The Sun.
London, England, 1858-02-23 00:00:00

THE CHARGE AGAINST MR. ISAAC
BUTT, M.P.

PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE.—THIS DAY.
The committee appointed to inquire into the truth
of the petition of Edward Lees Coffey, of Sheffield,
which alleges that Mr. Isaac Butt, the member for
Youghall, in the month of July, 1856, did corruptly
enter into an agreement with the Rajah Ali Moorad
Khan, or his agents, to the effect that he the said Isaac
Butt would, on condition of certain sums of money being
paid to him, advocate and prosecute, in the House of
Commons, and with the East India Company, the claims
of his highness for the recovery of his territory. That,
in pursuance of such corrupt agreements, divers sums
of money had been paid to the said Isaac Butt, and
that the petitioner was advised that, in entering into
such agreement a breach of the privileges of Parlia-
ment bad been committed.
The members of the committee present were Sir J.
Graham, Mr. Bright, Mr. Sergeant Kinglake, Sir W.
Codrington, and Mr. S. Herbert.
Mr. Roebuck and Mr. Sergeant Deasy, who had been
appointed by the house to take charge of the petition,
and take part in the committee without the power of
voting, were also present.
Previous to the commencement of the investigation
the room, which was pretty fully attended, was ordered
to be cleared, and after the public had been excluded
for a quarter of an hour the room was reopened, when
Sir James Graham, the chairman of the committee,
addressing.the members of the press present, said the
committee had no objection to a report of the proceedings
appearing, but it was their especial desire that no com-
ments on the evidence should be published pending the
inquiry.
Mr. Roebuck then stated the case of the peti-
tioner, and said he had undertaken the position he at
present occupied purely upon public grounds, and in
no vindictive feeling towards Mr. Butt, who was a
gentleman with whom he was on the most friendly
terms. The hon. gentleman then proceeded to state
the case of the petitioner, from which it appeared that in
the year 1856, Ali Moorad, one of the Ameers of
Scinde, having been as he thought unjustly deprived of
his property, came to England to procure justice, and
in the course of proimeding he came into contact with
Mr. Butt. After certain conversations, it was alleged
by the petitioner that Mr. Butt, for a sum of 5,0001.,
agreed to advocate the claims of the Ameer, but in the
event of his having to go to India he was to have 5,0001.
more, making in all 10,000/. He should prove by
witnesses that Mr. Butt had received from Ali Moorad
two sums of 3001. and 1,5001. in prosecution of the first
part of the agreement.
Mr. Coffey, examined by Mr. Roebuck, said—ln 1856
I was in Scinde, in the oapacity of postmaster-general,
at a salary of 1,0001., and was induced to give that office
up in consequence of certain representations from Ali
Moorad that I should be well remunerated, and that if
he regained his position I should have a sum of 3,0001.
per annum. I received 5001. from Ali Moorad before I
left India, and some small sums afterwards I was
introduced to Mr. Butt by my brother, and had
interview about presenting his highness's petition,
but at that time there was nothing mentioned about
money. Some days afterwards I had a conversation
with Mr. Butt, who told me ho was not a very rich man,
and as he would have to incur great expense, witheut
the Ameer would assist him he could not prosecute the
petition with effect. This I told to the Ameer, who
directed me to inform Mr. Butt that if be gained
a restitution of his property he would give him 5,0001
This occurred in 1856. The next arrangement was in
July, 1857. After a good deal of correspondence with the
Indian Board, it was understood that a despatch would be
sent out directing the authorities in Scinde to inquire
into the case, and that, as Mr. Butt would require to go
to India to wind up the whole of the affairs, and as he
could not give up all his business here, the 5,0001
was doubled ; and it was finally understood that the
despatch was sent out. The purport of the despatch
was, that the authorities in Scinde should examine into
the case. The despatch, however, was never sent out
I recollect, in July, 1857, a letter being shown me by Mr.
Butt, who bad, I understood, written to Mr. Vernon
' Smith. The letter was to the effect that Government
would feel embarrassed if Mr. Butt brought on his pro-
Posed motion. In July I recollect Mr. Butt wanting a
sum of money ; in the event of his not receiving, it he
would be compelled to leave London for Dublin. After
some convereation with the Ameer, I got a blank cheque,
and, by direction of the Ameer, the sum filled in was
3001. by the Ameer, and it was crossed to Mr. Butt.
The witness was under examination when the repor
left.

CRIMINAL OOURT.—(This Day.)

OLD COURT.
(Before the Recorder.)
MATE ROBBBRT.

Two women, named S:nith and Elliot, were indicted
for stealing a quantity of silver plate, the property of a
gentleman named Clanohy.
Mr. Orridge appeared for the prosecution, and Mr.
Cooper defended the prisoner Elliot.
The learned comm.' having stated the case to the jury,
called

Police-constable Wrefard, 94 (City), who said—l was
on duty near Cutler-street, on the evening of the 9th of
February, and shortly before nine o'clock I there saw
the prisoner Elliot ; and from information I received I
pursued and took her into custody. She was in com-
pany with Elliot.

Baker, City policeman 635, said—On the 9th of Feb.
I saw the prisoners, in company with a man, come out
of a court in Cutler-street. On Smith seeing me she
ran into the Clothes Exchange. I pursued her, and
took ber into custody, and in her possession I found the
bundle of plate (produced). I asked her where she had
got the property, and she said she had picked it up in a
street the name of which she could not tell.
Mrs. Bowyer, the female searcher at the Bishopsgate
street station-house, said—On the person of Smith I
found a silvtr mustard spoon, the property of the pro-
secutor. Nothing was found on Elliot.
Emily Salmon
am cook in the service of Mr.
Clanchy, of Campden-hill-road,
Kensington. On the
9th February, about 8 o'clock in the morning, I disco-
vered that my master's house had been entered during
the night and robbed. The first thing I noticed was the
table cover, which had been removed, and the area door
was wide open. I immediately went to the cupboard,
to look if the plate was safe, but found it had all been
taken away. I have known the prisoner Smith for
about six weeks. Previous to the robbery she used to
wash- my dreveg. The plate was safe at 10 o'clock in
the evening previous to the robbery.
A pawnbroker identified Smith as the person who
pawned some of the property.
Mr. Clanchy identified the plate as his property.
Mr. Cooper addressed the jury for Elliot, and con.
tended that there was no evidence against her. She had
unfortunately met the other prisoner when she had the
property in her possession, but that was al.
Smith, who was undefended, said she found the plate
lying in the road. She picked it up and afterwards met
Elliot. After a short conversation it was resolved to
pawn it, but ultimately she thought it best to keep
the property to see if a reward was offered for it. As
they were in the neighbourhood of the Clothes Exchange
two men pushed against them and nude the plate in
the bundle rattle, and because they refused to sell them
the property they gave information to the police, and
they were immediately afterwards taken into custody.
The Recorder having summed up,
The jury found the prisoner Smith guilty, and ac
quitted Elliot.
The Recorder sentenced Smith to 18 months' im-
prisonment, with hard labour.

-___

NEW COURT.

Sergeant
twpario:eccenutions,
pied the whole of the
morning
possessed the slightest interest. none of which
mho
C oimn mboena ri n g

MARKET laWB.--(Thia Day.)