HC Deb 22 April 1836 vol 33 cc122-94
Mr. Sergeant Wilde

, in explanation of the observations he made last night upon the conduct of Mr. Raphael in respect to the payment of the money, begged permission to read the two extracts from the evidence taken before the Committee to which he had last night referred. The following were the passages read by the hon. and learned Member:— Had you any communication with Mr. Raphael soon after that petition was presented, upon the subject of the prosecution of it?—I had several. Will you detail what passed between you and him on that subject?—I met him at various times, and explained to him the exact state in which we stood. I mentioned the nature of the petition, and the very great grounds we had to expect success. I mentioned to him that there was every probability of the seat being opened, and I referred to our previous negotiation, and told him that now was a favourable time for his uniting himself to the county, and identifying himself with the county and with the interest of the Liberal party of the county; that our cause was good at the time, but that our funds were weak; that any gentleman situated as he was, who would aid us in prosecuting that petition, if in other respects suited to us, as what we viewed him at the moment, that we would look upon him as having a claim to our support when the seat was opened. I stated to him the nature of the expenses that the petition would probably run to, and the expenses that the county would look to him to defray for that purpose, and entered generally— You say you told him what expenses the county would expect him to defray, will you give the Committee a general statement of what you said to him upon the subject?—It was very general; I stated to him that the expenses of the petition might vary from 500l. to 1,000l., but at the same time I stated that the county had subscribed to a certain extent, and that it was only certain assistance that we should expect from him, but not the entire. I then further added, that there were certain expenses which I had been already in negotiation with him about when the contest would ensue, but, however, I found that Mr. Raphael was by no means inclined— State the substance of what he said?—He stated in general that he was disinclined to run any risk; if the seat was opened, and there was a certainty of success, that then he would come forward and meet our wishes, but he generally staled his disinclination to run any risk on the occasion. Did he say anything on the subject of expense, or the amount of it, or in what way he estimated that?—He stated, that expense was no object to him; that in case of being returned, no expense he would consider as too great for the paramount object of his ambition; he spoke, in fact, of thousands that he would give, while I was telling him that we wanted a more moderate sum; he went far beyond me in his professions to meet our wishes. If we were not sure of having a candidate, we should not have been very likely to go on with the petition; he gave us every reason to suppose that, in the event of success upon that petition, we should have him as a candidate, when the seat was opened. Did you continue that petition in any degree with a view of having Mr. Raphael at the end of it as a candidate?—I should say that we certainly continued it with the expectation of his being a candidate, one of the candidates, from the encouragement which he gave us, though he would not have anything to say to us while there was a doubt; we were certain that he would come to our terms when there was a certainty.

