The Sun.
London, England, 1834-07-24 00:00:00

tary of the Treasury was the most improper person in the
world to make such a payment ; for he was the only officer to
whom the secret service money was entrusted, and who was
not responsible to Parliament for the mode of its application.
He might expend it in such a manner as he liked, and was not
liable to be called to account for the nature of such expendi-
ture. Not so the Secretary:of State for Foreign Affairs, or
the Home Secretary, for they both had certain objects and
limits distinctly prescribed to them for the appropriation of
the sums entrusted to their disposal, such as the payment of
agents, the procuring, of intelligence, and the preventing
of conspiracies against the interests of the State. But
the Secretary of the Treasury was perfectly irresponsible
and free, and was this the person selected to be made the dis-
tributor of a subscription fund? What Ihe would ask, was it
right or useful that such contributions should be placed in the
hands of the Executive Government of the country ?—( Hear,
hear.) Some person should have a control over that fund,
and, if the Secretary of the Treasury were the person selected,
he would not hesitate to say that that Secretary, having ac-
cepted that office of comptroller of the money, compromised
his duty, and produced the general conviction that the public
money was squandered for improper and factious purposes.
The Right Hon. Gentleman said that money was given for
ten or twelve other elections, so that it appeared that a regular
system was practised of carrying elections, which by the Whig
doctrine ought to be free, by money paid from the Treasury
Office. Oh, but it was answered that it was for the purpose
of carrying Reform. But was that a good purpose? They
all saw that one of the first fruits of Reform was in that House
to maintain that black was white ;. that was the amountiof the
statements made in the affair of the Russian-Dutch Loan.—
( Hear.) What would be likely to be the result of elections
carried by means of those subscriptions which were placed at
the disposal of the Treasury ? It could not be pretended that it
would be to secure the election of independent men ; for there
was a strong obligation imposed on the members so elected

to vote for the Government, not merely to carry Reform, but
to support all the other measures.--( Hear.) Well, but he
heard it stated that the money was merely to pay the travelling
expenses of the voters. Now it was his opinion, and Commit-
tees of the House often declared, that it was illegal to give
voters money, no matter how the thing might be disguised
under the name of travelling expenses or treating. The con-
duct of the Right Hon. Gentleman was unquestionably a vio-
lation of his duty, and a breach of the privileges of the House,
and as such he thought it one peculiarly calling for the atten-
tion and cognizance of Parliament. The fact of a Member of
Government, especially such a Member as the Secretary of
the Treasury, paying in his office at the Treasury a sum of
money to defray the election expenses of a supporter of that
Government could admit of only one interpretation in the
public opinion and was one. that could not be overlooked by
Parliament. In the practice of former Parliaments such con-
duct would be pronounced a breach of privilege, and would be
dealt with accordingly ; but he heard now a new doctrine
broached, that of confidence in the Government, and under
that plea of confidence the House was to be called on to over-

look this matter. He had every respect for the character and
integrity of the Right Hon. Gentleman, but, as a matter of
public duty, the House should investigate this case.—( The
concluding remarks of the Hon. Member were indistinctly
heard in the Gallery. ) _ _

Mr. RICE would not say that the present question should
be decided on the ground of confidence in the Government. It
stood sufficiently clear to be decided on its own merits. He
claimed no more confidence for the Government than the inte-
grity of his Right Hon. Friend and the satisfactory nature of
his defence required. He would just state to the House how
the case stood. Lord Western stated a fact which his Right
Hon. Friend did not deny, but, on the contrary, admitted.
But then his Right Hon. Friend stated other facts in explana-
tion of the former. Lord Western stated facts in which
he was not interested. His Right Hon. Friend stated
facts in which he was interested. It was then contended that
the disinterested statement of Lord Western should be cre-
dited, while the interested statement of his Right Hon. Friend
should be disregarded—(" Hear," from both sides of the
House.) If the Hon. Member was right, the testimony of his
Right Hon. Friend should be excluded as being interested,
while that of Lord Western alone should be received. Now
his Right Hon. Friend did not dispute the facts of Lord Wes-
tern ; he confirmed and explained them. Was he then not to
be allowed the privilege of speaking in his own defence ? Ac-
cording- to the doctrine of the Hon. Member he was not. But
the practice and usages of Parliament always went on a differ-
ent principle, for they invariably admitted the evidence or ex-
planation of an accused person. If a Committee of Privileges
were appointed would not, he would ask, the evidence of
Right Hon. Friend be received ?
• Mr. WYNN said his statement would be heard.

