The Sun.
London, England, 1847-06-08 00:00:00

1 E S UN, L ONDO

nuns before the Committee were appointed. It was a
standing order of the House that no party interested in
Bill should be appointed as a member of a
Committee on that Bill. Now, here was Mr. W Stanley, I
Whwasdeeply interested on the subject of this Bill—
Wuy should he be appoirted on the Committee ? He I
regarded this Bill as a public measure, and,
ththeerefore, be treated it as such ; and he thought that I
rules of the House should nut be set aside on this
ease' Re would therefore move that Mr. Stinky be
not appointed on the Committee.
'41.• W. 0. STANLEY said he had no wish what-
ever to be appointed on the Committee.
The motion for the appointment of Mr. Stanley was
agrxrd to.
be-'r. WILLIAMS proposed that five Members should
th chosen by the Committee of Selection and added to
`-' .
eCommittee. He did not think that he was out of
order in making such a motion.
e motion was then agreed to.
ABOLITION OF TRANSPO itTATION.
'"'• KELLY wished to know whether in abolishing
transportation, periods of imprisonment,
be compulsory la-
th:l"nd exile, were to be substituted equivalent to
axed sentence of transportation now passed; or
Whether, it was to be left to the option of the Executive
Government, according to the circumstances of the case?
Sir G. GREY said that he had already stated the
elourse to be taken in his observations the other evening.
maximum and minimum of the imprisonment would
such
depend uon the good conduct and industry of
th p
e convict. The Act of Deportation would take place
a later period, but the plan subsequently adopted
Would be the same as that laid down by Lord Stanley.
THE CORN AND NAVIGATION LAWS.
Lord ti• RUSSELL rose and said—Sir, I beg to give
llntice that I will to-morrow move for leave to introduce
a Bill
to to extend the period of the suspension of the duties
the importation of foreign corn. I shall also move
or leave to introduce a Bill to continue for a limited
Period the suspension of the Navigation Laws.
RAILWAY BILLS OF THIS SESSION.
iThe CRANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said as
f
was exceedingly desirable that no time should be lost
"1
oproceeding with the resolutions of the Committee
With
„ respect to these Bills, be begged to propose that the
vw.,
at.ration of them should be proceeded with before
the
other orders of the day on Wednesday next.
Sir , AFFAIRS OF PORTUGAL.
". PEEL wished to know when the papers with
wretstlect to Portugal would be presented to the House. It
Access
Yt
ary that they should be presented without dei
hj as the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hume) had expresse,
itl_tiowillingness to postpone his motion. Certainly
zas most important that no time should be lost.
tary.°rid J. RUSSELL said his Noble Friend the Secre-
_ -or Foreign Affairs had stated to him that the
Papers
could would be presented to-night, but the
.printer
Illipoh,11„." have a sufficient number of papers printed to
-Lo—r'd",oo. Members before to-morrow.
Nehi kz• BENTINCK wished to ask a question of the
pre fleets of different. nations were engaged, tawas the
the
that the superior officer should command. In
olletase of the French fleet taking part in the operations
the -peoast of Portugal, he wished to know whether
*-rillee de Joinville, being Lord High Admiral of
and England
should command the combined fleets of France
Crngland ?—(Laughter.)
that rd J. RUSSELL—No arangement has been made
tati(2Lata. avvare of to put the forces of the different
tieoin ln question under the command of any one par-
to sr officer. On the contrary, orders have been given
the 1, W. Parker not to take the conjoint command of
d b rench or Spanish naval forces; though I have no
1ai():1...,t that great respect will be paid by these forces to
wivieo and opinions in case of any operation. With
h-egN to the Prince de Joinville, I have not heard that
aticr about to proceed to the coasts of Spain or Portugal,
therefore, there can as vet be no question about his
'IV the command of the combined forces.
tentir• ELLICE wished to know whether it was the in-
j;°n °f the Chairman of the Railway Board to bring
Ai? R.ailway Bill this night ?