Sir Frederick Pollock

said, as his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Sergeant Wilde) had addressed the House, he supposed it was naturally expected that he should also do so. After, however, what had fallen from the Chair, he should have been disposed to take no part whatever in the discussion; but the resolutions proposed by the noble Lord, and the speech of his hon. and learned Friend, had left him no other course to take than that to which he now with great humility applied himself; and he respectfully claimed the indulgence of the House while he proceeded to speak of matters in which he had been personally concerned. In the outset he would state that he did not mean to vote on this question. He made that communication at once, because he thought it was the course which he, and he would say his hon. and learned Friend too, ought to take in reference to the subject now before the House; and he begged leave to state to the House why he thought he should adopt that course. It could not have been without grave reasons, that when the House, did his hon. and learned Friend and himself the honour to appoint them nominees in this affair, it accompanied that nomination with this additional limitation to their powers—that they should not vote in the Committee. The object of that order was perfectly intelligible; it was to give the whole transaction, as far as possible, a judicial character, and also to give to his hon. and learned Friend and himself, as far as possible, an unrestrained and an unembarrassed opportunity of discharging the duty which, under the direction of the House, had devolved upon them. He thought the decision of the House on that point was a correct one. If it had been doubted, some of the expressions which fell from his hon. and learned Friend last night abundantly proved the correctness of the course which the House had taken. When he heard his hon. and learned Friend speak of Mr. O'Connell as his client, and of keeping back a certain document until he had ascertained whether it made for or against that client, and when he heard him further state that he had laid a trap for the other side—if he could have doubted it before—and he had the utmost confidence in the wisdom of that House—he was then perfectly satisfied that it was essential to the dignity of the proceedings, to the consistency of the House, and to the judicial character of that transaction, that neither his hon. and learned Friend nor himself should be permitted to vote. If be was not permitted to vote on the Committee, he did not think himself at liberty to vote now. If he was bound at that time to keep within the limitation which this House thought necessary to fix for the preservation of the judicial form of the proceeding, he thought he was now placed in a situation which prevented him from giving a vote on any matter arising out of that proceeding. But he thought the House and the country expected that he should take some part in the present proceedings. He could, however, assure the House, that it was not his intention, although his hon. and learned Friend became the advocate of Mr. O'Connell, to take up the question in a partial manner; neither did he mean to travel through the volume of evidence before the House, little of which he had read or heard since it was given. But it was essential, from the part which he had taken during the proceedings before the Committee, that he should make some remarks on the question now before the House. At the time he was named as one of the nominees upon this inquiry, he was utterly ignorant of the petition which had been presented, nor had he any acquaintance whatever with the transaction, except what was within the means of every hon. Member; he had no desire to occupy the situation with which the House honoured him, but he felt that it was a public duty which he was hound to discharge, and when he found what was the determination of the House as to the course he should take, he certainly laid it down as a rule to himself that nothing should occur on his part to give that transaction in the slightest degree the character of a party transaction. He was called upon very early in the proceedings to state the charge against Mr. O'Connell. He gave the hon. Members, who made that request, full credit for having no intention to limit the inquiry by putting it within the trammels of an indictment; he gave them full credit for intending to confine their attention, and to have their attention directed to some specific object; but he declined for two reasons. In the first place, he stated that which was the fact, that he was in possession of no information beyond that which was within the means of every other Member of the Committee; and, further, that he did not come there to be the public accuser of Mr. O'Connell, but to assist the Committee in their arduous duty. He never saw, or had any communication with, the witnesses before their examination. He had no other information than that which was communicated to the House and the country by his hon. and learned Friend when he moved for the appointment of the Committee. He was then called upon to examine all the witnesses, which he declined, and the Committee thought he was correct in doing so. In another stage of the proceedings he put a question to the banker's clerk as to the state of Mr. O'Connell's account at the time. He did not ask to see Mr. O'Connell's banking account. Several Members of the Committee expressed a reluctance to inquire into the private circumstances of any Gentleman, a sentiment in which he entirely concurred. But the question was urged by some of the Committee as to the state of the banker's account at that time, because, if Mr. O'Connell had overdrawn, it was concluded that the first application of money would be to make up the deficiency. He did not persevere in that inquiry. Mr. O'Connell handed up his banker's book with an offer to let it be used in any way that might be desired. He looked at a single page of that book merely to see if the account was open at the time or not; he made no use of that, neither would he state now, unless the House thought fit, the reasons why he did not make use of it. The inquiry went on, and it was distinctly stated and admitted, that the money being paid in cash to Mr. O'Connell, and repaid in bills, was an accommodation, and that course was adopted for that very reason. After that it did not appear to him of any importance whether Mr. O'Connell's account was overdrawn or not, because if that was an accommodation Mr. O'Connell had the benefit of it. He admitted that the money was laid out, and that discount was paid by Mr. O'Connell. He then thought it unnecessary to call the attention of the Committee to that account, and he would not state now what it was, or how far it affected the merits or demerits of the question. His learned Friend called, or rather put into the chair of the witness, Mr. O'Connell himself. He declined putting any question to Mr. O'Connell; that course might not give satisfaction to some hon. Gentlemen; but when he learned that a trap was laid for him, he did not repent the course he had pursued. He must say that he thought it rather extraordinary that Mr. O'Connell, who at the outset declared that he did not intend to be a witness, should at last present himself to be cross-examined. He concluded, and he stated at the time his opinion, that the object was to prevent any case being made out, by an examination of the party himself. Mr. O'Connell was either a party or a witness, and as a party it would have been contrary to the principles of justice, which he had hitherto admired in our law, to examine him, and he was quite sure that his hon. Friend, the learned Sergeant, knew that it was contrary to the rules of the profession to do so. He could not enter upon the cross-examination of any witness, who had not pledged himself to a single fact, and who could not contradict a single statement before placed on the record of the Committee. He now learned that there was a case behind—that was, the offer of a Baronetcy to Mr. Raphael; and he under- stood that case was a triumphant one—that if Mr. O'Connell had been examined, he would have come out of it triumphantly. He therefore must say, that he regretted his hon. and learned Friend had made so little use of the presence of the learned Gentleman in the witness chair as only to bait his trap with it. If that case could have been so triumphantly cleared up, why was it not attempted last night by Mr. O'Connell himself? He gave Mr. O'Connell the full benefit of the manner in which he paid over the money, and of his offer to become a witness in his own case; he was entitled to the full benefit of those facts, but at the same time he had no right to expect that those matters should be disbelieved which were stated to have occurred between any witness and Mr. O'Connell himself, which he might have contradicted, but omitted to do so. The extraordinary letter relating to the Baronetcy was received some days after Mr. Raphael was told in a short conversation with Mr. O'Connell that all was right, at which Mr. Vigors was stated to be present, but not near enough to hear what passed. But Mr. Vigors was not examined in confirmation of that fact. He hoped the course which he took in not examining Mr. O'Connell, under these circumstances, was understood, and that Mr. O'Connell would be allowed the full benefit of that course, and of the fact that he was ready to be examined as a witness in his own case. At the same time, if any one chose to draw an inference from the statements of the witnesses which Mr. O'Connell did not contradict, he was fully entitled to do so. He begged now to call the attention of the House to one point which had been often adverted to before. It was distinctly proved in evidence, that there was a specific agreement for the sale and purchase of a seat. The following was the language of a letter from Mr. O'Connell to Mr. Raphael:— You have acceded to the terms proposed to you for the election of the county of Carlow—viz. you are to pay before nomination, 1,000l., say 1,000l., and a like sum after being returned, the first to be paid absolutely and entirely for being nominated. One thousand pounds then was to be paid for the nomination, and another 1,000l. upon the return, whatever might be the expense, or if there was no expense. He cared not who introduced Mr. Raphael,—he cared not whether Mr. O'Connell was an agent or friend, or whether he was connected with the election or not; the transaction was a gross breach of the privileges of the House. He could well understand how hon. Members on that Committee, under the fullest impression of their duty, might deem it unnecessary to travel further into the inquiry, but he could not understand how it was possible for that House, having its attention directly pointed to this case, no permission being given to parties to shut their eyes to it, to come to any other conclusion than that it was a gross breach of the privileges of the House. He begged to call attention to a precedent which occurred in 1766—he alluded to the case of the city of Oxford, under an unreformed Parliament. He understood his hon. and learned Friend, who addressed the House last night, to say, that the criterion was not whether corruption or not was proved, but whether any body obtained any personal benefit. He denied that that was the law, or was ever considered to be the Parliamentary construction of the law; it was no criterion on the subject. Beyond all doubt, if there was personal and pecuniary corruption, there was an offence committed; but there might be a desire to do an unconstitutional act, which would amount to an offence in the eye of the law. Now, what was the case of Oxford? It was contained in the Journals of the House of the year 1768, page 566. He begged attention to it, as he quoted it from the Journals. The hon. and learned Gentleman then read the following letter from the Mayor of Oxford to the hon. Robert Lee:— Oxford, May 12,1766, SIR,—The debts and circumstances of the city of Oxford having been laid before a Council of the City, held by order of the Mayor, on Monday the 24th of March last, and it then appearing that the city were indebted to their bond creditors in the sum of 5,670l., exclusive of the annuities, benefactions, and charities, which are paid by the city, and annually amount to more than the net income of their estates; and as some person or persons have, without consent of the council of this city, taken upon themselves to expose the city to a person in London, by offering to elect any two persons to be Representatives for this city in Parliament at the next general election, who would advance 4,000l. This sum, no doubt, the mayor and council thought an exorbitant demand for this representation of their city, and they therefore, went on to say: The mayor and council, therefore, unanimously came to a resolution, in order to prevent all opposition, animosity, and confusion, and to extricate themselves out of their present difficulties, to apply to you and Sir Thomas Stapleton (in the first instance) far your assistance to dis- charge the bond debts due from the city, by which means they will be enabled to do justice to their creditors, and, as they apprehend, preserve peace and unanimity in the city. But if it should not be agreeable to you and Sir Thomas to advance the money, the whole council are determined to apply to some other person or persons in the county to do it, and, if possible, by that means to keep themselves from being sold to foreigners. We, therefore, whose names are hereunder written, have, by order of the council, taken the liberty of troubling you with the above, and also with the enclosed state of the city debts and income, and as we are directed by the council to report your answer to them, so we must beg leave to trouble you to send your answer to the mayor, as soon as it is agreeable to you, that he may call a council, and lay the same before them. This letter was signed by Philip Ward, mayor, John Treacher, Thomas Munday, Thomas Wise, John Nicholls, John Phillips, Isaac Lawrence, Richard Tawney, Anthony Weston, and also by Thomas Robinson, and John Brown, bailiffs. In the postscript, the writers said, P. S. The Corporation think themselves very much obliged to you for your late generous benefaction to them, and are sorry their necessities oblige them to trouble you with this letter.— To the hon. Robert Lee. This application was in writing, and was accompanied by a document of the sums for which the Corporation stood indebted, and certainly the document was more specific than that which was given in with respect to the county of Carlow. He had the account then before him. It was dated the 12th of May, 1766, and on looking over the items, it did appear that there were none of them in which any of the parties who had signed the letter had any personal interest. The yearly outgoings of the Corporation were thus described:—