Mr. RICE—WeII, his statement would be heard. But
would not his statement be taken as evidence for or against
him, for it would be mockery to suppose that he would be al-
lowed to make a statement if no value were attached to it as
evidence ?—( Cheers from the ministerial benches.) It would
be the grossest injustice to exclude the testimony of interested
parties, who alone frequently could afford any explanation.
There was no contradiction between the statements of Lord
Western and his Right Hon. Friend. Lord Western said
that he applied at the Treasury to the Secretary of the Trea-
sury for a sum of money to meet the expenses of the Colchester
election, and got it. His Right Hon. Friend confirmed this,
but said that the fund was a private one, in the disposal of
which he was consulted.

Mr. WYNN—The application was made to him as an offi-
cer of the Government.
Mr. RICE—If the Hon. Gentleman traced the fact to the
answer of Lord Western, he would be right in his inference ;
but it appeared he traced it to the mode in which the question
was put. Both would warrant different conclusions. There
was not the remotest proof that the influence of the Govern-
ment or the public money were used on the present occasion
(for that was the great point to be considered) more than on
the occasion before alluded to. He (Mr. Rice) complained,
and had a right to complain, of the unfair mode in which the
Von. Member dealt with the question. He complained of the
Hon. Member's drawing inferences that were not warranted by
the premises, and founding his argument on these inferences.
The transaction took place in 1831. The letters referring
to it were produced, they were published in all the papers ;
these letters he seemed not to have seen, and he founded his
arguments, not on public documents, but on total ignorance
of them.—( Cheers from the. Ministerial side.) So conscious
was his friend of the innocent nature of the transaction
that he did not keep a copy of those letters, but was in-
debted for their production to an adverse party. There
were large subscriptions raised at that time by different
parties ; the opponents of Government notoriously raised
subscriptions. Was it then reprehensible that the friends
of Government should subscribe ? The fact • was pub-
lished in all the public papers. But it seemed the Hon.
Member was ignorant of the fact ; so that he was igno-
rant not only of what was published in 1831, but
of what was published at the present day. The people
of Manchester, Birmingham, and other places then
boldly came forward and contributed to carry on the fight
of Reform. If Gentlemen then would not say that it was
wrong to subscribe at that time, it could not be wrong to pay
the subscription.—( Hear, hear.) Though some Hon. Mem-
bers of that House might support the views of the Hon. Mem-
ber, yet he was sure that the great majority of the people
would not, because the object of the subscription was just and
constitutional. It was stated by his Right Hon. Friend that
there were two subscription funds, that he had no control over
them, but was only consulted, and used his influence in their
application. His Right Hon. Friend stated that the sum al-
luded to was not drawn from the public purse. When the
letters that were published, attesting this fact, did not come
from his Right Hon. Friend, but from the adverse party, and
which the Hon. Member might have seen if he liked, it was
some evidence that the statement was to be relied on, and
that his Right Hon. Friend was perfectly justified. There
was then not only the solemn declaration of his Right Hon.
Friend, but strong contempoianeotil evidence to prove his
innocence.--( Hear, hear.) He (Mr. S. Ride) should vote for
the amendment.