Ii)iQISTRUTT was understood to say that it was not
ts.3' to be brought forward, in consequence of other
uless which had precedence.
L ELECTIONS IN IRELAND.
that ABOUCHERE, in reply to a question, stated
rece.the subject of polling at elections in Ireland had
Ireilved the attention of Government. In counties in
du ard it would be extremely difficult to shorten the
difficult
of the term for polling, as it was extremely
otut
r that appoint a sufficient number of polling places
the purpose. He regretted that it had not been in
,orue Power of her Majesty's Government to introduce
enaio measure to the House on this subject, which would
view'e Hon- Members to consider the subject, with a
to to th ,
whole reconstruction of the electoral system
case With With regard to the boroughs in Ireland the
to in was different, and he did not despair of being able
"
nc troduce a Bill to shorten the duration of the polling,
lE:lnih he thought could be so framed as to meet the
eti°4 of both sides of the House.

Sir TIME OF IMPRISONMENT.
Right tr-rITZROY KELLY said he begged to ask the
\Psi; • 'lon. Gentleman (Sir George Grey) whether it
periodtended to specify the maximum and minimum
sir Imprisonment.
uEORGE GREY said that he had already
Itatea,t
eon the House that the subject had been taken into
siueration. It was intended (as we understood the
Art on
who was most indistinct), that the int-
rr4(lntitent should have reference to the term of tran•
SPOrtation.

EMIGRATION.
The Earl -.3f LINCOLN rose for the purpose of making
gin explanation relative to what had been stated a few
evenlngs ago, that he (Lord Lincoln) intended to bring
forward the plan for emigration which had been pro-
posed by Mr. Godley. It had been asserted that the
deputation had stated to the Government that they had
authority to say that he (Lord Lincoln) should bring
forward Mr. Godley's scheme before the House. Now,
as that assertion was obviously intended to apply that
he was to bring forward his motion in a hostile form,
and that he intended taking advantage of the Govern-
ment as far as lay in his power, he begged to give that
assertion his most determined denial. lie had stated
explicitly to Mr. Godley, and the other gentlemen who
were with him, the form of his motion, and the mode in
rhioh he intended to bring that question forward. He
ad never for an instant deviated from that form, and if
de
gentlemen were deceived, it was their own fault.
'le had told them each and all what he had intended to
II?' With reference to Mr. Godley he held a letter from
in which he expressed his regret that such state-
-"ants should have gone abroad. He regretted the
!natter the more that Mr. Godley, who anxiously desired
hbenefit his kind, who was sincerely desirous of serving
,:14 country, should have also been subjected to the
W:tY,tlippancies of anonymous writers. Unfortunately
Noble Friend the Member for Dorsetshire was not
substantiate
but perhaps the Hon. Member for Kerry would
"ustantiate the accuracy of his statements.
NMI.* ll MORGAN O'CONNELL said that as far as his
_ coection extended Mr. Godley had carried the in-
rtions of the Noble Lord o effect. The fact was,
t two subjects were started when the deputation went
to
0_ the Treasury. Two subjects were laid before the
01'vernrnent, one was Mr. Godley's scheme, and the
te! was the Government's consent to such an inquiry
the Noble Lord proposed the other night. The Go-
Gnment did not consent to this inquiry, and Mr.
Y said he was authorised by the Noble Lord oppo-
li to say, that he would bring the matter before the
cuse He (Mr. M. J. O'Connell) understood by that
that he should forward the general subject of colonise-
"; and not the plan of Mr. Godley.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, that the Hon. Member
for Berry had stated that which was in perfect confir-
mation of his own recollection of the subject. Two
subjects were mentioned. One was Mr. Godleys' plan,
and the other was the question of appointing a Corn-
ruittee to inquire into the subject of colonization. It
did not appear to him that the subject of Mr. Godley's
plan was brought especially before the notice of the
vovernment. When informed that the Government did
not intend to support the appointment of a Committee
of Inquiry, he understood Mr. Godley to say, that the
subject would be brought forward before the House.
