HC Deb 21 July 1834 vol 25 cc284-6
Mr. O'Connell

brought up a Report of the Committee appointed to consider the circumstances of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey's exclusion from one of the inns of court, which was read as follows:

The Select Committee appointed to inquire into all the circumstances attending the rejection of the claim by Daniel Whittle Harvey, Esq., to be called to the Bar, and to report their opinion thereupon to the House, and who were empowered to report from time to time to the house, have agreed to the following Report:—

In the course of the examination of the right hon. Lord Western, the following evidence was given, which, though not immediately connected with the investigation in which the Committee is engaged, they feel it their duty to bring to the knowledge of the House without delay:—

Did you not yourself write to Mr. Ellice, calling upon him, as an officer connected with the Treasury, to send down a sum of money for the purpose of carrying on Mr. Harvey's election at Colchester?—No, I wrote for it to carry on Mr. Mayhew's election at Colchester.

Do you mean to say, the letter was not written to support Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey jointly?—Yes; it is my firm belief it was not to support them jointly; it was the furthest from my thoughts to have done so; it was to support Mr. Mayhew.

Your belief is strong to establish in your mind the distinction?—Yes.

Now, in point of fact, was any money sent from the Treasury to Colchester in consequence of your letter?—Yes, I understood there was.

Can you state who the parties were who shared the money?—No, I cannot state who the parties were that shared that money; but I understood, from yourself, I think, that there was a dispute about it, and an egregious dispute, and my recollection certainly is, that it was sent for Mr. Mayhew; I think he had three contests within a short time.

By the Committee.—How much was the money, do you know?—I think it was 500l.

Did Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey stand on the same interest?—Yes, I believe they did stand on the same interest; but they were most violently hostile to each other, as I understood.

By Mr. Harvey.—Who were hostile?—Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey; that is my impression.

Does your Lordship know that Mr. George Saville, of Colchester, was, at the time we have been speaking of, the treasurer of a common fund to secure the return of Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey?—No, I did not know that; you are asking me as to matters which I say are irrelevant; my desire was, that money should be deposited in Mr. George Saville's hands.

Did Mr. George Saville receive a sum of money, in point of fact, at your instance?—I believe so.

I ask you whether, if it shall appear that the sum of money which, through your influence, was obtained from the Treasury, was obtained in aid of my election at Colchester; that is consistent with your present answer? —I tell you I did not get it for your support; I did it for the support of Mr. Mayhew.

You were understood to say that, when you wrote to the Treasury to counsel money being sent down to promote the cause of reform, yours was a distinct application on behalf of Mr. Mayhew to Mr. Harvey's exclusion?— Not to his exclusion, but my application was for Mr. Mayhew.

As distinct from Mr. Harvey?—I did not say to Mr. Harvey's exclusion; but on Mr. Mayhew's account it was that I made the application, and not on Mr. Harvey's.

By the Committee.—Did your Lordship, at the election, exert yourself on public political grounds, to assist in procuring the return of Mr. Harvey as well as the other Gentleman, he being a reform candidate?—No, I did not; the great battle was for Mr. Mayhew; he was the person in danger.

He was not returned?—Yes, he was:

And for that purpose the 500l. was advanced by the Secretary of the Treasury for the purposes of the election?—Yes.

After a short conversation as to the mode of proceeding, it was understood, that Mr. O'Connell was to make a Motion on the subject whenever Mr. Ellice should be in the house. The Report was ordered to be laid on the Table.