£. s. d.
Interest on bond debts 226 16 0
Annuities 279 10 0
Benefactions and charities 172 6 8
Fee Farm 51 0 0
Land-tax and quit-rent 41 18 5
Yearly payment to officers, &c. 81 0 0
Workmen's bills 50 0 0
£902 11 1
From this was deducted the income of the Corporation, amounting to 601l. 7s. 2d., leaving an annual deficiency of 301l. 3s. 11d. The reply of the hon. Members to whom this application was made, was such as did honour to the writers, and would do honour to any Member of Parliament, reformed or unreformed. The reply was dated the 30th of July, 1766, as follows:— MR. MAYOR AND GENTLEMEN,—We think it incumbent on us to return you thanks, for the preference you are generously pleased to give us of purchasing your Corporation, but as we never intend to sell you, so we cannot afford the purchase. As it has been always our determined resolution, that if we could not serve our country, we would not be concerned in betraying it; while you remained independent, we thought it a peculiar honour to represent you, and had you continued in that state we should have been heartily and sincerely at your service. ROBERT LEE; THOMAS STAPLETON, It was unnecessary for him to detain the House, by going through the Journals, with a detail of the result. Those hon. Members who chose to inform themselves further on the matter, would find, at pages 583 and 597 of the Journals of that year, that the whole of the parties who signed the first letter he had read were ordered to attend the House on the Friday following, and were then committed to Newgate, as being guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, and some days afterwards, on presenting a petition, expressing their sorrow for the off fence, were brought up and discharged, after having been reprimanded by the Speaker, that was recorded on the Journals. Now, he would ask, what was there in this case which showed that any of the parties concerned had any personal pecuniary-interest in the matter for which the House punished them? Compare it with the case now before the House. In this case a part of the sum demanded for the seat for the county of Carlow was to go to the fund of the Carlow Liberal Club—and for what?—to pay the rent of those tenants who might be ejected for giving particular votes. Why, this was the iniquity of bribery avowed in the open day. An hon. Member had said, that rather than this system, he would prefer the ballot, and he, (Sir F. Pollock) would also say, though no friend to the ballot, that rather than this system he would give the ballot the preference. For what did the practice amount to? It was saying in plain terms, "If you vote with me, I will pay your landlord the rent now due—if not, you may pay the rent yourself." He would put it to the House whether this was not the fair meaning of the matter? He asked the House, if they passed over a question of this kind, where was the principle involved in it to end? What difference, let him ask, was there between this case and that of a man who was indebted to another, and should go to this Car- low Club and say, "I owe such a sum; the party to whom I owe it is about to insist upon repayment, which I am unable to make; do you pay the debt and make me a free man, and I shall vote as you wish." What would the House call such a practice? Was it not that which was heretofore called bribery, and if it was to be passed over in reform times, when it would not have been tolerated in an unreformed Parliament, he would again ask, where was the system to end? Put the case of some dealer or shop-man being reduced in circumstances, and having fallen into difficulties—imagine him going to a club and negotiating with them—imagine this man saying, "I have lost all my customers, and I beg you will remunerate me for my loss, by giving me an annuity, or by stocking my shop again—pray put me in the same condition in which I was before, and then I will vote for you." He thought, however, that it was trifling with the time of the House to dwell on this point further, and he thought the House must see, that his hon. and learned Friend's judgment had been carried away by his feelings, or that he could not have advocated a principle which was opposed to his practical good sense, and which was one which his high honour would never tolerate. There was a practice, though it was some time since it existed, of advertising, and advertisements were frequently to be seen to this effect:—"Wanted a seat in a certain Assembly." Now, did his hon. and learned Friend mean to say, that if this practice were not to be discontinued, that persons might again advertise for persons ready to advance two or three thousand pounds for any legal expenses, as they might be termed to get a seat in a certain Assembly? Here the fact was so. Mr. Raphael came forward as a rich man to obtain a seat, and the Liberal Club at Carlow and others treated with him for a seat. This, then, involved considerations of a great constitutional nature. He thought if the House passed this affair by, as the noble Lord proposed to do, they would set an example and establish a precedent which was most dangerous to the Constitution. They would revive a practice which had been held up to abhorrence, and they would revive a system of trafficking in seats which, in its results, must of necessity be fraught with imminent danger to the preservation of the privileges of that House. What did Mr. Raphael represent in that House except his 2,000l. This was the view which he took of the resolution of the noble Lord, as opposed to those of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bradford; and while he was on this part of the subject, he would call the attention of the House for a moment to another point. If he understood his hon. and learned Friend rightly, (and if he had misunderstood him he regretted that fact), he believed he asked for what superlative virtue was Mr. Raphael excepted out of the resolution of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford. Now, if his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark had read the evidence with no more attention than he had this resolution, he could not have derived much information from it. The resolution to which he referred was this, that an agreement having been entered into between Daniel O'Connell, Esq., a Member of that House, and the said Alexander Raphael—"Resolved, that to enter into or to consent to such an agreement, was a high breach of the privileges of this House." Now, he would ask, whether this resolution was not a complete answer to the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Newark? He was not there for the purpose of saying anything harsh of any person, but he did feel himself imperatively called upon by a sense of public duty, to say something on the course which had been adopted by his hon. and learned Friend. He did feel him-self bound to say, that the resolutions of the hon. Member for Bradford implicated all parties so much, that the House could not pass them by. But he was, indeed astonished at the manner in which a noble Lord had entered upon this question. He agreed with his hon. and learned Friend in the opinion that the question of the offer of the Baronetcy was beside the present inquiry, and that was the reason why he did not notice it in the cross-examination; that was the reason, why he did not put a question to any one upon it. And when his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newark suggested that had the hon. and learned Member for Dublin been examined as a witness, a triumphant answer would have come out, he must say, that he would have been glad to have had that answer. He had been and was most desirous to know under what circumstances this could occur. He knew that there was a manner of triumph in the demeanour of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and a tone of what he would almost term presumption in the way in which the noble Lord had introduced the subject. That noble Lord had said, that he considered this case to be a most satisfactory one, in reference to the charge which was continually made, that the present Government were under the influence or slavery of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Let him ask the noble Lord, if he were in his place, for he (Sir F. Pollock) could not' see across the floor, or let him ask some other Member of the Government there, had Mr. O'Connell asked for the Baronetcy and been refused? Because unless Mr. O'Connell had applied to the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, (Lord John Russell) asking him for a Baronetcy for Mr. Raphael, as a recompense to that gentleman for having been disappointed of his seat for Carlow (he having been turned out and having represented his 2,000l. only a short time), he thought the argument of the noble Lord came to nothing. He did not, therefore, understand how the noble Lord could say, that this case was a complete answer to the charge that Mr. O'Connell had any influence with the Government. If so, he must have asked for the Baronetcy and been refused. He alluded to this part of the subject not with any degree of satisfaction, for nothing but the allusion which had been made to it would have induced him to advert to it, for he would say fairly, that it was his anxious wish to give the hon. and learned Member for Dublin the fullest benefit of the sort of acquittal by the Committee, of the charge of personal pecuniary corruption, and he should have been glad to have taken the same view of the affair. A distinction, indeed, was to be drawn between the offender who was guilty of offences against society, which excluded him from all claim to respectability, and an irregularity as to the bargaining for a seat in that House; an offence which, many years ago, when he was not a Member of that House, was not considered so grave an offence as it ought to have been. Another view of the subject, which he was not disinclined to think ought to be taken by many hon. Members, was, that Mr. O'Connell having been exposed to the ordeal of the former inquiry, in whatever way that ended, whether there had been a miscarriage or not—whether the Committee had followed out their duty to the full length or not—there had been one trial, and there ought not to be another. He might be influenced in part by professional prejudices, which, after all, were generally founded in justice and proper feeling; but he was of opinion that all possible weight ought to be attached to that point. Hon. Members of that House had been selected and called upon by name to perform a painful, arduous, and most invidious duty; and they had performed that duty with care, with intelligence, integrity, and an intention to do what was right; he, therefore, owned, that, for one, he did not think they should adopt, upon light grounds, any course that expressed the remotest dissent, or placed those hon. Members in any situation which might make other hon. Members, in future, reluctant to take on themselves a similar task. While however, he stated, he hoped in all candour and fairness, all that he should think belonged to the question, as favourable to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—while he disclaimed the part of being his accuser here—while he wished to give the fullest effect to every thing which passed before the Committee favourable to him, he must say, that there were features in the case which, to use the expression of a celebrated writer, could only be passed by without censure, when they were passed by without observation. As to the traffic and sale of a seat, he begged to state his opinion on the point of constitutional law. He had already shown the fallacy of his learned Friend's criterion of corruption, that a party to be guilty of it must have a personal interest in it; and he would say, that the instant money was placed by an individual in the hands of others, to be applied for his election to a seat in that House, as it had been in the case before them, that moment the Constitution was violated—whether it was for purposes of charity or justice—or of independence, to take the view in which, he believed, that his learned Friend had put this case. As if a bribe one way was an offence, and a bribe the other way made a man independent. He objected to it on principle, as furnishing the most obvious, direct, and easy covering for bribery of every sort. There was no bribery which the rich man could exercise, which would not be at once sanctioned, if the House passed by the present case. He trusted that the House—the Reformed House of Commons—would take care that when they came to a vote upon the subject, in which, for the reasons which he had stated, he could not participate, that they did nothing to sanction a violation of their privileges, or endanger the constitution of Parliament, and thereby the liberties of the people.

