The Sun.
London, England, 1844-08-08 00:00:00

A UGUST e, 1644,

Winchester prevents me from speaking more plainly,
and in a tone which you deserve. Your most obedient
to command."—(Laughter.) Simultaneougly, with that
letter another appenred in the columns of the Timcs
newspaper.

Sir.,—Mr. Thomas Slingsby Duncomhe, M.P. for
Finsbury, having declined to give me any personal ex-
planation of the epithets of " lo.natic" and "perjurer,"
applied to me in the House of Commons on the 23d of
July last, although called upon to do so, I beg leave to
publish the following proofs of the utter falsehood of his
statements, derived froth the highest medical, legal, and
military authorities ; and I leave to the discernment of
the British public to qualify Mr. Duncombe for the future
with the titles he may best deserve.
1. Mr. Duncombe said (or is reported to have said),
that "I am only fit for a lunatic asylum." Here is my
reply :
" We, the undersigned, hereby declare that we have
known the Rev. Daniel Dobree since his childhood, and that
he neither is, nor ever has been, either of unsound mind or
weak in intellect.

" S. E. HOSKINS, M.D. and F.R.S.
" J. O'BRIEN, Surgeon."
2. Mr. Duncombe said (or is reported to have said),
that lam a " perjurer." Here is my reply, in the letter
of the Crown solicitor himself, who was sent over here to
investigate the business in question :
" Twytord-house, Winchester, July 26.
I cannot conceive any man, of ordinary intellect, unob-
scured by party prejudice, accusing or thinking a gentleman
in holy orders, of good education and habits, guilty of perjury,
merely because a decision has been given inconsistent with
the tendency of his evidence. We here every day find con-
tlicting evidence, given by most unexceptionable witnesses ;
and if perjury were to be imputed to those of the unsuccessful
side, half our countrymen would be thought guilty of a crime
wh►ch is not, I trust, our prevailing vice.
" But leaving these general observations, you ask me
whether I think you guilty of perjury? I reply that Ido
not. Ido not believe that your statement made to me, and
by me repeated to the Lieutenant-Governor, was false. Ido
not believe that such statement having since been made by
you in court on oath was perjured.

_
" ',T. L. DAMPIER.
':But Mr. Duncombe thinks fit to assert that lam
unworthy of credit,' &e. Here is my reply, addressed
to me by General Napier himself:—
" Haviland Hall, July 23.
"‘Sir,—As'lseetthat yourenemies, as unscrupulous as they
are locally powerful, have determined to destroy your cha-
racter and prospects, I give this testimony in all sincerity of
belief in its truth, and in accordance with what I have more
than once written to the Secretary of State for the Home-
office. From personal observation, from the assurance of Bri-
tish officers, natives of Guernsey, and others not natives of
Guernsey, from your general character, and from the straight-
forward, frank, earnest, and unvarying testimony you have
given to me in private, to Mr. Dampier, and in my presence
at the so called secret inquest of the Royal Court, I have
the most implicit confidence in the truth of your depositions.
I feel sure that you are totally incapable of falsehood, and
that perjury is as incompatible with your notions of honour,
as it is incompatible with your sacred character of a minister
of the Gospel. All persons of honourable minds who know
you, must start with indignation and.horror at the infamous
attempts now made to charge you with such a crime.
" W. NAPIER, Lieutenant-Governor.
"‘ To the Rev. Daniel Dobree.'
And now, Sir, pray tell me what is Mr. Thomas
Slingsby Duncombe?—l am, Sir, your obliged and grate-
ful servant, " DANIEL DOI3REE, M.A.,
" Rector of the Forest and Torteval, Guernsey.
".Forest Rectory, Aug. 6."
Now he (Mr. Duncombe) thought he was justified in
asking the Government whether they sanctioned the
Crown Solicitor taking any part in this personal squabble
between the Rev. Mr. Dobree and himself. It would
be recollected that he appeared there in the discharge
of his public duty. He knew nothing of any of these
parties—he was merely the channel of communica-
tion between that House and the great body of the
people of Guernsey. Mr. Dobree had charged those
people with disaffection and disloyalty ; a charge
which he (Mr. Duncombe) knew to be quite
unfounded. It had been proved in a court of justice
that Mr. Dobree was unworthy of credit. What he
(Mr. T. Duncombe) complained of was, that when be
moved for the correspondence which had taken place
between the authorities of Guernsey and the Right lion.
Baronet, he should be told that the production of that
correspondence would be injurious to the public service,
and yet the Crown-Solicitor and the Lieutenant-
Governor of Guernsey should be allowed from time
to time to refer to it in the newspapers. lie
thought it but just that the correspondence should be
produced, or that it should not be referred to by a
subordinate of the Government, such as he apprehended
Mr. Dampier was. As to the charges which he (Mr.
Duncombe) had made, he could only say that he was
borne out by the local press of Guernsey, which teemed
every week with charges against Mr. Dobree, and which
defied that gentleman to indict them for libel. He
(Mr. Duncombe) wished to know whether the Govern-
ment:sanctioned its officers mixing themselves up with
such matters as these ?