He (Lord John Russell) was left in doubt whether it
was the appointment of a Committee or the general
subject of colonization, that would be brought forward ;
but he never for a moment thought that it was intended
that Mr. Godley's plan was to be the matter brought
before the House.
CASE OF SIR E. WILMOT.
Mr. SPOONER rose to bring the case of the late
Governor of Van Diemen's Land before the House. The
lion. Member, who was very indistinctly heard
14roughout, prayed that the House would grant
"
711 its indulgence while he proceeded to lay before
them the facts connected with the dismissal of the late
Eardley Wilmot;:which had excited so deep a sensa-
tion both in that House and out of doors. That lamented
individual was now beyond the power of persecution ;
but it was due to his memory to clear it from the charges
Which had been made against him. These charges had
....never been stated in plain terms ; even the dispatch of
'4l'. Gladstone stated that they were defined with the
words " living in a state of concubinage with convict
Women ;" and to his dying day the subject of them was
1:10 more than this : What were the charges, or who
Were the persons behind his back, who advanced what
e (Mr. Spooner) had no hesitation in saying were mere
charges,fin alike unfounded and unjust? What were the
i 4
(.18, and how did they originate ? Three gentlemen
-"me to this country from the colony, and had certain
communications with the Colonial office. Two of these
gentlemen laid no restriction upon the use of their names,
bout one of
them did ; and, therefore, he (Mr. Spooner)
d not refer by name to either of them. Having
magalittohnoeebarges, the then Secretary of State (Mr,
r ley Wilmot
off a dispatc b—a public. dispatch—to Sir
Subject
nothing mot, with which, as it alluded not to the
of the charges, he (Mr. Spooner) had
private to do. But he sent off another and a
dispatch, dated the 13th day of
April, 1846, which stated that communication
had been made to him which excited no small surprise,
21,48 touch as they related to his private life. To these
Charges he said he would not advert, but he said that
the Government felt it imperative to request his resigna-
tion- There was nothing in those charges that could
loade him to form any plan for his own vindication.
Y were so uncertain in their character, and so vague
. In their description, that he was utterly at a loss how to deal
with them. But he did what Sir George Arthur
• had done under similar circumstances ; he called his
together, and said—Elere are certain char2e,
preferred against me by the Government at home ; I
the EintYi. say so; if lam not guilty, then represent to
During fhish Government that they were unfounded.
paragra e time that this subject was under discussion a
recapitVPPeared in the Naval and Militarg Gazette,
thing the charges. To that paragraph the Lord

Chief Justice of the colony replied in a letter to the
editor, giving the statement his unqualified contradiction.
The Hon. Member then read the letter of the Chien
Justice, to the effeet that there was no truth in the latter
part of the charge, which stated, that no persons of
character or respectability went to the Government-
house except en business. The reply of Sir E. Wilmot
on the sth of October, 1846. denied the imputations con-
tained in the letter of the Colonial Secretary, Mr. Glad-
stone, and requested to be informed of the names, the
dates, and the specific charges which were made against
him. He also said that he would lay the letter of the
Colonial Secretary, of the 30th of April, before the
Executive Council, that the whole matter might undergo
full investigation. That letter was written by Sir E.
Wilmot, to the Colonial-office, and it was worthy of
him, as being an honest man, guiltless of the charges
made against him. (Hear, hear) Having left
the charges before the Council, a Committee was
appointed to investigate their, and the result was that
they acquitted his Excellency of the charges. They also
stated that the Bishop of Tasmania and the Right Rev.
Dr. Wilson, a Catholic Bishop of the colony, would be
shortly in London, and would bear testimony to the good
conduct of his Excellency. They certified, in the most
explicit terms, that as far as they could ascertain, no-
thing had transpired to justify the charges which had
been made. There was also a document, signed by all
the officials and principal people of the colony, to Sir E.