Mr. Ward

said, that though it might appear presumption in him to follow the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down, he could not, as a Member of the Committee, avoid saying a few words on the motion before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman had, he thought, dealt rather hardly with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, for while he concurred in the decision of the Committee, which had completely acquitted that hon. and learned Member of all personal corruption, he had left it to be inferred that the hon. and learned Member had derived advantage from the fact of having got cash and given bills for part of it. Now, he thought that even a slight reference to the evidence would show that no such conclusion could be fairly drawn. At question 2,017 of the evidence, Mr. Vigors was asked—"Do you know why it was that Mr. O'Connell sent part in a bill payable at sight, and part in a bill at sixty-one days' date?" The answer was "No; Mr. O'Connell has mentioned, at a subsequent period, to me, that sending bills was an accommodation, and he mentioned to the gentleman who got the bills from him that he would give the money at sight, if the bills were not equally acceptable to me, and I sent back word that the bills were as good to me as cash, and therefore I would receive them as cash; but at the time when I received the 304l. bill, I never inquired why I received it. It was the same as cash, and therefore I received it as cash; it was sent to my banker's." In question 2,127, he was asked—"Did you accept the bills for the balance for your own convenience or for Mr. O'Connell's accommodation, or for what other reason? I received them with as much ease and satisfaction as I should have done the cash, Mr. Fitzgerald at the same time mentioning to me, that Mr. O'Connell had particularly desired him to say, that if I wished for cash, he would send me cash instead. I said that it was of no consequence." In question 2,214, he was asked—"Was the 2,000l. always forth-coming when you applied for it to Mr. O'Connell, and when paid in bills at long dates, was there any loss or delay attending them?" Mr. Vigors answered, "The money was forthcoming the very instant it was wanted and called for, and the transaction respecting bills did not cause us to lose one single shilling of the money, nor was there any loss to any individual in consequence of those bills." Now, he thought, after such evidence as this, and the decision of the Committee founded upon it, it was not fair or candid in the hon. and learned Gen- tleman to leave it to be inferred from his remarks, that some pecuniary advantage had arisen to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin from the transaction. The hon. and learned Gentleman had spoken of the trap which he said had been laid for him by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Sergeant Wilde), in putting the hon. and learned Member for Dublin in the box. [Sir Frederick Pollock: I did not fall into it.] No; but the hon. and learned Gentleman did not avail himself of the opportunity thus offered to him of putting questions to the hon. and learned Member. The hon. and learned Member seemed to dwell much on the letter to Mr. Raphael being a breach of privilege. Why, the hon. and learned Gentleman must have known that at the time the Committee was appointed; why had he not urged it then? If it were a breach of privilege, why should the Committee have been appointed? But the Committee had decided that it was not a breach of privilege. ["No! No!"] Hon. Members said "No," but he would defy any hon. Member to put his finger on any one passage in the Report which said that it was. If the letter were a breach of privilege, and the Committee decided it was not, they were guilty of a gross dereliction of duty. In his apprehension, the hon. and learned Gentleman who had last addressed the House ought to have proved that which he merely contented himself with assuming. He had not by any means succeeded in proving that the conduct which formed the groundwork of the accusation now before the House amounted to a breach of privilege. As to the case of Oxford, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman had alluded, for the purpose of illustration, there really never was anything so completely pressed into the service, for not the slightest analogy subsisted between the two cases. The letter from Oxford came from the mayor and corporation of that town, they having their own corporate interests to take care of. To establish the analogy, the hon. and learned Member should have proved that in the case of Carlow, a rich candidate had been advertised for; and it should further be shown that the proposition to him was, not that he should bear the legal expenses alone, but that the parties seeking for him were to derive private advantage from the transaction. One of the most important considerations connected with the subject was the question of the expenses paid for the Carlow election—were they legal or were they not? It happened in this case, though it very rarely did in the cases of other elections, that an exact account was kept of the whole of the expenses—that every farthing of the expenses was set down, and that, within a very small amount, the account was made to balance. He believed that the hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were now such purists on the subject of election, could scarcely at one of their elections produce so exact a statement of receipts and disbursements. The Committee went most carefully through the whole of the account, and were not able to discover a single instance in which any payment had been made, or even promised beforehand. There might have been some mention of contingent and prospective payments, there having been, as the House well knew, a system of proscription introduced in Carlow, giving occasion for some sort of protection for voters; but payment to a Liberal club was a very different thing from saying to an elector previous to an election, "Vote for my candidate and against your landlord; do that, and you shall receive a certain sum of money." To prove that would, no question, be to prove corruption; but the analogy attempted to be established between that and other cases in which it was alleged that bribery took place, appeared to his mind to have signally failed. There was one circumstance which he now wished the House especially to bear in mind—that the Member for Dublin was not on his trial; it was the Carlow Committee who were on their trial. And now he would beg to put this question:—was there a single instance upon record of a Committee of that House, charged with judicial functions, reporting on all points to the House, and, in the end, finding their Report disallowed? He would ask hon. Members, on the opposite side of the House—he would appeal to the most experienced amongst them, if, in all their experience, they had ever heard of such a thing? He would further ask, was there the slightest imputation resting upon the Carlow Committee? He desired also to know if any gentleman present meant to say, that the Committee had given the go-by to any portion of the charges? Had they not gone fully, carefully, and scrupulously through every one of the charges? And the result of that care was, that there existed no difference of opinion between them; they came to an unanimous decision, though certainly he must acknowledge that that decision was not such a one as the hon. Member for Bradford would have recommended. The Committee which sat on the case of the Carlow election, and of which he had the honour to be a Member, performed a solemn judicial duty, and he trusted he might be permitted to say, that in discharging that duty they had discarded all party feeling. He would, begging pardon of the House for troubling them with anything that related to himself, appeal to hon. Members if he, though designated as a partisan, had not altogether discarded anything like party feeling, and if he had not had a serious difference with his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, on the occasion as to the terms in which the Committee should convey their censure, and so far from regarding those then proposed as too strong, he had contended that they were not strong enough, and succeeded in showing that such a letter as that referred to by the Committee in their Report could not come before the House, without such an expression of disapprobation as that which the Committee had used. The real question at issue was, whether the Report so drawn up, ought to be affirmed or disallowed by the House. The hon. Member for Bradford had said, that the Report of the Committee did not meet his views. Very probably it did not; but he must say, that if the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, had attempted to shirk the question—had, in fact, taken any other course than that which he adopted, the Members of the Committee would have had much reason to complain. It was incumbent upon the noble Lord to have made the motion which he had submitted to the House; for how did the matter stand, as between the House and the Committee? The House had imposed a very important duty, and one involving great responsibility upon the Committee; and when that duty had been most carefully and zealously performed, and with infinite pains to the Committee, the subject was again brought forward, and the decision of the Committee impugned; and yet, if the House sanctioned the motion for proceeding to the previous question, they would refuse to inform the Committee whether the onerous duty imposed on them had been performed to the satisfaction of the House or not. He saw a feeling actuating the hon. Gentleman opposite, which he was sorry to witness in any Member of that House. The hon. Member for Bradford desired to transfer to that House a duty which it was not qualified to discharge, and which had already been fully discharged by a competent tribunal. He would repeat, that the House was no fit tribunal for the decision of any such question; for, looking to the state of the opposite benches, the question, if to be disposed of by the House, would be decided by persons who had not taken the trouble to listen to the statements and reasonings which alone ought to affect such a decision; they could not have the means of doing justice in such a case, for he should not hesitate to say, that those who, before the debate concluded, would come down and occupy the opposite benches, were gentlemen not one in ten of whom had ever read the Report. They had not, then, the means of doing justice; no rational man could doubt that they had neglected to furnish themselves with the means of doing justice; to appeal, then, from the Committee to the House would be nothing less than an appeal from Philip sober to Philip drunk. He must, in conclusion, thank the noble Lord for the course he had taken, and express his earnest hope that nothing would induce him to depart from it.

