The Sun.
London, England, 1844-04-27 00:00:00

nature of those charges. He trusted they should apply ,
to those charges the principles of common sense, and '
ask themselves this question—what is the imputation
which the expressions meant to convey ? It was im-
1
puted to his Right Hon. Friend, in express terms, that
he, being Secretary of State, and standing in an official
relation to the Poor-law Commissioners, who were in
communication with him, that he took steps to procure
a report which was, false, merely for the purpose of
crushing a Member of the House of Commons. He
could not put the construction of the Hon. and Learned-
Member who spoke last on those words. Could those
expressions mean anything but that the Secretary of
State took steps to procure a false report af-
fecting the character of a Member of the House
Commons ? Could *there be any doubt what.:
ever upon the plain meaning of his
_expressions ?
If there were, let them look to the expressions
which followed in a subsequent part of the statement.
It was there said that the Secretary of State dismissed
the poor tool who had been his degraded and ignomi-.
nious instrument in fabricatiag, the injurious report.
Surely, the charge was not that his Right Hon. Friend
had quoted a report whiCh had turned out to be erro-
neous, but the charge was, that he had made use of his
official authority for the purpose of .fabricating, Or pro:
curing the fabrication of, a false report, -and that the
man wild had made that report WR$ a degraded and ig
nominious instrument..- How could he :be degraded and
ignominious if there were merely unintentional errors in
the report ? What was the charge with respect to the
Hon. Member for Beverley. ? •It was said that his Bight
Hon. Friend "having an interest* in procuring the ex-
clusion of Mr. Walter from the Houseof Commons, this
Tory Chairman-united with Sir James Graham and the,
Government in unseating Mr. Walter." Surely the
meaning of that was, that Mr. Hogg acted a corrupt
part. Again, it was said, " How happened it that when
Mr. Hogg tried to explain away his conduct upon that
occasion the whole Government side of_ the House

listened with feelings of disgust while he hig-
gled and haggled in his explanation. If it were
merely an erroneous construction of the law,
why should there have been disgust? Could disgust bo
applied to anything but improper, notorious, and cor-
rupt conduct ?—(Hear, hear.) That was the construe
tion which, applying the principles of common sense, he
Faxed to the charges which were contained in these
expressions. But if there were no imputation of cor.-
rapt motives, what could have been easier, than for the
Hon. Member for Knaresborough to have got up in his
place, and said—" Although the expressions are
correct, yet the constructions you: place upon
them are erroneous ; I declare that I entirely ac-
quit Mr. Hogg of corrupt conduct in his judi-
cial capacity ; I think his judgment, which had the
effect of unseating Mr. Walter, was erroneous,
but I never meant to impute to him any deviatien froin
his duty." Now, was any such explanation offered by the.
Hon. Member ? He said," I adhere to the expressions ;
I protest against the tribunal ; I will not disclaim the
Intention of.imputing corrupt motives ; the expressions
are correct, and I will maintain entire silence as to the
construction put upon them." Sir, I don't feel that I
am at liberty to explain away the expressions, when all
explanation is refused by the Hon. Member who used
them.—(Hear, hear.) The charge against .the Secre-
tary of State was a definite one. It was not likeebarges.
which had been preferred against the House of Commons
generally—the charges of being influenced by corrupt
motives, or.of being guilty .of perjury,—(ilear, hear.)
The charge against the Secretary of State, was a definite
one : it was that he used the influence of his office for

the purpose of procuring a false report. The Hon. Gentle-
man, in the course of the speech which he had made that
night, said, the House of Commons wished to visit hini
at once with condemnation on account of these expres-
sions. He (Sir R. 'reel) had looked upon the Hon. Gen-
tleman as the accused in that ease.—(Hear, hear.) He
had thought that the Hon. Gentleman had preferred a
charge ; and what he had advised was that the House of
Commons should, if the Hon. Gentleman were,prepared
to substantiate his charge, immediately appoint a tri-
bunal by which the charges might be established if they
were correct. The House hid heard the statement
made by the Honourable Gentleman, and he presumed
they would then wish to come to some conclusion. He
(Sir R. Peel) considered that the impressions conveyed
or implied a charge of corrupt conduct against two
Members 'of that House. The complaint had now been
formally made, and they' were now called upon to come
to some decision upon it.. If the lion. Gentle Man had
said that he was prepared 'to substantiate his charge, he
(Sir R. Neel) „would have' proposed that a Committee
should be appointed to examine into the facts, and re-
"port them to the House ; but as the Hon. Gentleman
had pursued no such course, he thought they were called
upon to pronounce their opinion on this matter.—(Hear.)
-He thought the House would have inferred, from what
he said on the first occasion when he addressed them,
that be was unwilling to take any step in establishing a
precedent for interference with the expression of opinion
in the House, and especially it was the right of Mem-
bers to question the officha. acts of a Minister. But
where the imputation implied corruption, and where the
Member declined to substantiate the charge, :the Minis-
ter had a right to appeal to the House for its opinion.
lie would now read the resolutioris which he propoSed
to move.—(Heari hear.), The 'first resolution referred
to the paragraphs of the speech which had 'been. read by
the Clerk, and resolved, " fhat in certain expressions in
that speech, it was imputed to the Right Hon. Sir James
Graham, Bart., that he had taken, steps to procure a re-
port merely for the purpose of crushuag,.a Member of
that House, and had dismissed the poor tool whom
he had uied, as the degraded and ignominious
instrument in fabriCating the report. That in another
passage, in, reference to the Committee appointed to try
the petition against the return for the borough of Not-
tingham in 1842, Sir James Graham bad found it neces-:

