The Sun.
London, England, 1859-06-23 00:00:00

THE CASE OF MR. GILPIN.

(Front the Times.)
Mr. W. 0. Stanley, the gentleman who so hon-
ourably vindicated his pretensions to the possession
of a sound head and clear judgment when the
Derby Reform Bill was on the anvil a few months
ago, is again hitting the right nail upon the head.
We find ourselves suddenly involved by him in the
meshes of a breach of privilege, and all because a
certain gentleman, a Mr. Dennis, the legal adviser
of Mr. Vernon Smith, made certain statements at a
public meeting at Northampton on the evening of
Monday last. The substance of these statements
was that attempts had been made to corrupt Mr.
Charles Gilpin. Mr. Dennis said to the meeting—
here are the very words of our report :—" As an
illustration of the agencies that had been at work
during the late struggle, Mr. Gilpin showed him
two letters, which he had received from the agents
of the Tory party, and in which a direct attempt
was made to corrupt Mr. Gilpin in the dis-
charge of his duty as a member of Parliament,
and to influence him in giving his vote upon the
last division by offering to him a pecuniary consi-
deration of the grossest and most direct character."
There it is ; the fly will be found embalmed in the
pure amber of Mr. W. 0. Stanley's Parliamentary
eloquence, and that lump of pure amber will be found
adhering to another of our columns this day. Not
the faintest shadow of a remark or comment was
offered upon the matter in this journal. The world
was informed that on a certain night, at a certain
town, a certain gentleman, named, stood up among
so many hundreds of people and said so and so. Mr.
Dennis, Mr. Gilpin, the Northampton meeting, and
the House of Commons might—as one should ima-
gine—settle this little dispute among themselves.
Such, however, does not appear to be the conclusion
at which Mr T. Duncombe and other gentlemen
have arrived. Upon the state of facts set out above
their desire is to be accurately informed—not of the
position and character of Mr.. Dennis, but—of the
name or names of the publisher and editor of the
Times ! The names required will certainly throw
considerable light upon the question. Mr. Gilpin,
it appears, admits that he received two such letters,
but states that he is unable to bring them home to
the agents of the Conservative party. Might it not
be as well to have the letters produced, and hon.
gentlemen would then know the better what they
were talking about ? To give further weight and
colour to this mare's nest, which Mr. W. 0. Stanley
has so judiciously dug up, the house is told that her
Majesty informed Lord Palmerston who informed
Mr. Vernon Smith, who informed Mr. Dennis, who
informed the meeting at Northampton, and, by
consequence, our reporter, who informed Mr. W.
0. Stanley and the rest of the •world, that Mr.
Vernon Smith is to be raised to the peerage " in
consideration of the gross scurrility, foul abuse,
and most unwarrantable attacks that had been
made upon him during his tenure of office."
But has not Mr. Vernon Smith been guilty of
breach of privilege ? He, a Privy Councillor, to
betray the secret thoughts of his Sovereign on so
capital a matter! Where is Lord Derby while such
• dreadful things are suffered to pass without challenge
or reprimand ? This most ludicrous passage in the
records of our Parliament would not have been
quite complete without the reappearance of our old
friend Colonel Dunne upon the scene, to talk to the
house about the Times' calumny upon his own
honourable self. True it is that, by some enormous
mistake of the tellers, clerks, printers, &c., who
draw up the division lists, his name does not appear
among the " Ayes" on the Ecclesiastical Titles
Bill ; but then Colonel Dunne has forgotten all
about it, which is, of course, decisive on the other
side.