Mr. Law

said, that there were two propositions awaiting the consideration of the House. The first, that proposed by the hon. Member for Bradford, was, that it was befitting the House should consider the nature of the contract which the hon. Member for Dublin had entered into, for the sale of a seat in that House. Upon this motion being made, it was proposed by certain hon. Members to meet it by proceeding to the order of the day; but after the discussion upon that amendment had proceeded to some length, it pleased the noble Lord, the Member for Stroud, to affirm that all that had taken place upon the subject had been done in error, and he was at liberty to propose as a second amendment the resolutions which, on his motion, had been put from the Chair. They had now, therefore, to discuss the question as to which side was in error. In his opinion those hon. Members who were favourable to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin would have done much better in voting for the amendment of the previous question, than in raising that brought forward by the noble Lord's resolutions. By those resolutions it was obviously made incumbent on the House to give their grave opinion upon the nature of the whole evidence taken before the Committee. The substance of the resolutions proposed by the noble Lord was, that the House should agree with the Report of the Committee. This he was quite inclined to do. He was willing to adopt the opinion expressed by the Committee as far as it went; but as it had not entered upon certain points of the case, many of them most important as affecting the privileges of the House, he was unwilling to stop at the same point the Committee had done, and, therefore found himself unable to concur in the resolutions of the noble Lord. He could not help looking at the Report of the Committee as intended by the House to be little more than a special verdict on the question, whether or not the privileges of the House had been violated. And in that respect there was an omission; for the particular question, whether or not those privileges had been violated, had been referred back to the consideration of the House. The subject had been treated by the Committee in two points of view—first, whether the alleged offence fell within the meaning of the statute of the 49th of George 3rd; and, secondly, whether it was a violation of the privileges of the House. Now the first point of view was, in his opinion, an inconvenient mode of considering the subject; and therefore, under all the circumstances of the case, he concurred with the noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, in regretting that the question of the violation of the statute had been mixed up by the Committee with the question of violation of the privileges of Parliament. It must be the disposition of the House to show the utmost lenity towards the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; but in proportion to that disposition was it their duty to pronounce an unequivocal opinion in a matter of such grave importance. It appeared to him that the transaction in question had been very happily described last night, as "a corrupt contract, with contingent purity." The facts of the case, as detailed in the minutes of the evidence taken before the Committee, had been submitted to the consideration of the House; and it was for the House to decide whether the mere want of a surplus relieved the parties from the guilt of the meditated application of such a surplus. In his opinion it was evident that the bargain was originally corrupt; and that the appropriation of the surplus (if any existed) was intended to be anything but a legal appropriation. On the first blush of the affair, he confessed that it seemed to him. to go much further. It seemed to him not only that the transaction was not legal, but that it affected the personal honour of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He was happy to say, however, that, on further investigation, he fully and entirely acquitted the hon. and learned Gentleman of any such imputation. He would refer, however, to the evidence of Mr. Vigors to show the nature of the bargain that had been made. In page eighty-two of the minutes, the following passage appeared:— What communication did you make to Mr. O'Connell:—I mentioned the conversation that I had had with Mr. Raphael, and I told him that I wished that he would follow it up, and I mentioned the particular terms on which I authorised him to conclude the arrangement with Mr. Raphael. Will you be so good as to state what the terms were?—The terms were those which I had proposed to Mr. Raphael, 1,000l. to be paid immediately, and 1,000l. to be paid on his return. And to what purposes were those sums to be applied?—The application of those sums were to election expenses in general, and the expenses arising out of the election; the application of the first 1,000l. was, as I expressed myself to Mr. Raphael, to be to the payment of part of the expenses then incurred for the petition that had just been decided at the moment, and the other part towards the ensuing election expenses, the expenses arising out of the contest. Now, if there was nothing but that answer in evidence, it would show that in the contract to which the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was a party, through the intervention of Mr. Vigors, and on behalf of the self-styled Liberal Committee of Carlow, he had agreed to receive from Mr. Raphael l2,000l. little short of 700l. of which was to be applied to the extinction of a debt incurred at the previous election for Carlow by Mr. Vigors. When he (Mr. Law) stated this, while he still retained his admiration of the talents of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he could not help being astonished at his indiscretion. The whole speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman consisted, not of an exculpation of himself from the charges against him, but of an admission of the facts on which those charges were founded. Among other topics, the hon. and learned Gentleman avowed the act to which he had just adverted, and declared that it was legal and defensible. How was it possible that the honourable and learned Gentleman's zeal could blind him to the law on the subject? Not only was such a transaction not legal—it was an infringement of the express terms of the resolution of that House respecting bribery and corruption. It was astonishing, that a lawyer could have been found to stand up in that House, and contend, that any man was justified in stipulating for the payment of a pre-existing debt incurred by the Liberal Committee of Carlow—themselves voters, and concerned in procuring the return of a Member to Parliament—as one of the conditions for obtaining a seat in the House of Commons. But not only was this debt to be discharged, the rent of the voters was also to be paid. It was impossible to deny, that such a transaction was corrupt. It appeared also, that a fund had been created in the county of Carlow for the benefit of persons who had voted in a particular manner at the last election. He (Mr. Law) would decidedly say, that to subscribe to such a fund for such an avowed purpose was corrupt. What was the evidence given by Mr. Vigors on that point. It was this— Had there been distress alleged to arise from the persecution of persons who had voted in a particular manner?—had such a state of things existed in Carlow?—Very considerable distress had existed subsequent to the election of 1832, up to the period to which I now speak. Had a fund been created for the relief of those persons, and did you subscribe to that fund?—A very considerable sum had been subscribed to the relief of those men. Now, really, if parties interested were to be the judges in what way funds raised by themselves ought to be applied to voters, it would be impossible to draw a line; and all statutes and all resolutions of Parliament would be rendered totally useless. If it were competent for a man to say, "I will apply a large sum of money to regulate the votes of these electors in a particular way, by assuring them, that if their rent is in arrear I will pay it; if their cow is distrained, and they are subjected to legal expenses, I will indemnify them, provided they will vote for me, or for the person whom I may nominate,"—then he averred, that a more distinct mode by which corruption might be exercised for effecting the election of a Member of Parliament it was impossible to point out. The defence set up, too, was most extraordinary. It was said, this was not bribery, because it was done by wholesale; because you did not go to A, B, and C, and tell them individually, that if their rent was in arrear, you would pay it; or if they were distrained upon, you would satisfy the distress; but that you were at liberty to hold out to the freeholders of a whole county the general expectation that you would relieve them from all the inconveniences of a pecuniary character which they might incur, or represent themselves to have incurred, by reason of their giving their vote in any particular way. That his hon. and learned Friend, Mr. Sergeant Wilde, with all his experience and discretion, should have resorted to an argument which acknowledged these practices, and should have attempted, in the face of Parliament, to justify them, was to him surpassing strange. It appeared, that in adopting the course the House was now asked to take, by affirming the proposition that this contract was corrupt, and that entering into such a contract was a breach of the privileges of Parliament, no danger would be thereby incurred of inculpating, in the smallest degree, those hon. Members of this House of whom the intermediate tribunal of inquiry was constituted. He had the utmost respect for every individual Member of that Committee; but he should not do his duty if he did not thus publicly declare, that that Committee, while it had in some points gone beyond, had in other points fallen short of, the inquiry assigned to them. On that account, it became still more emphatically the duty of the House to express their opinion on the subject. The Report stated, that the Committee was "appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the traffic and agreement alleged to have taken place between Daniel O'Connell and Alexander Raphael, Esquires, touching the nomination and return of the said Alexander Raphael, as one of the Representatives in Parliament for the county of Carlow, at the last election for that county, and the application of the monies said to have been received, and the circumstances under which the same were received and expended, and to report the minutes of evidence taken before them, with their observations thereon." Now, it did not appear to him from that passage, that it was at all contemplated by the House, that it was intended that the adjudication of the Committee should be final. If, therefore, the House chose to vindicate their privileges, and to express an opinion upon that point, such a course would cast no reflection on the Committee. Indeed, serious consequences might be entailed on the House, with respect to its future proceedings, if the adjudication of the Committee were allowed to be final. He was quite ready to admit the ability, the zeal, the merit of every description, which the Committee manifested in the inquiry, with reference to their view of the task delegated to them. But he denied that that view was a correct one. The hon. and learned Gentleman read copious extracts from the Report of the Committee, to show the positive nature and character of the contract into which Mr. O'Connell had entered to procure the return of Mr. Raphael, and pointing out also how the hon. and learned Gentleman had given a personal guarantee, that the expenses of the election should not exceed a certain specified sum. Upon the strength of this evidence he contended, that although Mr. O'Connell, by the Report of the Committee, stood acquitted from any personal pecuniary corruption, still, looking at the nature of the contract he had made, he had been guilty of a breach of the privileges of the House, for which he remained amenable, and with respect to which it was incumbent on the House to pronounce an opinion. It was one part of this case to ascertain to what extent the active interference of the Roman Catholic clergy in the election of Members of Parliament had proceeded. If the evidence given upon that point before the Intimidation Committee were not sufficient to impress the House with a conviction of the powerful influence which the Roman Catholic clergy exercised in this respect, it would only be necessary for him to refer to a letter written by Mr. Fitzgerald, and published in the Report of Mr. Vigors' evidence. It was dated 23rd November, 1834, and contained the following passage:—"I had a long interview with the Bishop today; he agrees entirely with Wallace; and he has caused a circular to be addressed to the different parish priests, to ascertain how we stand in the county; and in the course of a week I am to summon a meeting (private) of a few of the leading men of the county, with the clergy, to meet at my house, at which meeting Wallace will be present; in the meantime, you should be on the look out for candidates. The Bishop would prefer that you should be the person (this letter was addressed to Mr. Vigors) on behalf of the county; that you should apply to Raphael, rather than allow O'Connell (as the Bishop says) to dispose of the county. * * I am now quite satisfied, that we will have the entire co-operation of the Bishop and the clergy; he was with me two hours this day on the subject, and he is about to make an exertion to reconcile the Tory Papists of the town; he has already prevailed upon Dooling to give up his action against Bolger." An additional and incontestible proof of the active interference of Mr. O'Connell was to be found in a letter written by that Gentleman, on the 26th November, 1834, to Mr. Vigors. After alluding to the approaching contest for the county, Mr. O'Connell says—"You should see Mr. Raphael, and ascertain whether or not he would stand. We could secure him the county at an inconsiderable expense—say, for the very utmost, 3,000l. You can tell him, that I will be one of the guarantees of his success if he will thus come forward as the colleague of Mr. Ponsonby. Let me know without delay, whether there be any chance of effectuating this plan." He begged pardon if he had wearied the House by referring to so many portions of the evidence. He would only, in conclusion, state that it did distinctly appear to him, that the freedom of election had been grossly violated in the course pursued by the hon. and learned Member for Dublin—that both he and Mr. Vigors uniformly contemplated the application of the funds to be obtained from Mr. Raphael to illegal purposes—that the mere circumstance of Mr. O'Connell's not having a personal pecuniary interest in the appropriation of the money, did not affect the dry question of whether the privileges of that House had been infringed or not—that it was evident from all that appeared in the evidence, that Mr. Vigors and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had perseveringly assailed Mr. Raphael, until they had accomplished their common object—that it was true that Mr. O'Connell was not the origin of the communications which took place between Mr. Vigors and the Carlow Club: not that the offence in the sight of the House could be the less because several, instead of one alone, had conspired, by means of an illegal traffic to make Mr. Raphael the Representative of the county of Carlow.