Wilmot, on his resigning the government of the colony,
that he carried with him into private lite their best
wishes. Mr. Gladstone's reply was that he
was not dismissed in consequence of any
specific charge, but of the general notoriety
in the colony of the badness of his character. Now
these charges he (Mr. Spooner) had shown had been
denied by every gentleman and every Christian in the
colony, and that all the statements were false in every
respect. (The Hon. Gentleman then read a letter to the
eldest son of Sir Eardley Wilmot from Mr. Gladstone,
which stated that there was more than a full acquittal of
the charges brought against him in the memorial signed
by the inhabitants of Van Diemen's Land.) With these
testimonials, he was sure that the House would join in
the acquittal they already pronounced. But he did not
rest his case only there ; be had a letter from a person
whose name would be well received in that House—the
Bishop of Tasmania—(Hear, hear)—which spoke
most highly and favourably of Sir Eardley Wilmot.
and designated the rumours respecting him as false and
slanderous. The Hon. Gentleman then read a letter
from the Catholic bishop of the colony (Dr. Wilson)
which also gave from personal knowledge the most
unqualified contradiction to the unfounded slander
against the moral character of Sir Eardley Wilmot.
The family had a right to complain of the conduct of
the Noble Lord at the head of the Colonial-office, who
had refused to give the accused the opportunity of
defending himself. Such conduct was not to be
expected from him who had ever set himself up to
be the jealous defender of public liberty.—(Hear, hear.)
To say the least of it, his answer to heart-rending
appeals was cold, unfeeling, and hardly to be expected,
Lord BROOKE, after the clear statement of his Hon.
Friend, felt that little remained for him to do than concur
in what he had done. He regretted and deprecated the
anonymous charges which had been made against Sir
Eardley Wilmot. But documents had been laid before
the House, on the ground of which he did boldly expect
an entire acquittal of that gentleman's character from the
stain which had been thrown upon it.
Sir R. PEEL said he rose to express his opinion then
upon the subject, because he had stood in the
same relation to Sir Eardley Wilmot as the Hon. Gen-
tleman who had spoken before him. He had been one
of his constituents ; he knew the manner in which he
had discharged his duty ; and he was influenced by the
same feelings as the Honourable Gentleman who
had already spoken. He well knew the circum-
stances under which his Right Honourable Friend
the Secretary for the Colonies had made that
appointment which placed Sir Eardley Wilmot in
office as Governor of Van Diemen's Land. The re-
sponsibility of an appointment, such as that, was great,
for a colony so distant. His Hen. Friend did not wish
to appoint a military gentleman to an office where he
should be called to exercise the duties of a civil func-
tionary. But the sole reason for appointing Sir Eardley
Wilmot to the governorship of that colony, was his ex-
perience in the administration of the law as a magistrate
for a long period at quarter sessions. Having him ap-
pointed to that office by the universal voice, having
filled that office with entire approbation, and having as
a Member of this House ditected his attention to the
amendment of the Criminal Law, it was thought that it
was not possible to find a better or superior individual to
fill that appointment. But he (Sir R. Peel stood in an-
other relation to Sir Eardley Wilmot.. He had been
connected with the Government in which his Hon.
Friend Mr. Gladstone held office, and he would now
speak of the feelings of Mr. Gladstone in reference to
these charges. As for the grounds on which he thought
proper to remove Sir Eardley Wilmot from the appoint-
ment which he held, his Hun. Friend who first spoke on
the subject had exercised a wise discretion in declining
to enter upon them at all. Those were points which
could not with much rood effect, and with very little
propriety, be canvassed in that House. He must say,
however, that Mr. Gladstone, in writing to Sir
Eardley Wilmot, had not advised his withdrawal
on account of any neglect of the duties of
his office, but the peculiar position of the colony,
and the general tenor of his dispatches indicated the
propriety of the appointment of his successor. It was
admitted then, that no neglect of his own had led to his
removal from office. He (Sir R. Peel) spoke now of
the public character of Sir E.Wilmot. But his Friend
Mr. Gladstone was placed in a most peculiar position
by theo r privateh r tepersons—persons
in
the
conveyed
colony,
o ri
m.