Mr. WYNN did not think that the House should proceed
against any Member without hearing him. But a letter read
by an Hon. Member he (Mr. W.) did not conceive could be
received as part of a speech, nor could it be received as a de-
fence, if not laid on the table. Mr. Canning, when he read a
letter in that House, was told he could not justify his Govern-
ment by it if it were not laid as a document on the table. As
the charge was on record, so should the letter be on record.
When Mr. Wyndham Quin was accused.—(Loud cries of
" Spoke.")
Mr. H. L. BULWE R said the present was a most insig-
nificant case. The explanation made before the Committee
on the statement made before the House should be received.
The call for the Committee was made, not because the Right
Hon. Gentleman was guilty, but hecause he was innocent, and
to enable him to proclaim what was already evident.--( Hear,
hear.) It was like bringing a man before a Justice of the
Peace, and the Justice should tell him, " You are clearly in-
nocent, but then you must go to gaol and stand your trial.—
( Hear, and a laugh.) It was most disgraceful thus to drag
before a public tribunal a Member of such high character in
that House and through the country.
Mr. A. BARING said that Parliament should not allow
itself to be diverted from its duty by any special pleading or
rhetoric on the opposite side. It should look to such conduct
as that of the Right Hon. Secretary, not with confidence, as
was claimed for it, but with vigilance and jealousy. The
Right Hon. Gentleman had the secret service money in his
hand, and could dispose of it without responsibility or check.
He gave a sum of money to meet the election expenses of an
avowed supporter of the Government; and though he said
that sum was drawn from a private fund, yet what could pre-
vent the inference to be drawn,that it was not a sum given by
Government for the purpose of promoting the interested views
of Government ? The fact of an application of a sum of money
by the Secretary of the Treasury for securing the return of a
friend to Government was proved by Lord Western, and was ad-
mitted by the Secretary himself. The gravamen of the whole
charge rested on the admission of the Right Hon. Gentleman,
for by his own showing he was 'guilty of a gross breach of privi-
lege, and the House would be grossly neglecting its duty if it
overlooked it. In what situation would the House be placed
if it followed the advice of Hon. Gentlemen friends to Go-
vernment, and rested satisfied with the explanation of the
Right Hon. Secretary? He (Mr. Baring) was astonished
that Ministers should so far trifle with the privileges of Par-
liament, and Whig Ministers too, as to advise such a course.—
(Cheers.) How did the facts stand ? Supposing the state-
ment of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War to
be perfectly and strictly true, the affair at present was in this
position :—A Secretary of the Treasury, an officer connected
with the Government in a peculiar way, for there were two
Secretaries of the Treasury, the one having to attend to mat-
ters properly belonging to the finances of the Fountry,and the
other having to do the jobbing, in fact the dirty work of the
andG Government.—(Laughter, ei
tr nwma
was
nt
notorious.. Hear.")Laughheer,manadde"not
t Such lvaasptphle iclaabclte,
remark as