Sir Charles Broke Vere

said, that, in agreeing to the Report, he felt that the great principle of the decision to which the Committee might come should he as unanimously expressed as possible, and provided no dereliction of principle was the consequence, he felt that it was sufficient that that principle should be laid down even in the mildest terms possible. This was his opinion, because, as the Committee sat in a judicial capacity, he did not wish the public to suppose that any party bias whatever had influenced them in the conclusion at which they had arrived. He fully exonerated the hon. Member for Dublin from any pecuniary imputation, or of any intention to apply the money paid by Mr. Raphael to his own purposes. The Report of the Committee was divided into two parts; the first was contained in this sentence—"The Committee cannot help observing, that the whole tone and tenor of this letter was calculated to excite much suspicion and grave animadversion." The second was—"But they must add, that upon a very careful investigation, it appeared that previous conferences and communications had taken place between Mr. Raphael, Mr. Vigors, and other persons connected with the county of Carlow, and that Mr. O'Connell was acting on this occasion at the expressed desire of Mr. Raphael, and was only the medium between Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors, and the Political Club at Carlow." Now, the first part of the Report expressed the opinion of the Committee upon the character of the transaction, and upon the nature of the contract contained in that letter. What followed simply stated that Mr. O'Connell did not appear to be the originator of the proposition. It must be in the recollection of several hon. Members of the Committee that there was a discussion as to the mode of arranging the terms of this first part of the Report. His feeling was, then, that no more moderate expressions could possibly be used, because he thought suspicions must have arisen from the singular mode and manner in which the letter was expressed. The House could not be presumed to be governed by the Report of the Committee, and feeling that, he had joined in the Report that was made. He considered, that although, as a Member of the Committee, he was bound, as far as he could, to agree with the Report, the Members of it were free in that House when the question came before the House again. This was a question which had been treated by many Members as one of no importance; but he considered it as of the first importance to the rights of the people of this country. He used the term "people" advisedly, because it was but lately that they had assembled in that House under new Acts of Parliament, by which the rights of the people were said to be much more safely guarded. How, in such an assembly a question of this description—a question vitally affecting the freedom of election—could be called trifling and unimportant he was totally at a loss to conceive. It was his intention, in the first instance to have voted for the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, but he confessed after what the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said, and upon reflection since, seeing the manner in which hon. Members had treated the question he did not think he could vote for his amendment. The noble Lord called on the House to vote for the amendment, because, as he stated, there was no subject for inquiry before the House, and that the motion was a trumpery matter. The noble Lord admitted, that the Committee had censured the tone of the letter, but still he said that there was no matter for inquiry for the House. He said that it was a trifling case, but if it was so trifling, why attempt censure at all? He therefore found he could not vote for the amendment of the noble Lord.

Mr. Bannerman

thought that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford wished, on this second occasion, to place the House in the same situation as that in which it stood on the night in which he first brought forward his motion for inquiry. But the hon. and learned Member had not brought forward one tittle of additional information to induce the House to adopt the course which he now suggested to it. He merely wished to inform the House, and to refresh the memory of some of the Gentlemen who sat on the Committee, as to what took place on the first day that the Committee met. The hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) proposed that a specific accusation should be brought against the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; and the hon. and learned Gentleman who acted as one of the nominees (Sir F. Pollock) was asked whether he had any accusation to make. The hon. and learned Gentleman replied in the negative. After that declaration on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman a long pause took place in the Committee, and the Gentlemen who composed it seemed to be a little puzzled. Now, as the hon. and learned Member for Bradford previous to bringing forward his motion for the appointment of the Committee, moved that the sessional order which related to the interference of Members of that House in any acts of bribery and corruption at elections be read at the Table, he (Mr. Bannerman) took the liberty when the Committee appeared to be at fault to read to them that same sessional order, and to state, that in his opinion the Committee would stultify itself if it went back to the House and asked for instructions, when it was quite clear that the hon. and learned Member for Bradford accused, or stated that there was an accusation against, Mr. O'Connell of a breach of the privileges of the House. After reading the sessional order upon which the subsequent motion seemed to be grounded, it was as clear as the sun at noon day that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was accused of a breach of privilege. The Committee accordingly went into the inquiry, and afterwards laid its Report on the Table of the House. Now if it had been considered that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had (as he was accused) been guilty of a breach of privilege, there could be no doubt that the Committee, constituted as it was, would have so reported. Having made this observation, he did not think it necessary to say one word more upon the matter, unless it were this—that what was not made a party matter in the Committee appeared likely to be made a strong party matter in that House.

Sir John Yarde Buller

did not intend to trespass for more than a very few moments on the patience of the House. It was well known to many of those whom he was addressing, that his opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was not likely to lead him to screen that Gentleman if he thought he had been guilty of any misconduct towards the House. So strong, indeed, were his feelings with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman that he almost felt he might have said with the noble Lord (Stanley), the Member for North Lancashire, that he was hardly a fit man to place on a Committee to try any part of that hon. and learned Gentleman's conduct; because, although he had not stated it in that House, he had often stated it elsewhere, that he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman followed a line of policy not less injurious than dangerous to the empire at large. He hoped that he completely dismissed those strong feelings, as well as all party views, when he entered the Committee; and he ventured to say, that if he had not felt satisfied that the Report at which they ultimately arrived, was a fair and just one, he should have had spirit enough not to have concurred in it, and to take the first direct opportunity of stating in the House his dissent from it. It was clear as to any pecuniary corruption after the course of this debate, that it was unnecessary for him to say anything. He entirely acquitted the hon. and learned Gentleman, as the Committee had done, of all taint of a pecuniary nature. The Committee certainly found that there was some cause of censure. It was quite clear, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had most incautiously suffered himself to write a letter to Mr. Raphael, which subjected him to much suspicion and animadversion; how far it might be a breach of the privileges of that House he would not pretend to say, but he entirely concurred in what fell from the noble Lord the Member for South Lancashire, that those terms embraced a wide range, and though he thought his hands were as clean as those of most men in that House, yet, as King's evidence might be found on almost every possible transaction of a man's political life, he was not quite sure, that he might not himself come within the grasp of a resolution of that House, if the power assumed under the name of Parliamentary privilege were rigidly enforced. When he (Sir J. Y. Buller) concurred in the Report of the Committee (and he did most cordially concur in it), he felt convinced that there was nothing in the evidence brought before them that could induce the Committee to recommend that House to take any further proceedings in this matter. He was still of that opinion. He had not heard anything in the course of the debate which would lead him to recommend to the House to proceed further, whether by punishing the hon. and learned Member by those means which the House had in its own power to exercise, or by authorizing the Attorney-General to prosecute for the penalties. It was his intention not to vote upon the question before the House, because, as one of the Committee, he felt that he in some degree stood before the House as an accused party. For the question really was, whether the Committee had discharged to the utmost that duty which had been imposed upon them. If, for one, he had not done so, he could at least assure the House that he had endeavoured to do it to the utmost of his power; and he would further state, that he never had regretted signing the Report now before the House; nor did he think that any one could impute to the Committee, whose Report it was, any conduct but what was most just and honourable.