There
and
independently of the Govenment, voluntarily i m __The werelivingcon-
firmed the rumour which had reached his ears, and
which had been spread in New South Wales. These par-
ties, all of unimpeachable character, informed his friend
that the character of Sir Eardley Wilmot was such as to
unfit him for the discharge of hi
public duties. That
rumour, and that confirmation, hadnotinfluenc influenced Mr.
Gladstone in what he had done, for the removal of Sir
E. Wilmot was an act done independently of such a
report, or such charges. At the same time his friend
did not think it would be consistent to re-appoint him to
another colony till such charges upon his aracter had
been totally cleared off. What was Mr. Gladstone to do?
It was right that Sir Eardley Wilmot should know the
charges which had been made against him. Mr. Glad-
stone, therefore, in a private dispatch, made the commu-
nication to him. With a view to that, as one of the parties
giving the information was within the United Kingdom, he
was applied to for liberty to use his name, in connexion
with the charge ; but that was ref used.—(Hear, hear.)
And his Hon. Friend had stated that the friends of Sir E.
Wilmot had received the admission from the other two
that the charges were false. On the part then of his
Eton. Friend, he had to state to the House his entire con-
viction that that information was totally and entirely
wrong, and that Sir Eardley Wilmot was entitled at his
hands, to the full admission, that the charges affecting
his private character were without foundation. That
admission, and such a statement, as it was but justice to
the character of the deceased, must also be highly satis-
factory to his friends. He (Sir R. Peel) only added,
that having heard the documents and statements brought
before the House by his friend the Member for Birming-
ham, documents that had been drawn up by Sir Eardley
Wilmot, looking at the nature of the charges, and the
character of those who made them, he also expressed his
own opinion that those charges must be considered en-
tirely and totally without foundation. He felt that this
was but an act of justice to the character of the late Sir
E. Wilmot, and to the widow and the family whom he
had left behind him. (The Right Hon. Baronet resumed
his seat amid applause.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not feel it necessary to
add anything to what had been said by the 'non. Gentle-
man the Member for Tamworth, more than that it must
be a source of satisfaction to the family of Sir E. Wilmot
that that Hon. Gentleman and Mr. Gladstone had both
expressed their strong conviction that the imputations
made upon his character were without foundation.
He would not have risen but for the seeming
imputation which was thrown by an lion. Member upon
the character of the Noble Lord in the Colonial-office.
Lord Grey had merely heard that there was an accusa-
tion against the character of Sir E. Wilmot—he had no
means of knowing whether it was founded in truth ; he
did not know the names of the parties who made the
charge, and what was more, he did not have the evi-
dence on which these individuals founded their charge.
He had, therefore, no means of arriving at any judg-
ment upon the subject ; but surely, because the Noble
Earl had said in his letter that he could not
recommend to her Majesty, the rew appointment of Sir
E. Wilmot he was not to be charged with having adopted
the charges upon his character. There were reasons
altogether irrespective of these for such a course in a
Member of the Government. As for the conduct of Mr.
Gladstone, as to the propriety of the course which he had
taken, he would not then deliver any opinion. a
But he
only hoped that the Hon. Member (Mr. Spooner), nd
the friends of Sir E. Wilmot, would remember what-
ever opinions might be held by the present Government
or the public in general as to his administration, that all
these charges upon his private character had been swept
to the winds, and that his son might rest satisfied that he
lived under no dishonourable imputation.
Mr. VERNON SMITH said that in the speech of the
Hon. Gentleman, he only regretted that some symptom
of party character seemed to pervade it, and although it
seemed to have the wish to do justice, yet a spirit of
party pervaded all his observations. He thought that,
of all the duties which were imposed upon Secretaries of
State, the most sacred was that of protecting the cha-
racters of those who were absent in foreign countries on
the service of their King and country, and that no
charge should be made, or permitted to be made, against
them, unless upon the most positive and conclusive proof
of their delinquency. In this instance, the name of the
party making the accusation, was withheld ; and why
should the character of any man, who was personally
employed in the service of his country, be open to
the charges of a nameless accuser.—(Hear, hear.)