only to the present Government,but to all Governments whic
had hitherto been, and he feared would be until human nature
was altered, notwithstanding all the reforms which had been,
and could be, introduced by his Noble Friend (Lord Althorp).
Well, the person holding that office, upon the statement of
the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Ellice), was selected
to work the elections throughout the country, through the
medium of a subscription raised out of private funds. But
the Noble Lord (Western) whose evidence had led to the
special Report from the Committee, distinctly stated that
he had not applied to the Right Honourable Gentle-
man because of any private intimacy which was subsisting
between them, but because he was Secretary to the Trea-
sury, and it was to the Secretary of the Treasury as such that
the application was made. It was to the Treasury the letter
was sent, and did the Treasury answer it ? Yes.—( Hear.)
The money was so furnished. Then would that House do its
duty if it expressed itself content to leave the report without
further notice? Assuredly not. What was the explanation
of the Right Hon. Gentleman to the statement ? He said he
did send the 500/. to Colchester and to a dozen other places.
He managed a private subscription, and lie had so used it.
And upon that statement his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Rice)
asked if the House could entertain the thought of further pro-
ceeding. The House could not, consistently with the main-
tenance of its character, pass by such a matter without full
investigation ; and when he saw his Noble Friend (Lord
Althorp), in whose integrity and nice sense of honour he had
the most perfect reliance, countenancing a different course, he
could not but express his astonishment at the monstrous
lengths to which public men might be driven by the violence
of party feelings.—( Cheering.) The question was not merely
whether or not the public money had been used—that suppo-
sition the statement of the Secretary at War had in his mind
set at rest—but here was a Secretary of the Treasury, an
officer of the Crown, and whose interference with elections
had been declared a high breach of the privileges of that
House, receiving and answering applications for money to
carry on elections at the Treasury.---( Hear.) And when the
case was brought forward the explanation was, that he had sent
money to a dozen other places for a similar purpose. Some
Hon. Members had treated the motion before the House as if
it had come from his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Wynn) ; but
it came from the Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin, who
could not perhaps be accused of enmity to the present Go.
vernment, and still less to the Secretary at War—( A
laugh)—and who had doubtless brought it forward because
he felt that a matter of so much importance, and affecting so
deeply the privileges of that House and the character of Go-
vernment, could not be passed over without strict and full in-
quiry. One word as to precedent. It had been said that the
transactions occurred at a particular period, when men's minds
were strongly interested. That surely was no ground for pass-
ing it by without investigation ; and he entreated the House 'o
be slow by its proceeding to establish a precedent which might
be quoted for dangerous and destructive purposes. In justifi-
cation of the transaction it had been urged that similar funds
were raised by the opponents of the conduct pursued by the
party with whom the Right Hon. Gentleman acted. He did
not understand that any one objected, or could object, to pri-
vate subscriptions for the purpose of carrying on, legally, elec-
tions. They had heard, for instance, of a fund at the Crown
and Anchor Tavern ; and to that he did not know that any
objection could be taken. It had also been stated that there
was a fund of the same description collected in Charles-street.
All that he could say upon that point was, that, although he
had been in the habit of meeting many gentlemen in that
place, he had never been applied to to contribute to any such
subscription, and upon his honour he knew of no such sub-
scription.—( Cries of " Hear," and "Oh !") Such was the
fact ; but whether there had been such a fund or not was a
matter of no consequence, and had nothing whatever to do
with the question before the House. To one other point
only he would allude, and that but for a moment. An Hon.
Member (Mr. Peter) in his great indignation at interference
in elections, had had on the books ever since the commence-
ment of the Session a notice of motion for an address to the
Crown, to pray the Crown to remove the Earl of Warwick
from the office of Lord Lieutenant of a county, because it had
been proved before a Committee of that House, that the No-
ble Lord had been guilty of lending his brother a sum of mo-
ney which had been used for electioneering purposes.—
( Laughter and " Hear.") Such was the height of the indig-
nation of the Hon. Gentleman that time could hot allay it—
that the universally-admitted amiable character, retired ha-
bits, and freedom from strong political bias in the Earl of
Warwick, could not induce him to abandon his notice, for how-
ever much longer the motion might be postponed.—( Hear. )
Then he would suggest, if his Noble Friend (Lord Althorp)
still resisted inquiry in this case of the Secretary of the Trea-
sury, that the Hon. Member should extend his protective care
of the privileges of that House, and, while he provided for the
reprobation of a Lord Lieutenant of a county for lending money
to a brother, he should at least address the Crown also in de-
precation of a Secretary of the Treasury working in the Trea-
sury a dozen elections.—( Hear, hear, and laughter. )
Lord ALTHORP said-that the speech of his Honourable
Friend who had just sat down was a speech not so much for
inquiry as for a censure on the conduct of his Right Hon.
Friend.—( Hear.) The Noble Lord referred to the case of
Mr. Fremantle, and contended that it had been distinctly laid
down that a person holding the office of Secretary to the Trea-
sury had a right as an individual to exert his influence in any
election, although he had not a right to exert his influence as
a public officer. In that case it was contended that the com-
plaint was against Mr. Fremantle as Secretary of the Trea-
sury, and not as an individual. In support of that view the
Noble Lord quoted from the speech of Mr. Canning, and
expressed his belief that his Hon. Friend (Mr. Baring) had
voted against the inquiry.-4 A laugh.) He recollected that
at the time that question was argued, some Hon. Members con-
tended that allowance ought to be made for Mr. Fremantle,
because he had been appointed Secretary to the Treasury only
Just previous to a general election, and that, therefore, his
duties were peculiarly arduous. Mr. Rose, however, held a
very different opinion, and said he knew not of any difference.
( A laugh.) The case was this :—His Right Hon. Friend
had the management of a private subscription, to be devoted
to legal elective purposes, and he had so applied it. But
that view of the question did not rest merely on the assertion
of his Right Hon. Friend, for its accuracy was amply proved
by the letters furnished to his. Right Hon. Friend by the
courtesy of the Honourable Member for Colchester. To a
private subscription there could surely be no objection, at
least he was quite certain the Hon. Member for Middlesex
could have none, for he remembered that at his first election
for that county his constitutional feelings against spending any
of his own money on elections rendered a subscription from his
friends necessary.—( Loud laughter.) The question then was
whether his Right Hon. Friend was to be censured by a vote
of that House because he had managed a private subscription,
the authority being delegated to him by the subscribers. Such
being the case, he could not, notwithstanding the appeal of
his Hon. Friend, but resist the motion.—( Hear.)
_ _ _ _