Sir Eardley Wilmot

also felt, as one of the Committee, that he was on this occasion in some degree upon his trial. It was well known that, before entering upon the inquiry, he had said, that his feelings upon the subject were hostile to Mr. O'Connell, because, from what he had learned upon the subject, he felt that that hon. and learned Gentleman would get out of this business with very great difficulty. But, at the same time, he said, that he never would refuse to discharge any public duty, and therefore he went into the Committee; and he did so, he trusted, divested of all feelings upon the subject, except an anxiety to do his duty conscientiously as a Judge, and give his opinion according to the evidence brought be-fore him. In the course of the evidence adduced, he soon came to the conclusion, that no Parliamentary or legal accusation could be supported against Mr. O'Connell. But if he had been a member of a Court of Honour on that occasion, and the question had been put to him, whether he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman, in the course of the transaction with Mr. Raphael, had infringed upon those considerations which, as a Member of that House, and as a real and true reformer and lover of the Constitution, he ought not to have done, he (Sir E. Wilmot) undoubtedly should have come to a very different conclusion. But he conceived that the Committee were acting as judges to consider only whether any Parliamentary or legal offence had been committed, and, as such, he had conscientiously come to a conclusion, which, so far from having been shaken by the speeches he had heard from the Opposition side of the House, had, in a great measure, been confirmed by them. He perfectly agreed in what had fallen from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bannerman). That hon. Gentleman called the attention of the Committee to the Statute of the 49th of George 3rd. It would be remembered by the House, that that Statute was read by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford when this matter was first brought forward. That Statute was considered by the Committee, and he said then, as he would say now, that there was no lawyer who, divesting himself of all personal and political feelings, would not come to the same conclusion as the Committee.

Mr. Harvey

said, the House was called upon, by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, to pronounce a sentence which was highly penal in its consequences. It was much to be deplored, that the speeches of the two learned Gentlemen who had addressed the House that night (Sir F. Pollock and Mr. Law) should not have been delivered in the presence of that great body of persons who were called upon to decide as Jurors. It was somewhat unusual, not a little inconvenient, and he thought highly un-just, that after a case had been heard, in which several parties had pleaded, that more than one-half of the Jury should crowd into the box and say—"Though we have heard nothing of the case, here we are to pronounce a verdict." The House would recollect, that when this subject was first brought under its notice, all parties concurred in deprecating the entire inadequacy of this great tribunal to adjudicate on it, and this was the greatest difficulty that presented itself amidst the conflicting feelings which pervaded that House—a House, more than any other, divided, and strongly, upon political subjects, and still more so upon the character and station of the individual whose conduct was under consideration. It was admitted by all, that, if it were practicable, nothing would be so desirable as to select twelve Gentlemen, who should be able to divest their minds so completely of all party bias, personal prejudices, and partialities, as to be competent to arrive at a conclusion upon the evidence to be submitted to them, which, when embodied in a Report, should have the sanction of their reputation, and thus secure the approbation of Parliament and of the country. Now, in what shape did this motion come? It was a two-fold issue. First of all it impeached the verdict of that Jury, and indirectly censured a body of men whom it would be impossible to surpass for high honour, clear intelligence, and strict impartiality in the judgment which they had arrived at. But, as it regarded the hon. and learned individual whose conduct was under consideration, what was the shape of the present motion? It came before the House like an application to a Court for a new trial; but the hon. and learned Member for Bradford did not propose that there should be a new trial; or that the same Jury should be called upon to reconsider the circumstances under which they delivered their verdict, but he called upon the Court itself to assume the functions of Jurors. The conduct which the late Attorney-General (Sir F. Pollock) had pursued on this occasion, was difficult to be reconciled with his professions of impartiality. Whatever impartiality he might have observed in his character of prosecutor before the Committee had been very much challenged in the course of this debate; because he had complained that the question of the Baronetcy had not been examined into or reported upon, which he must have known was entirely owing either to defective judgment or defective management on his own part. It was not for the hon. and learned Sergeant (Wilde) to frame an indictment against his own client; and yet the late Attorney-General had made it a matter of charge, that when Mr. O'Connell was placed in the witness's chair, the learned Sergeant did not examine him as to that question. Why did not the late Attorney-General do so, instead of reserving his animadversions to a time when they could neither be challenged nor answered? He could not but admire the extreme delicacy of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It was not in their minds, they said, to aver, that Mr. O'Connell had violated an Act of Parliament; but, from their extreme anxiety to maintain the purity of the Constitution, they were ready to affirm an abstract proposition. What would be the result of that affirmation? What were the terms of the sessional order which the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hardy) had read? "That if it shall appear that any person hath been elected or returned a Member of this House, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery or any other corrupt practices, this House will proceed with the utmost severity against all such persons as shall have been wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices." If, then, the House should affirm the proposition of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, that Mr. O'Connell had violated that sessional order, was he not, as a necessary consequence, to be treated with the utmost severity? He could not, therefore, reconcile the extreme tenderness professed by the hon. Gentleman opposite towards the feelings of Mr. O'Connell, while on the one hand they declared that it was not their wish to inflict upon him legal proceedings by which he would incur the penalty of 1,000l. and yet on the other they were ready to affirm a resolution, the consequence of which would be to inflict the severest penalties upon him. He had always been of opinion that a legislative assembly ought not to have anything to do with legal, petty, nisi prius technicalities, which were generally used as a sort of experiment upon the mental capacity of mankind. Now, looking at the letter written by Mr. O'Connell to Mr. Raphael, which had formed the subject of so much animadversion, and looking also at the letter addressed by Mr. O'Connell to Mr. Vigors, it certainly appeared to him, that if Mr. Raphael had been returned for the county of Carlow without any opposition, there would have been a portion of the 2,000l. in some way to have been disposed of; and it also appeared to him that that portion was to be carried to the credit of the friends of the Liberal Carlow Club. Now it was contended, by the hon. and learned Member opposite, that a club, formed for such purposes as the Carlow Club was, and having a fund to be so applied, was in itself highly unconstitutional and illegal; and he (Mr. Harvey) understood the late Attorney-General to say, that Mr. O'Connell's letter to Mr. Raphael was itself a corrupt compact. If so, why did they have a Committee? The House might as well have come to a conclusion upon that letter, and not have been troubled with going into any evidence at all. In some respects, he thought Mr. O'Connell had to regret the restricted terms of the resolutions proposed by the noble Lord. If, on the one hand, some hon. Gentlemen thought the Committee had gone too far in their leniency towards Mr. O'Connell, he, on the other hand, was inclined to think that they had been too sparing in their terms of exculpation; and that they ought to have gone further, and have pronounced a more decided verdict of acquittal than they had done. Because he thought it impossible to read the resolution of the Committee and not perceive in it a very subtle arrangement, he would not say of party, but of conflicting feeling, and that it was an expert experiment to reconcile men of different sentiments to an unanimous result. But, so far from being ready to impute corrupt practices to Mr. O'Connell, he thought he saw, in the very conduct ascribed to him by that resolution, something which entitled him to the praise of his country. Because, what was the political situation of the county of Carlow? They had it in evidence that the gentlemen of Liberal principles connected with that county, having exhausted their means, and being no longer able to compete with those larger fortunes that were available to the Conservative interest, had formed themselves into a club, and sought the assistance of Mr. O'Connell, which they had a right to do, in order to counteract that pernicious and destructive influence upon the country at large which the Tory confederacy so notoriously exercised. He would put a case by way of illustration. The House would remember the Queen-borough case. A petition was presented to the House, complaining that the proprietor of that borough exercised such acts of oppression upon the burgesses there, that though they were ready to vote for Mr. Capel, yet they were unable to do so in consequence of the stern exercise of authority over them as his tenants. There was a subscription made, to which many Members of that House contributed, for the purpose of protecting the electors of Queenborough from the destructive effects of that overbearing power. Then take the case of Hertford. Was it not a notorious fact—did it not come out before a Committee of that House, that in order to bring the electors of that town under the dominion of a neighbouring oligarch, a scheme of leasing was devised, by which leases of fourteen days' duration were granted with a penalty of 50l. if the tenants did not resign possession of the property within fourteen days' notice? There could be no question that this was a contrivance altogether of a political cast, and for the express purpose of bringing the electors of that town under the dominion of a neighbouring Peer, from which it was impossible for them to relieve themselves, unless some constitutional assistance were extended and thrown over them. Now he would ask whether there was any man who would say, if there were a Hertford O'Connell—if there were a Carlow Club in Hertford, to which candidates for representing that borough were invited to subscribe, in order to afford protection to those tenants against this oppression—that that would be an illegal and unconstitutional act? Hon. Members on the opposite side of the House had admitted that Mr. O'Connell had not violated the 49th George 3d, if not, of what was he guilty? The Recorder of London had stated at length the penal enactments of that Act, but he had not read its qualifying provisions. There was an express provision to the effect that nothing in that Act should extend to or affect any person for money paid for legal expenses. Well, what said the Committee? They stated that the money which came to Mr. O'Connell's hands had been expended under the immediate direction of Mr. Vigors and others connected with the county of Carlow on what might be called legal expenses, or so far unavoidable that the Committee saw no reason to question their legality. It was utterly impossible for the House to affirm the two propositions submitted to them by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford. In what did the violation of the Act of 49th of George 3rd consist? Was it in the bare writing of the letter, or in the expenditure of the money? If in the expenditure of the money, then, the House was called upon to discredit the Report of its own Committee. As far as Mr. O'Connell was concerned, it must be a matter of indifference to him what was the decision of the House on this matter, because no opinion at which they might arrive, where half the Members were on one side of the question and half on the other, could carry with it half so much weight as that of the unanimous opinion of a Committee composed of those Gentlemen to whom he had already alluded. Would the House, then, adopt a resolution which impeached the decision of that Committee? In short, were they disposed to establish a despotism by deciding in a case from which all evidence was excluded, and in which they were invited to arrive at a conclusion unfavourable to the party accused without recognising even the decent forms of justice? In such a course he felt assured the House would not concur.

