HC Deb 15 August 1834 vol 25 cc1270-2
Mr. Ruthven

said, he wished to give notice of a Motion to be submitted early next Session, which deeply implicated Lord Ellenborough. It was that he, a Peer of the Realm, in his capacity as Clerk of the Court of King's Bench, had applied to his own use sums of money, and interests of sums of money, which it was his duty to have placed to the credit of the public.

Mr. Secretary Rice

thought the hon. Gentleman was really going a little too far. He might give his notice generally, but he certainly had no right to put it in a shape which conveyed a serious moral imputation upon a man's character. The latter part of the notice imputed that which, if untrue, was a most cruel outrage upon a man's feelings: and which, if true, ought to be met at once. To lay him under such an accusation for six months, without the opportunity of rebutting it, was anything but fair dealing. He hoped the Order-book of the House of Commons would never be turned to any such unjust purpose. What, on the last day of the Session to charge an individual with an indictable offence, and in the same breath tell him he should not have the opportunity of purging himself of such charge for months and months! He appealed to the hon. Gentleman's own feelings, would he like such justice to be meted out to him? On behalf of the House itself he (Mr. Rice) would object to the printing of any such notice; but let it be altered so as to carry a general character with it, and he would at once withdraw his opposition.

Mr. Hume

said, it was true, that the noble Lord had applied the money; but then, in the evidence upon the Table, he had accounted how he had done so. The notice ought certainly to be given in a general way, or not at all.

Mr. Hill

would take upon himself to state, as one of the parties in the inquiry, that the noble Lord's conduct had been as upright and as honourable as any man's could be.

Mr. Ruthven

said, the allegation was, that the noble Lord had applied to his own use the interest on Exchequer Bills, which belonged solely to the public. He would, however, strike out the objectionable part of his notice.

Mr. Spring Rice said, if the notice were one as to the emoluments of the office held by Lord Ellenborough, no one would object to it.

Mr. George F. Young

thought, that it would be gross injustice to the noble Lord, or to any man, to let such a notice stand upon the Books of the House. Surely the hon. Member would not persist in such a course.

Lord Althorp

said, he was the last man to oppose inquiry into the conduct of any public functionary who might be supposed to have misbehaved himself. But, then, there was a just way of causing that inquiry. If the hon. member for Dublin thought there had been wrong done to the public, he was not only justified in demanding inquiry, but he would desert his own duty if he did not demand it. Let him not, however, implicate a man's character and at the same time say to him, "You shan't for six months have an opportunity of defending it." The notice, in his opinion, ought to be framed so as to carry no implication.

Motion withdrawn.

Forward to