sary to procure the unseating of John Wilter, Esq., flue
Member petitioned against.; and that James Weir He
Esq., a Member of. the 11,mse and of the Committee,
aided - Sir James Graham in unseating Mr. Walter."—
(Hear, hear.) That was his first resolution, and, in
justice to the gentloman upon whom such grave
imputations had been cast, he would move, secondly—
" That these having been the_ imputations, and William
Busfeild Ferrand, Esq., having avowed that he used them,
and declined to substantiate the truth of them, this
House is of opinion that, the imputations are wholly un-
founded and calumnious, and have no effect, in the
slighest degree, upon the honour and cbaracter of the
Members' to whom they refer."—(J.oud cheers.) lie
thought that these resolutions would do justice, and
no more, to, the two Honourable Gentlemen who had
been assailed. He believed the resolutions to be pre-
cisely in conformity with the Act—(Cheers)—and he
thought that as this matter had been mooted, it was the

duty of the House to express its opinion.—(Hear, hear.)
He would perhaps now be asked what further proceed-
ing he would recommend the House to take.—(Hear,
hear.) He had looked back to the course which the
House had, on former occasions, pursued in matters of
this kind, and he found that in some of them the House
had proceeded to 'vote that the charges complained of in-
volved a breach of privilege.. He (Sir R. Peel) was un-
willing to follow such a precedent.—(Cheers.) One of
the present charges was against a Minister of the Crown
for acts asserted to be done in his official capacity ; and,
in his opinion, they should not go further than declaring
them to bemnfounded and calumnious, for he foresaw
difficulty on future occasions in proceeding to make it a'
breach of privilege.--(llear. hear.) He recollected the
case where he was himself charged by the late
Mr. Cohbett with a serious offence.. He was
not a Minister of the Crown, but 'he was a
Member of that House, and Mr. Cobbett called upon the
House to address the Crown to dismiss him (Sir Robert
Peel) from the Privy Council; for being guilty of con-
duct alleged by him to' be disgraceful. The House heard
that charge, which however did not appear to make a
very deep impression upon it, for it had ordered the re-
solutions put by Mr. Cobbett upon the Order Book to
be expunged from the records of the House, and that by
a majority of two or three hundred .to. four. l-,—(Hear.)
The House had thought that an ample vindication of his
(Sir Robert Peel's) honour, and a sufficient consolation
to him under his misfortunes—(A laugh)—and he was,
therefore, perfectly content. That however was the whole
of the proceeding in his case._ "Another case was when
Mr. Tierney brought, charges of partiality against Mr.
Abbott, then Speaker of the House; when a resolution,
moved by Mr. Canning, was passed, that the House tip-
proved of the conduct of the Speaker, and gave no cre-
dit to the charges brought against him. They rested
satisfied with that resolution, and adopted no other af-
terwards. He • (Sir.R. Peel) -believed it was infinitely
, better in matters of this kind to abide` by an honourable
acquittal of the' parties charged, and not to enter into
unnecessary contests with individuals.—(Cheers.) Jus-
tice would be 'perfectly satiSfied by this course—a course
which he had suggested on his own judgment, and with-
out consultation or co-operation with any one. If any
other Hon. Gentleman had another course to suggest, of
course he was at perfect liberty to do so, and to take the
opinion of the. House up= it.--:(Hear,. hear.) It was of
great importance that they should' be unanimous.—
(Hear.) He. hoped that after the declarations which
they had heard from individual Members, the almost
unanimous support of the,Heuse would betonceded to
the course proposed: ":
The SPEAICER was abut to put the resolutions. When
Mr. T. DUNCOMBFt and said he wished to say
a few .words before. the question was put. He did,not
understand thellon. Member for Xnaresborough to say
that he could ,not._ substantiate the charges, and he
thought it would be only fair to tall the Hon. Gentleman
in again, •and give- him an -opportunity of stating whe-
ther he could or not.—(Cries of " Ne, n 0.",) What he
had understood the Hon. ,Member' to say was,. that he
had no further. statement 'to make 'to the"Holise;
Sit ROBERT PEEL.' thought it was. sofficiently ob-
vious that the Hon. Gentleman was :not prepared to sub-
stantiate the charges,before that,House„ which was the
proper tribunal. His :o°M:hiding. words were that he
would offer no explanatiOn excepts out of that,House, a
phrase which be (Sir R. Peel) did not :understand ; but
the. Hon. Member said he. protested altogether against
that tribunal.
The question was then put.,
Mr, FITZSTEPHEN ,FRENCH said it appeared to
him that the Right, Hon.: Baronet had not completely
stated die case. He omitted to state that the Hen.
Member for Knaresbornugh had denied that he meant
to impute any corrupt. tamperiog:
..He,distinctly denied
" that he made any such imputation. lite:deprecated the
courseliursued by theillon..Member,,butoia he thought
the House would be acting most inconsistently if they
•. pursued, the course - suggested; he Avould,. in 'accordance
with that opinion, move the following' resolution:—
"That, inasmuch as the Noble Lord the Secretary for
the Colonies did on a &miner Occasion in his place in.
--Par-
liament,' colleagues." (Cries of accuse his former _
Oh, oh," from the- Opposition side of the 'Flotte.)
He should not, be deterred from proceeding by these . , ,ing
ityoulc.l; eny gtve, him
signs. of dislikes qr
the trouble of reading the resolution a se6ori time.
Hon. Member proceeded—" of introducing measures for
the consideration of Parliament which involved in-
famous tricks and low thimble-rigging, and as that
Noble Lord had offered no apology or explanation, and