Star.
London, England, 1831-04-14 00:00:00

TRAFFICKING IN SEATS.
Sir S. SUDDEN said he could not have supposed that the hon.
member for Waterford should have made indirect charges against him
on newspaper statements, the truth of which he had denied, Instead of
bringing forward any charge he had to make manfully. The hon. gent.
indirectly charged him with having procured his seat in Parliament by
improper means. He denied the charge, and with having sought it as
' the means of obtaining judicial station. It was well known that he
was not desirous of obtaining judicial station, or he might have done it
—for it had been offered him. He was desirous of winning his way by
his own exertions ; but it was not right that he should be attacked in
that house after he had denied the truth of the statements. There was
an attack on him in the *I fetes newspaper that day, four-fifths of which
were utterly false. (Hear.)
Mr. O'CONNELL said a person had called on him with docu-
ments which he wished him to read, but wished his name to be con.
waled ; he refused to look at the documents, as he never would act on
anonymous information. The person then allowed his name, which is
1 Norton, to be used ; and showed him letters, which he stated to be in
the hand-writing of the hon. member for Weymouth, and which he
(31r. O'Connell) had no reason to doubt were written by him, and these
letters clearly moved the fact of that hon. member's trafFeking for his
seat in that House, and the expeoces of his election to be paid out of
the produce of other seats. He saw the same thing in print, and not
contradicted. He found the hon. gentleman one of the most strenuous
advocates of the vile system in which he was himself a dealer, and he
used his published letters as public documents in proof of the vileness
and baseness of the practices he stipported; and he would continue to
do so. Would the Hon. Gentleman second his motion for the appoint.
went of a Special Committee to inquire into his conduct? He then gave
him notice that he would more for such a Committee.

Sir E. SL'GDEN said, if such language as the Hon. Gentleman
had used was to be tolerated in that house, it was indeed time that a
Reform should take place, but not such a Reform as that Hon-
ourable Gentleman proposed. He did not believe the Hon-
ourable Gentleman when he aaid he had seen the letters
he mentioned. It was scandalously false to Ray that he had not paid the
expenses of his own election. He assured the house, on his honour, he
had paid them all. He never kept copies of his letters—they were ge-
nerally written in court. The learned gentleman said he had not denied
the letters. He was confident he had not written some of those he was
charged with having written ; but he denied the truth of the whole
statement. The honourable gentleman attacked him because he was
doing his duty in opposing the bill, and when the ministers opposed his
bill for vote by ballot or universal suffrage, he would attack them as
he attacked him.

Mr. HUME thought the language of the member for Weymouth was
an infringement of the orders of the house, when he told the member
for Waterford that he did not believe he had seen any letters of his to
the purport he had stated. He wished the Speaker to say whether such
language was parliamentary.
The SPEAKER said, that having been appealed to he must give
his opinion that when a member of the house was accused on letters
not produced, it was not unparllamentary for him to say they did not
exist, or that he did not believe they had been seen. He must say that
if there was disorder in the house he thought it most existed in the
speech of the hon. member for Waterford. (Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL said he thought it due to the honour of
the house, that the charges made against the bon. member fur Wey-
mouth should be inquired into ; and he hoped the hon. member for
Waterford would bring forward his motion for a Committee, when be
hoped the learned member for Weymouth would be able to vindicate
himself.

Sir EDWARD SUDDEN said, the House w uld observe, that if
the learned member for Waterford moved for such a committee, it was
not from any regard for the purity of that house, but for the purpose
of a personal attack upon him. He hoped the noble lord opposite
(Lord John Russell) would go further in the inquiry, and not make it
• personal matter. How, for instance, did his learned successor pro-
cure his seat in that house ; was it by an appeal to the people, or by
the payment of a sum ef money ? How did the member for Bleching-
ly, when he vacated his seat, en his acceptance of office, obtain his re-
turn to that house ? He hoped the noble lord would not lend himself
to a partial proceeding, but would make it a general measure.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL.—As a Member of Parliament I am
anxious to prevent the sale of seats in this house; and when the learned
gentleman tells me I should make it a general measure, my answer is I
am making it a general measure, and for that purpose brought in the
bill now before the House. (Great cheering.) The learned gentleman
has mentioned the borough of Blechingly; but if he will look at Sche•
dulc A. in that bill, he will find Blechingly to be disfranchised.—
As the Learned Gentleman recommends a general measure to prevent
the sale of seats, I confidently expect his support, even though late, to
the bill before the house. (Great cheers.)