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

Chief Justice of the colony repel erl in a letter to the
editor, giving the statement his uequ d;fleci contradiction.
The lion. Meinbesr then read the 1, tter of the Chief
Justice, to the effeet that there was no truth in ,he letter
part of the charge, which stated, thae no persons of
character or respectabi;ity went to the Government-
house except on business. The reply of Sir E. Wilmot
on the sth of October, 1846, denied the imputations con-
tuned 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
mode against him. (Hear, hear) Having left
the charges before the Council, a Committee was
appointed to investigate there, 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 life 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 ; he 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 lion. 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 Lot 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 Earoley
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 directed 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 Hon. Friend who first spoke on
the subject had exercised a wise discretion in declining
to enter upon them at all. Those were pints which
could not with much good effect, and with very little
propriety, be canvassed in that House. lie 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
Therel werethepriv tatehreeinforpmerastoionns_wrheicrlse owns in the c
asconveyed to him.nd
living independently of the Govenment, voluntarily con-
firmed the rumour which had reached his ears, and
wh
ichalhl acelf bueneinnip
spereacadhainhlNp
character,
sraoauttehr,Winafolersm. Theseinformed
a fr par-
ties,friend
dthat the character of Sir Eardleya Wilmot was such as to
public duties. That
rumour,unfit himanfodr
thatthe Confirmation,dischargeof
influenced Mr.
Gladstonelvilmot inw wag
an what he had done,dhadaheindependently forep
hish had not
nhde ent of removal ofu Sir
E.
report, or such charges. At the same timey sfiLl
did not think it would be consistent to re-appoint him to
another colony till such charges upon his character 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 refused,—(llear, 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
lion. 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 chat aster 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 frion:fs. He (Sir R. Peel) only added,
that having heard the documents and statement:, brought
before the House by his friend the Member for Birmeg-
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 lion. Gentle-
man the Member for Tamworth, more than hat 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 up.m his character were without foundation.
He would not have risen but for the seeming
imputation which was thrown by an Hon. Member upon
the character of the Noble L:erd 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 mans 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 new 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.
Glaliton'e, as to the propriety of the course which he had
taken, he would not then deliver any opinion. But he
only hoped that the Hon. Member (Mr. Spooner), and
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 ditties which were imposed upon Secretaries of
State, the most sacred was that of protecting the cha-
racters of those who were abseot 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 caracter 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
sore which his previous conduct had created ; but he
*thought that the previous ell,irge which had ,seen made,
had been made harshly, and upon very uncertain evi-
dence.

Mr. NEWDEGATE said that he had not intended to
have said a word on this subject, but the Right lion.
Gentleman who had just sat down had handled Mr.
Gladstone's conduct very roughly—almost tr.,o much so.
—(No, no.) He thought it most unfortunate that Lord
Grey had not pursued the nobler course adopted by the
Noble Lord a: the h2arl the Geverimpnt, of disav,r4-
i,r2: t e seaoil ettee7,.,s made against the name of a

put>lit.

Sir J. (iZ tI,tlT sai;l:that.La ikia rejoiced to he n;.
caht whioh
been raised against the name of Sir E. Wilmot
had been entirely removed. With respect to
the conduct of the present Colonial secretary,