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

01,1,0,
bscribed to the fund the manner in which the whole or any
•of that fund had been applied. The House was entitled
-aii investigation into the circumstances, for the purpose of
satisfying itself there was no mistake on this important question,
and that it might be clearly shown the money had not come
out of the Treasury. After all, it was to be recollected that
it was a very suspicious circumstance, to say the least of
it, that the management of such a fund should be m
the hands of a Secretary of the Treasury. It could
not fail to be observed, that the facility with which such
a fund might be mixed with the Treasury funds, in a coun-
try like this, where there was always a sum set apart for
such service, was calculated and ought to excite suspicion ;
therefore there was an abundant ground for inquiring in
this case. He did not apprehend an unfavourable result
from the inquiry. The conviction on his own mind was,
that that result would bear out the statement of the
Right Hon. Gentleman, but the public would not and ought
not to be satisfied unless a full and fair investigation took place.
If true, there could be no difficulty in proving it, and if the
allegations were correct—and he would say that he believed
the statement of the Right Honourable Gentleman on a for-
mer evening, but the fact might have been concealed from him
—then it was necessary for the character of the House, and of
the individual Member concerned, that his motion should be
complied with that a Committee should be granted, and that
the facts should appear distinctly before the House. He could
not avoid saying, that upon the evidence there was more than
cause for suspicion. There was no longer a direct domination
of the Aristocracy—the nomination system had been done away
with, and the power of property, as unjustly bearing upon the
election of Members of Parliament had been done away with,
the majority of the representative, therefore, was returned by
the people themselves under the Reform Bill. But the freedom
of election was much more likely to be ruined by the canker-
worm of corruption, bribery by means of money, and the pro-
curing votes by purchase, thus adding to bribery the crime of
perjury. This would make the House anxious to sift
enquiry—( Hear)—and he trusted it would not be said of the
reformed House of Commons, or the reformed Government,
that they had stood in the way of the fullest investigation.
He had the honour to move that the report of the Select Com-
mittee of the Inns of Court should be referred to a Select
Committee of Prvileges.
Mr. F. O'C 0 NNO R seconded the motion.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he had not at all been prepared
for the part which the Hon. and Learned Member had taken
on the present occasion. He must say that he could not per.,
ccive that there existed any ground to demand the interference
of a Committee of Privileges in this case. Undoubtedly, it
would be a great breach of the privilege of the House for the
Government to make use of the public money for electioneer-
ing purposes. But surely it could not be pretended that any
individual who happened to hold the office of Secretary of the
Treasury, had not, in his individual character, the same rights
which any other gentleman in that House claimed, to lend his
support in the shape of money, or in any other way, to any
candidate for election he might think proper. The Right
Hon. Member (now Secretary at War) had very satisfactorily
shown by letters written at the time of the occurrence in ques-
tion, that the monty which had been supplied to the candidates
at the Colchester election had been supplied by private sub-
scription for that specific object ; and though the money so
collected passed through the hands of his Right Hon. Friend,
he had no control whatever over its destination. It did not
appear from these facts that there could be any ground for
bringing a charge of nomination against the Government. The
Hon. and Learned Member who had brought forward the pre-
sent motion, perhaps, knew of many purer cases of nomination
which had happened within his own knowledge.—( Laughter. )
He really thought there were no grounds for the inquiry moved
for by the Hon. and Learned Member.
Mr. TENNYSON agreed with the Noble Lord who had
just sat down, that there was no sufficient pretence for the ap-
pointment of a Committee of Privileges on this case. From
the facts of the case, as they appeared in the Report which
the Hon. and Learned Member had laid before the House, it
certainly appeared that the money in question had been sup-
plied through the hands of the Hon. Secretary-at-War at the
time he was one of the Secretaries of the Treasury, but there
was no evidence whatever to show that the money had been
taken out of the public purse, whilst, on the other hand, it had
since been distinctly stated that it had been purposely raised
for that object by the subscriptions of private individuals.
Mr. HUME said it was because he believed the statement
which had been made by the Hon. Secretary-at-War, that he
rose for the impose of urging the Noble Lord who had op-
posed the present motion to withdraw that opposition, and
agree to the Committee. He would merely read three of the
questions, and the replies to them, which appeared in the evi-
dence which bad been laid before the House in this case. The
replies of Lord 'Western went distinctly to show that the mo-
ney had been applied for to Mr. Ellice at the Treasury, and
in pursuance of that application had been sent from the Trea-
sury, wherever it might previously have come from. He re-
collected that, on a former occasion, the Hon. Member for
Ipswich stood up and challenged any individual in the House
who had ever filled the office of Secretary to the Treasury to
show that he had not been concerned in transactions like the pre-
sent on the part of Government. Now he (Mr. H.) did not be-
lieve that such proceedings were attributable to Government.
There was only one source from which money could be sup-
plied for such purposes unknown to the public, namely, the
secret service money, but that was generally distributed
amongst low parties for other and miscellaneous services.—
( Hear, hear.) However, as the case now stood before the
public, he sincerely trusted that the House would not allow
any public man to remain subject to the allegation which had
been brought against him of having advanced money under
circumstances like the present. He trusted that upon those
considerations the Noble Lord would withdraw his opposition.