He was here to admit that Mr. Gladstone, as far
as the private feelings of Sir Eardley Wilmot
were concerned, had done all in his power to allay the
sere which his previous conduct had created ; but he
thought that the previous charge which had eeen made,
had been made harshly, and upon very uncertain evi-
dence.
Mr. NEWDEG ATE said that he had not intended to
have said a word on this subject, but the Right flon.
Gentleman who had just sat down had handled Mr.
Gladstone's conduct very roughly—almost too much so.
—(No, no.) He thought it most unfortunate that Lord
GNotb3yle,hLadorndoat sutptuhreleH-,la tdh e n
of
theb l e
r Government, course
oadoptedfd
ing the scandalous charges made against the namsbeayvootf‘hvea-
deceased public offieer.
Sir J. GRA ANI said that he was rejoiced to be able
to sty that the shade or taiet of suspicion whieli had
been raised against the name of Sir E. ‘Vilmot
had been entirely removed. With respect to
the conduct of the present Colonial Secretary,

he thought that there was no ground of complaint, for
after he (Sir J. Graham) sat down, the gentleman who
represented that office in the House would rise and state
that there was no vestige of any accu6ation against Sir
E. Wilmot remained in that office. With regard to the
conduct of Mr. Gladstone, the accusations made against
Sir E. Wilmot were made by three individuals upon
such strong authority, that no Secretary of State would
have been justified in overlooking them. Two of these
gentlemen were at present in Van Diemen's Land, and
the third had shrunk from allowing his name to come
forward as one of his accusers.—(Hear, hear.) Mr,
Gladstone had done all in his power to soften the harsh-
ness of Sir E. Wilmot's recal as far as it could be done,
and in all proceedings towards him Mr. Gladstone had
adopted the very kindest course. He put before Sir
Eardley Wilmot the accusations made against him, and
gave him every assistance in his power to enable
him to clear himself. These charges had since been
entirely disproved, and he was glad to be able to say
that the character of Sir E. Wilmot, both public and
private, had been freed from any taint or :-uspicion.
The only fault of Mr. Gladstone was by sending that
private letter which warned Sir E. Wilmot of the position
in which he stood. . . .

Mr. H AWES said that he had hardly thought that
it would be necessary for him to rise upon that occasion.
With regard to what his Hon. Friend the Member for
Birmingham had stated, it was not altogether accurate.
His Noble Friend near him was not cognisant of what
was alleged against Sir Eardley Wilmot except through
a dispatch from that gentleman himself. He agreed
with his Noble Friend that no record of accusation ex-
isted in the Colonial-office against Sir E. Wilmot. He
did not wish to cast any reproach upon Mr. Gladstone.
Atter a few words from Sir C. DOUGLAS,
Mr. CURTEIS said that he did not envy the feelings
of those three gentlemen who originated the calumny
against Sir E. Wilmot. If they had not caused that
gentleman's death, they at least embittered his dying
moments, and he must describe them as foul calumnia-
tors. He objected to the conclusion of the address of
the Hon. Member for Birmingham. He merely rose to
show the three gentlemen to whom be alluded that a
strong feeling existed as to their conduct, and from the
expression of that feeling he had not shrunk.—(Hear.)
Mr. BORTHWICK said the Hon. Member for Tam-
worth had asserted that the grounds upon which Sir E.
Wilmot had been recalled were not public; but no doubt
his recal was produced by some circumstances stated in
the secret dispatches. Whether communications to
which allusions had been made were, or were not,
anonymous, they were sufficient to induce Mr. Glad-
stone to act upon them, and to inflict upon an innocent
man a deep injury. The Governor was sacrificed in this
case, and the calumniators were protected. It was quite
clear that the present Colonial Secretary had nothing to
do with the matter, however it might be sought by the
predecessors of the present Ministry to attach to them
the odium of an act of which they alone were culpable.
