urged that the magistrates were all Tory, because the Lords
Lieutenant arc Tory. Well, but if the magistrates are Tory,
what are the gentry from whom the magistrates should fitly
be selected ? Are not the majority of them Tory ?—(Loud
cheers from the Opposition.) An Honourable Member cried
" No." Ha (Lord Sandon) said " Yes," and that Gentle-
man's party knew it well.—(" Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")
The Edinburgh Review, and their other leading organs, ad-
mitted the fact with regret. The Noble Lord referred to
Liverpool. In the case of Liverpool, a high arid reluctant'
tribute was paid to the Conservative party there ; for when a
list of magistrates, all of one side of politics, the Ministerial
side, was sent up to Government, it was food so objectionable
that it was sent back with a demand for other and more re-
spectable names.—( Hear, hear.) If they grantea new Mu-
nicipal Corporations to Ireland. considering the disorgaL7ed
state of that country, what sort of magistrates, lie would ask,
could be expected from the new municipal bodies there ?
( Cheers.) It was somewhat peculiar that all the cases that
had been heard of the alteration of the lists had been in favour
of Whig politics. They had never in one case made an al-
teration asainst themselves. When the balance was on their
side they kept it, but when it was on the other it was altered.
He considered that the rejection or acceptation of a name or.
political grounds was decidedly corrupt. As to the talk about
impeachment, he thought it commenced from a desire to give
undue importance to the subject, and divert the attention of
the House and the country from the main feature in debate.
He did not expect to hear a lecture read to that House by the
Hon. and Learned Member for the Tower Hamlets on the
subject, who had never been particularly mealy-mouthed in
the choice of his language to political opponents.
Mr. C. WOOD thought the expression should be retracted.
Mr. T. DUNCOMIIE thought that when he first heard
that a charge was to be brought forward that the Noble Lord
had contravened some Act of Parliament, or been mixed up
with some dirt] work in the borough of Poole—(Laughter)—
but he found that there were no such enormity to be brought
against him, and that lie had been guilty of nothing but re-
fusing to appoint to the magistracy a superannuated old
Tory.—( Hear, hear.) If he might be allowed he would
take that opportunity of giving a word of advice to the
Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth. Ile had
said that, according as persons voted at an election, he should
judge them to be Whig. or Radical. Now, he would advise
the Right Hon. Baronet not to adopt any such standard, and
lie would instance as an illustration of its erroneous tendency
the case of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Knares-
borough. If he looked over the poll books he would find
that the constituents of the Hon. Member were four-fifths
Radicals, and that the principles the Hon. Member had ad-
vocated on the hustings were Radical, which caused his return
to that House.—( Hear.) With regard to the motion now
'before the House, lie thought it a most extraordinary one, and
could only have been brought forward as a sop to the old Cor-
porations. The Corporations may have said, " Why did you
not make a better fight for us? See what a fight they made
t the Hobs of Lords;" and by way of amends, and appeas-
-. I