Sir J. GRAHAM said that it was evidently late in
the session, or the Hon. Gentleman would never have
taken up half an hour of their time to discuss such a
question as this. If the Hon. Gentleman had asked him
whether the letter which had been addressed to him was
a letter a clergyman ought to have written, he should
have said at once that it was not. But if the Hon.
Gentleman thought it was worth while to enter into a
discussion on this matter, he was bound to say that ho
entertained a very different opinion. He thought
it was unworthy of prolonged discussion in that House.
The Hon. Gentleman stated that Mr. Dampier was in
the employment of the Government. Now, the Hon.
Gentleman ought to be better informed before he made
his accusations. Mr. Dampier held no situation under
Government. He was sent to Guernsey to inquire into
the state of affairs there in consequence of the informa-
tion he (Sir J. Graham) received, and which had led to
the trial to which the Hon. Gentleman referred. Having
finished that inquiry, he was as independent of any relation
with the Government as was the lion. Gentleman him-
self. With regard to the conduct of the Government,
he had never read the letter to which the lion. Gentle-
man referred. He had never seen or heard of it till the.
present occasion. His time was to much occupied to
read the Guernsey Press, from which the Hon. Gentle-
man quoted so largely. The Government had known
Mr. Dobree, but the Honourable Gentleman had not ;
he had formed his opinions on grounds which the
honourable Gentleman had not, and he stated that
he thought Mr. Dobree was a sane and a true man, and,
being of that opinion, he could not say it was at all in-
consistent with his duty to certify to that effect. He thought
the Hon. Gentleman should be therefore more certain
of his information. The Hon. Gentleman had also a few
days ago stated that Sir J. Walsham had interfered as a
poor-law Commissioner in Durham and Northumber-
land, and had introduced Welsh labourers to defeat the
colliers, who stood out for higher wages.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he did not say that. He
had read a paragraph from the local paper which he
held in his hand at the time, and he wished to know from
the Hon. Gentleman whether it was true. It was be-
cause he did not know that it was true that he made the
inquiry. With regard to another point, the Right Hon.
Gentleman had made another misstatement.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that Sir J. Walsham
had interfered as a poor. law-commissioner to put down
the strike for wages in a town with which he had no
connexion. He (Sir J. Graham) stated that Sir J.Wals
ham had been an assistant poor-law commissioner, and
had resided in Northumberland—that he was a pro-
prietor both in Lancashire and South Wales, and that
he might. as an individual, have induced persons to go
,to those places and obtain wages. He did not mean to
say that it was in the least dishonourable for an indivi-
dual. He had not then seen Sir J. Walsham, but he had
since an opportunity of referring to hien' and lie was
authorised by Sir J. Walsham to say that he had never
directly or indirectly interfered in his individual capa-
city in the manner alleged. Nothing, therefore, could be
more unqualified than his contradiction of the statement.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said he had never stated that he
had received positive information. He had founded his
question on a paragraph in the newspapers, and he had
asked him whether it was true or not. The Right Hon.
Baronet had also fallen into an error in supposing that
it was he who stated that Mr. Dampier was the Crown
solicitor, it was Mr. Daniel Dobree who had stated this
in his letter to the Times.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENTS.

Mr. BROTHERTON wished to ask the Right lion.
Baronet, the Secretary of State for the Home Depart-
ment, whether it was in the contemplation of
her Majesty's Government to introduce any Bill
in the next session of Parliament, either to-
tally to abolish capital punishments, or to
extend the number of cases of exemption from that
punishment? He was quite convinced that these public
exhibitions had a very injurious effect on public morals,
and the melancholy occurrence which had taken place
at Nottingham was a full proof of that. If the House
would permit him, he would just read an extract from a
letter which he had received.—(Cries of " No, no.")
Ile really thought it was more worthy of the attention
of the House than some subjects which were intro-
duced in that House. (The Hon. Member then
read an extract from a letter relating to the accident
which had just occurred on the occasion of an execution,
'in which thirteen persons lost their lives) ; and said he
wished to know whether it was the intention of her Ma-
jesty's Government to introduce any measure to put an
end to these disgraceful exhibitions, which,in his opinion,
did not tend to prevent crime, but only to harden the
minds of the people ?
Sir J. GRAHAM said he had no hesitation whatever
in telling the Hon. Gentleman that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had no intention to introduce any measure on
that subject. His opinion was entirely the reverse of
that expressed by the Hon. Gentleman, as regarded the
moral effect of executions in cases of murder. At the same
time, he must express his deep regret at the fatal occur-
rence which had taken place at Nottingham ; though he
must say be had never heard an inference which appeared
to him to have so little foundation, as that this fatal
catastrophe was at all to be ascribed to the bad moral
effect of a public execution.—(Hear, hear.) The event
might have occurred at a horse race, or even, through
sudden panic, in a chapel. He repeated that he had
no intention of proposing either the abolition or the re-
mission in certain cases of capital punishments.
Mr. BROTHERTON said he had made no inference
like that which the Hon. Gentleman had mentioned.
The Roman Catholic Penal Acts Relief Bill was read
a third time and passed.
Sir R. PEEL laid on the table papers relating to the
slave-trade ; also papers relating to Captain Warner's
experiment.
CAPTAIN WARNER'S EXPERIMENT AT
BRIGHTON.

Captain PECHELL observing that a portion of the
papers which the Bight Hon. Baronet had laid on the
table consisted of the correspondence with Captain
Warner, would ask him a question on the subject. He
did not mean to say that Captain Warner was a fit sub-
ject for a lunatic asylum, but he would state to the
House certain facts which had come to his knowledge.
He had received a model of a vessel from Shoreham, the
port from which the ship destroyed by Capt. Warner had