Mr. HORSMAN said that be rose merely to ask
whether the Hon, Member for Birmingham had fur-
nished the name of the Gentleman in question to the
Colonial-office, and whether it was intended to take any
steps respecting this, which was called a foul conspiracy.
As regarded the other part of the transaction connected
with Mr. Gladstone, of which they had heard so much
that evening, he must say, particularly- anxious as he
was to avoid any personal allusion, that he felt it impos-
sible to refrain from saying that he (Mr. Gladstone),
though he had acted candidly in forwarding the secret
letter to Sir Eardley Wilmot, still that his conduct was
extremely rash and extremely indefensible. It had
been admitted that he had acted indiscreetly. In con-
clusion, he must say that public duty called upon them
to express their opinion strongly when a public man had
been grievously treated.
Mr. SPOONER said he did not know the name of
the gentleman alluded to.
Mr. HORSMAN said he held a high official situation.
Mr. SPOONER said he did not know the person al-
luded to.
Captain GLADSTONE said that the Hon. Gentle-
man who had just sat down, had expressed his regret
gret that the late Secretary for the Colonies had not at
the bottom of his letter to Sir E. Wilmot, senior, ex-
pressed his sorrow, and avowed his indiscretion, in the
course he had pursued. lie could assure the House that
his Right Hon. relative had been only actuated by a
sense of kindness in his conduct to Sir E. Wilmot. He
deeply regretted that the charges had been made, but
his defence rested on these charges, for he could not
have acted otherwise in his position, than to have asked
the recal of the Governor of Van Diemen's Land. If
they knew the names of the parties who had made the
accusation, they would feel the difficulty in which his
Right Hon. relative was placed.
Mr. ROEBUCK said that he did not know why they
should not have the names of these gentlemen, who had
informed 4' my Right Hon. relative" of these untruths
which had led to the disgrace and recal of an honest
man. He had his own thoughts of what constituted
official reserve when he found that the charges of knaves
were received to the ruin of honest men. The accusa-
tion must have been a grave one, which would lead to
the recal of a Governor of one of their Colonies, and
why were they not supplied with the names of the par-
ties making these accusation, without making any enquiry
into the truth of these charges this gentleman was
dismissed.—(No, no.)—No, no ! why he was punished ;
he was dismissed.—(No, no.) Then, if he was not dis-
missed on account of this accusation, for what reason
was he dismissed ? Why, they had the reasons of dis-
missal given in the private letter of the Secretary him-
self. He stated that the reason for his recal was im-
moral conduct ; he stated that he could not recommend
him to any other appointment, because of his immoral
conduct ; he stated that he was incapable of governing
the colony, because of his immoral conduct. But what
was the specific accusation, and the date of it ? Let the
House learn that, if it was intended to satisfy it,
But it was also the case that ignorance, audacity, and
mischief had always characterised their government of
the colonies. He hoped that the time would soon arrive
when they should n-t be burdened with an irresponsible
Colonial Administration.
Mr. HOPE said he should not follow the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman through the whole of the charges
which he made against the Colonial Administration.
The grounds on which Sir Eardley Wilmot was recalled,
were of a public kind, and had no reference to his private
character. Earl Grey had expressed his satisfaction at
that recal; he had admitted that the grounds on which
Sir Eardley Wilmot was recalled, was sufficient, without
any reference to his private character. He (Mr. Hope)
could, if the House required it, show what were these
public grounds, and he was sure that they would be
deemed amply sufficient to justify that removal.