Lord J. RUSSELL begged briefly to explain the grounds
upon which he had felt called upon to oppose the motion of the
Hon. and Learned Member for Dublin. He was quite pre-
pared to admit that if the only accounts before the House re-
lative to this matter were the evidence before the Committee
on the Inns of Court, the case would be in a very different po-
sition to what it now had really assumed. The ground upon
which be opposed the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member
for Dublin for a Committee of Inquiry was, that the statement
which had been made by the Hon. Secretary at War in ex-
planation of his conduct in this transaction had been corrobo-
rated by letters actually written between the parties at the
time of the occurrence. These documents he thought amply
sufficient to satisfy the House upon the merits of the case.
Colonel EVANS supported the motion. Instead of the
direct opposition which the Members on the Ministerial bench
seemed inclined to give it, he thought that at least they
should propose by way of amendment some measure of less
formality in accordance with the objects of the Hon. and
Learned Mover.
Mr. C. BULLER said, he would meet the suggestion of
the Hon. and Gallant Member by proposing an amendment
to the motion before the House. He could not help observing
that the present motion came with a particularly bad grace
from the Hon. and Learned Member, who, with other Hon.
Members in that House, were so much beholden for their po-
litical position to the Hon. Member the Secretary at War and
his colleagues in office.—( Hear, and loud laughter.) The
people of England would always feel grateful to that Hon.
Gentleman for his exertions in their cause.—( Renewed laugh-
ter.) And he sincerely hoped that the House would not al-
low a shadow to be cast over the reputation of individuals to
whom the country was so deeply indebted.—( Hear, hear.)
When Scipio Africanus was gravely accused with having raised
an unjust tribute, which gave offence to the Roman people,
instead of defending himself against the various charges with
which he was assailed, he simply reminded the assembled mul-
titudes that that very day was the anniversary of his great vic-
tory over Hannibal and the Carthagenians, and then called
upon them to follow him to the temple and return thanks to
the gods for the triumph of their arms. This they did, and
prayed at the same time that all their future commanders might
be like him. Now he ( Mr. Buller) did not know whether
the House would be inclined to follow the Right Hon. Secre-
tary at War to the temple and return thanks for their signal
victory over the boroughmongers. —( Loud laughter.) But
this he did say, that he hoped for the future they would always
have Secretaries to the Treasury equal to that Right Hon.
Gentleman.—(Hear, hear, hear, and laughter.) This was
not his amendment, however.—(Renewed laughter. The
amendment which he had to propose was to the following effect :
" That the House, having heard the statement which had been
made by the Hon. Member for Coventry, relative to the trans-
actions referred to in the evidence of the first Report of the
Select Committee on the Inns of Court, considers that ex-
planation satisfactory, and will proceed no further in the matter."
Mr. WYNN said that the House should deal with one
Member precisely as they would be prepared to deal with
another like circumstances. It was pretended that it would be
derogatory to the character of the Hon. Member for Coventry
to make any further inquiry in the matter after the explanation
which he had given to the House. Now if this feeling were
to be allowed to guide the House in the present case, it would
become a precedent, and how would it oblige them to act upon
any future occasion of the kind ?—( Hear, hear.) Suppose
any future Secretary of She Treasury were to be implicated in
a charge of such a nature, and were to stand up in his place
in the House and simply deny the charge. The House, what-
ever the circumstances of the case, would be bound to accept
that denial as sufficient, for if they were to attempt to institute
any further inquiry in the matter, the then Treasury Secretary
might very properly say to them, " I call upon you to make
no inquiry into the truth of what I have told you, for if you
do you will not be giving my word the same credit which you
gave to that of Mr. Ellice in I 834."—( Hear, hear.) The
evidence they had already received upon this case was very
unsatisfactory. Lord Western evidently knew very little about
the matter. He merely knew that application had been made
to the Secretary of the Treasury for money, and that the
money came from the Treasury. Now here was, in his opinion,
sufficient prima facie grounds for inquiry. He was prepared
to give the Hon. Secretary full credit for veracity ; but surely
the mere assurance of an individual in answer to a charge of an
unconstitutional offence, which the present was, could not
be deemed sufficient to satisfy the forms and dignity of that
House-4 Hear, hear.) He would merely read to the House
the resolutions of the year 1779, which declared it to be
highly improper for any servant of the Crown to make use
of his authority to interfere with the freedom of election of
the people of England.—( Hear, hear, hear.) In the year
1803 a letter was written by a Member of Government, dated
from the Treasury, to a gentleman in Hampshire, a Mr. Fre-
mantle, the object of which was to carry an election, and on
the simple fact of the date of the letter from the Treasury a
charge was founded that the influence of Government was
used, for electioneerincr purposes. He (Mr. Wynn) thought
it highly reprehensible that a Member of Government, and,
above a'l, the Secretary of the Treasury, should have inter-
fered on such an occasion, and in such a way. It was impos-
sible that the public could separate the circumstance of the
payment being made by the Semtary of the Treasury from
the conviction that it was not made for the objects of Govern-
ment and from the public money.— ( Hear, bear.) The Secre-