The Sun.
London, England, 1844-07-13 00:00:00

GAMING.

The Duke of RICHMOND took that opportunity of
stating-to the Noble Lord opposite (the Earl of Radnor),
that the Committee on the subject of gaming had de-
sired him to inform the Noble Lord that the evidence
given by Mr. Russell before that Committee, had been
supplied to the individual who was Chairman of the
Committee on Gaming in the other House of Parliament.

The Earl of RADN'OR said the evidence might have
been supplied to an individual member of the House, but
it could not have been supplied to the Chairman of the
Committee, as that Committee had not been in existence
since the 20th of May last. He thought that the whole
of the proceedings were unfair, and that the evidence
had been made an unfair use of.
The Marquis of NORIIANBY said that the Noble
Lord who spoke last had entirely misapprehended the
state of the case. The conduct of his Noble Friend on
the cross benches (the Duke of Richmond) had been
influenced only by the most unimpeachable motives.—
(Hear.) There was one point to which he would advert

before he sat down. He had found it reported in a
newspaper, which he held in his hand, that a very gross
charge was made in another place upon the character
and conduct of his Noble Friend. That attack must
have been made by a young Member of the other House.
'Cne speech was reported in these words:—" I say that
there is presumptive proof of a conspiracy between the
promoters of the Bill in this House and the Chairman of
the Committee in another House."—( Hear, hear.). He
(Lord Normanby) had frequently had the misfortune to
differ from his Noble Friend, but no one who knew his
Noble Friend could doubt the integrity of his motives.
Such a charge could only be made by a very young
Member of Parliament.

The Earl of RADNOR knew nothing of what had
been said in the other House of Parliament on this sub-
ject. He only rose to state his opinion, that as the evi-
dence was printed only for the use of the members of
the Committee, a very unfair use had been made of it.
The Duke of RICHMOND said that complaint had
been made that the individual alluded to had had no
means of refuting the statements which bad been made
before the Committee, and the evidence had been placed
in the hands of the individual in the other House who
had taken up the defence of the other individual.
When he had undertaken to act as chairman of that

Committee he was aware that if he did his duty and
made a searching inquiry he should expose himself to
attacks from men who gained their living by plundering
the public. He did not care for their abuse, and he did
not think it worth his while to answer their statements.
He cared not whether attacks of this nature were
made in the House of Commons or elsewhere ; he stood
upon hischaracter. He knew that when young and zealous
Members first entered Parliament, they were apt, in
consequence of the novelty of the situation in which
they found themselves placed, to take up what they
considered cases of hardshifi without making that proper
inquiry which older Members were in the habit of
making. He would recommend these young men,
before they attacked others, not to impute lightly to
those whom they attacked motives by which they would
not themselves be actuated under similar circumstances.
Lord MONTE AG-LE, as a member of the Committee,
was willing to share the responsibility with the, Noble
Duke, who had completely vindicated himself from any
charges which might have been brought against him.
He was not aware of what had taken place elsewhere,
but he knew that the Hon. Gentleman to whom allu-
sion had been made was the last person in the world
who would avail himself of his privileges as a Member of
Parliament to cast reflections upon any man.
Lord CAMPBELL considered the Noble Duke had
completely vindicated himself, as he had expected; but it
was very natural that a Member of the other House
should be surprised at finding that the evidence
which had been taken before their Lordships'
Committee had been communicated to other persons,
for- it was contrary to the standing orders of the
House of Commons to communicate the evidence
which was given before Select Committees of that House
until it should be reported. He was not aware of what
had passed in the other House, and had been" anticipated
by the Noble Lord who had preceded him in the vindica-
tion of the Hon. Member to whom the Noble Duke had
alluded. There was not, he believed, a Member in the
House of Commons who was more respected than that
Hon. Gentleman was by both sides of the House. He
was regarded and esteemed as one of the most rising
men in that House, and would eventually become one of
the most trusted representatives of the people.
Messengers from the Commons brought up certain Bills.
OPENING LETTERS AT THE POST-OFFICE.

The Earl of RADNOR presented a petition from Mr.
Mazzini, who stated that he was apprehensive that cer-
tain accusations were to be brought against him before a
Committee of that House. He said that he was an exile,
having deliberately given up his home and the comforts
of his home, and having received sympathy and hospi-
tality in this country ; and he felt that he was entitled
to such sympathy so long as he did not yiolate the laws
of the country which had received him as a guest. He
had for some time past received letters from persons to
whom he was unknown ; from which letters it would
appear to a stranger that he (Mr. Mazzini) was a co-
conspirator with the writer of those letters. He
therefore prayed that if any accusations should be
brought against him, he might be allowed to rebut them
before the Committee.

The NOBLE EARL gave notice that he should mov on
Monday that the petition be referred to the Select C m-
matee on opening Post letters.
The DUKE of BUCCLEUGH laid on the table the
first report on the sanatory condition of the people.
The Marquis of NORMANBY postponed his motion
on this subject from Tuesday next to Tuesday week.'
BANK CHARTER BILL. I
Lord STRADBROKE presented a petition against
the Bank Charter Bill.

The Marquis of SALISBURY presented a petition
from an individual named Payton, complaining, that in
compliance with the wishes of a Committee of the Hduse
he had expended 4,2501. in experiments, with a view to
supplying the metropolis with water, and that he had
received no remuneration.

The Duke of BUCCLEUCH said that he could ,not
find that any authorised order had been given to this
gentleman by the Committee.
Lord REDESDALE said that, when the Commit-
tee was proposed, he opposed the appointment ; and
he was by no means pleased to find now, at the
end of four years, that his own judgment was
confirmed. He did not think that the Committee had
any authority to employ this gentleman, nor did he think
that that gentleman had any claim.
After a few words from Lord RADNOR, in explana-
tion, the conversation dropped, and the petition was laid
on the table.

DISSENTERS' CHAPELS BILL.
The Marquis of LANSDOWNE presented petitions
from various places in favour of the Commons Amend-
ments to the Dissenters' Chapels Bill.