Mr. G. F. YOUNG felt it his duty to support the motion.
He should do so not from at all doubting the statement of the
Secretary at War, in-whose integrity he had the most perfect
confidence, but because he thought the people had a right to
be convinced as well as the House, and that inquiry would
lead to a conclusion triumphant to the character of the Right
Hon. Gentleman. A Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Rice) had
said there was no precedent for calling for an inquiry when a.
Member had pledged his word and honour to a statement;. but
he was prepared to show that that was a mistake. The Hon.
and Learned Gentleman (the Member for Tipperary) had
pledged his honour on a late occasion, and a Right Hon.
Baronet (Sir R. Peel) had contended that that very fact made
inquiry necessary, and a Committee was appointed. He con-
tended that the honour of the Covernment required investiga-
tion, and therefore he should support the motion.
Mr. C. FERGUSON said he believed that was the first
time in which a Committee had been required in a case in
which both parties admitted that they heard the truth. He
contended that before any Committee could be necessary, it
would be right to show that the money was given for illegal
purposes.
Mr. O'DWYER at some length opposed the motioit of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin.

Mr. SINCLAIR said he was so perfectly satisfied with the
explanation of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Secretary at
War, that he should vote against the motion for further inquiry.
Mr. ESTCOURT would intrude on the House only for a
very few minutes.—( Question.) lie very rarely troubled the
House, and he trusted never abused its indulgence.—( Hear. )
He was not one of those who had had the advantage of fully
hearing the explanation of the Secretary at War. It was said
that explanation had been perfectly satisfactory ; but when it
was made the charge was not formally before the House.—
( Yes, and Hear.) It was true the report had been brought
up, and he believed the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who
had presented it had expressed his intention to move that it
should be printed • but before that was done the Right Hon.
Gentleman had thought proper to make his explanations.
Now by that proceeding those who happened not to be in the
House were surely not to be precluded from inquiry ?—( Con-
fusion, and cries of " Divide.") Some Hon. Members seemed
extremely anxious to divide, and perhaps they had some good
reasons for such conduct-4 Hear, hear.) Lord Western had
been asked a question as to whether he wrote to Mr. Ellice for
the money, and his answer was no.—( Hear, hear.) If Hon.
Members would hear a little further, they would find they had
not cheered in the right place.—( Hear.) The answer was to
the effect that he wrote for the money for the purpose of car-
rying on the election of Mr. Mayhew, that he wrote to the
Secretary of the Treasury, and that the money was paid from
the Treasury. The Hon. Member alluded to the speech of Lord
Castlereagh in the case of Mr. Fremantle, and observed that
that Noble Lord had supported full inquiry. He had little or
no acquaintance with the Right Hon. Gentleman ; but he
must say that if inquiry was refused, that Right Hon. Gentle-
man would not stand cleared of the charge. 4 Cries of "Divide. ")
Mr. RUTHVEN opposed the motion for inquiry. If any
Hon. Member would state on his honour that he believed he
could prove that the Right Hon. Gentleman had abused his
office in electioneering while Secretary to the Treasury, he
would vote for a Committee.
Colonel EVANS had supported the motion, but would now
support the amendment. He recommended to the Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin to withdraw his motion.
of duty
u dtouat
lys sucho as
as
aChairman
thing.
.1h ia( He
hat h Mr. O'CONNELL said be wished he could adopt the ad-
vice just given him, and withdraw his motion.--(Hear.) He
could, however,
spokete notconimee
m merelyitt
u
mrmbanerofoft House bound
report, but n
to consider the
e
matter. appeared to him to involve a plain
breach of privilege. The Committee appointed to investigate
the case of the on. Member for Colchester had no authority
paokni n itah the nsre,
to demand a copy of the correspondence of Lord Western. If
they had they would have insisted on its production. The an-
swers of the Secretary correspondence did not
at War to that
satisfy him of the innocence of that Right Hon. Gentleman,
nor did he believe they would satisfy the public. Certain do-
cuments which were calculated to throw light on the matter
were admitted to exist, and without their production he did