§ Mr. Goulburn, in presenting certain proclamations issued by the governor of Trinidad, said, he could have wished to vindicate that individual from the imputations cast upon him by an hon. and learned gentleman (Mr. Brougham), whom he did not then see in his place. As he was not present, however, he should merely make one observation upon the charge, that British hospitality was sold in that island for the emolument of the governor. It was the invariable rule of that colony, that no fees were paid for permission to reside there, and the hon. and learned member, therefore, who had made the accusation, was altogether misinformed.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he did not recollect that his hon. and learned friend had made any such charge; and he was the more certain that he had not (at least in his hearing), because, from the knowledge he had of the governor of that island, and the respect he felt for him, he should certainly have risen to state, that he believed him utterly incapable of the alleged conduct. The observation must have been directed, not against the governor, but against the assessor of the island, a Spaniard of the name of Gomez, and who, from all he had heard, was totally unfit to hold the situation.
§ Mr. Goulburnreplied, that having seen the charge so stated, in the usual channels by which the debates in that House were made public, and having made inquiries among the members, he was led to understand that what he had asserted was correct.
Mr. Bennetsaid, he found he had mistaken the hon. gentleman, in supposing he alluded to his hon. and learned friend (Mr. Brougham), instead of the hon. member for Sandwich (Mr. Marryat).
§ Mr. T. Courtenayobserved, that the hon. member for Sandwich certainly did say, that British hospitality was sold in the island of Trinidad, but he did not understand him to affirm, that it was sold for the profit of the governor.