Mr. B. ESCOTT said that he distinctly charged the
late Secretary for the Colonies with having dismissed
Sir Eardley Wilmot on the faith of these anonymous
calumnies. The Hon. Member refused to give the dates
of these charges, but they were contained in the dispatch
itself. That dispatch was dated the 30th April, 1846,
which was the date of the very private letter which re-
called Sir Eardley Wilmot on the ground of his immoral
conduct. Well, he had said he would not take up the
time of the House with the personal part of this subject,
and he would keep his word. Now, with regard to the
general question, he could not help thinking that the
present Government had passed over the claims of Sir
Eardley Wilmot in a very cavalier manner, and the
question for that House to decide was this, were the
colonies always to be governed upon Mr. Gladstone's
principles. A defence of Mr. Gladstone had been at-
tempted by those who were associated with him in
office, but he ventured to doubt its honesty, or why were
not the names, upon which this unfounded charge was
made, not disclosed ?—(Hear, hear.) This case was
very similar to one he had formerly brought before the
House, when a public officer was dismissed from office
upon insufficient grounds, and he really thought it too
much to be called upon to rest satisfied with the declara-
tion that Mr. Gladstone had discovered his error, and
repented what he had done. The House ought to have
some guarantee in future that more caution would be
used by her Majesty's Government in cases of this sort.
Sir WALTER JAMES really must protest against
the language used by the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
who had just sat down, while speaking of his Right
Hon. Friend the late Secretary for the Colonies. The
cb?endviisnhcoende
tsht,atbhuitsheßfigorhtonHeodniodurnaobtlethEinrikendso.disHmeissfeeldt
Hon. and Learned Gentleman pronounced his defence to
Sir Eardley Wilmott, upon public grounds, and not upon
the faith of charges against that Gentleman's personal
character.
Mr. W. MILES would not allow the sincere friend-
ship he entertained for the late Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Secretary for the Colonies, to interfere with his
arriving at an impartial conclusion upon this painful
topic ; but he could not bring himself to the belief that
his Right Hon. Friend entertained the feelings attributed
to him by the Hon. Gentleman opposite. He felt confident
that his Right Hon. Friend wrote the letter to which so
much allusion had been made, with the view of giving
Sir E. Wilmot an opportunity of clearing his character,
while he was no less certain that Sir E. Wilmot's dis-
missal was founded upon public grounds and public
grounds alone. His Right Hon. Friend felt that Sir E.
Wilmot was not competent to perform the functions of
governor of so important a colony as South Australia,
and it was through that conviction the dismissal was
agreed upon.—(Hear.) It was no great charge to
make against a man that he could not govern a
colony, when some of the most experienced Members
of that House found the task to be a very dtfficult mat-
ter. So far as that charge was concerned, therefore, it
went for nothing, and he attached no importance to it.
It did not lessen Sir E. Wilmot in his estimation, nor
would it have lessened him in the estimation of his Right
Hon. Friend the Secretary for the Colonies, for he
knew that had he remained in office he would have em-
ployed Sir E. Wilmot in another capacity the moment
that Sir Eardley had cleared his character from the im-
putation that had been cast upon it. So far as the let-
ter was concerned, he thought the friends of Sir Eardley
Wilmot were indebted to his Right lion. Friend for
bringing about these explanations, because they would
teach future colonial Governments that they could not
be too cautious in entertaining charges against honour-
able individuals entrusted with the government of dis-
-1 taut colonies.
Sir R. H. INGLIS thought it a matter of regret that
the tone of the debate for the last hour had been so
widely different from that at its commencement. The
debate began with a speech more of sorrow than anger
by the Hon. Member for Birmingham, and his defence
of the injured Sir Eardley Wilmot was considered by
all persons present as complete and triumphant. Not a
single angry word was heard in the debate until within
the last hour, and he hoped that the subject would now
be brought to a conclusion similar to that of its com-
mencement, so as to afford opportunity for the House to
proceed with the other business before it.
The subject then dropped.
REGISTERISG BIRTHS AND MARRIAGES
(SCOTLAND) BILL.
The order of the day was then read for going into
Committee on these Bills.
Several petitions were presen
said ted against these Bills.
The LORD-A.DVOCATE that he was happy