Mr. Williams Wynn

had heard with surprise that the Committee was on its trial, and that the House was precluded from exercising its judgment on the evidence that Committee had brought up. He was surprised to hear the assertion that it had been intended to commit the whole case to that Committee as to a jury, whose opinion was to be conclusive, and who were to apply the law of the case to the facts and pronounce authoritatively thereupon. He most distinctly denied that the House was precluded, by the terms of the appointment of that Committee, from examining into the facts adduced in evidence before it; and nothing was more common than that the House should dis- agree with the Report of their Committees, even where they were unanimous, and appointed for the purpose of arriving at a final determination. But this Committee was not so appointed, and on this point he would appeal to the noble Lord opposite, who would doubtless recollect that he (Mr. Wynn) proposed that the Committee should be appointed to take the evidence only, for, as the House would have ultimately to decide, nothing could be so unsatisfactory as to be only half-furnished with materials in the shape of the opinions of the Committee. He (Mr. Williams Wynn) then stated to the noble Lord, that if they were to be guided by precedents they had only two courses to follow—either to examine witnesses at the bar of the House or in a Committee of privileges; but he thought that both these forms (from what he had seen of late years) would prove inconvenient, and that it would be better to appoint a Committee to inquire into all the circumstances and take the evidence, whereon the House might subsequently decide according to the nature of the case. He, therefore, felt himself at full liberty to exercise his judgment on this Report of the Committee, and would state it to the House with all humility. The Committee had, in short, been appointed to inquire into the facts of the alleged agreement—whether the money had been received, and how it had been expended—but not to consider or Report on the point of the violation of the privileges of the House. Without going into the Report at length, he should merely say that he concurred in all the material facts stated by them—that there were no grounds for attaching to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin the imputation of any pecuniary charge whatever, and that he was acting as the medium between the Liberal Club of Carlow (represented by, Mr. Vigors) and Mr. Raphael—at the express desire of the latter. He was in fact an agent (for the word "medium" was of very doubtful signification) between the Liberal Club on the one hand and Mr. Raphael on the other. But when the nature of this agency was looked at a little closer, it appeared that it was of a very singular aspect. It appeared that he had given a voluntary assurance to Mr. Raphael on the one hand that he would save him harmless, beyond the stipulated expenditure; and to the Liberal Club that if one was returned Mr. Raphael should be the Mem- ber. This species of active agency indicated that he was something more than a "medium," that he was a principal in the transaction. The most important part of the question seemed to him to arise out of that part of the agreement that Mr. Raphael should not pay more than his legal expenses, and the House ought to determine one way or other in respect to the considerations involved in that understanding. He thought that the Oxford case, alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for Huntingdon (Sir F. Pollock), was very much in point, and precisely similar to the Carlow one touching this portion of the transaction. It would scarcely, he thought, be contended that Mr. Raphael was legally under any engagement to pay the debts of the unseated Member—or that it was a fair legal arrangement to appropriate any portion of his contingent 1,000l. to pay the expenses of the defence against the previous petition. That was precisely the point of the Oxford case, and it was clear that to call on any Member to pay a certain sum on his nomination must be considered a violation of the rules of the House. If the House wished to prevent such practices in future they must now record their decision, that the present was a violation of their rules. He did not feel, that they were called on to deliver an opinion on the state of the law of the case, and the bearing of the Act of the 49th Geo. 3rd. The Speaker's predecessor, Lord Colchester, had simply insisted, on an occasion where it was necessary to express the sense of the House on such an occurrence, that the declaration should promulgate the illegality of the acts in question, and that the decision of the House should be founded on and recognize the violation of the principles of law, and thereby add an additional efficacy to the force of the law already established. In conclusion, it appeared to him that if the House recognized and adopted the principle contained in the resolution before them they should, in consistency, follow it up by another to this effect—that if any candidate should pay, or engage to pay, any sum of money for his election beyond his legal expenses he would be committing a gross breach of the privileges of that House, and would likewise subject himself to the further punishment provided by the statutes expressly framed in reference to such a breach of the law of election.

Mr. Grote

said, it was a very remarkable circumstance that every Gentleman who had spoken on the opposite side of the House in favour of the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford had, while he expressed himself favourable to the original motion, stated his determination to vote for the previous question. It appeared to him that every charge which had been excluded from the consideration of the Committee, was equally excluded from the consideration of the House. It was somewhat remarkable that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were now so anxious to preserve the purity of election, had taken a very different course last year, when the York and Great Yarmouth cases were under discussion. The House contented itself on that occasion with pronouncing a slight censure on the parties implicated. But, if the hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side of the House, after this decision had been arrived at, had insisted on dragging those men up again for the purpose of reconsidering the determination under which they had been acquitted, would it not have been denounced as an act of the grossest partiality, which could only have emanated from a low spiteful feeling of political hostility. Hon. Gentlemen opposite had argued at some length, that it was competent to the House to revise the decision of the Committee. He fully admitted that they had the power, but the question was, whether it was seemly, whether it was convenient, or whether it would conduce to the ends of justice, to exercise it in the present case. He would contend that, even if the majority of the House were, as he did not suppose they would, to sanction the resolutions of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, that majority would be much more likely to be accused of having manifested political hostility than Mr. O'Connell would be to be-supposed guilty of the offences imputed to him. No Member of the Committee had been found to rise and move before that Committee, that Mr. O'Connell had been guilty of an infringement of the privileges of the House; and say what hon. Gentlemen opposite would, if the House were now to declare that he was guilty of an infringement of its privileges, its decision would, beyond all doubt, go to convict the Committee of the grossest incapacity. With respect to the disbursement of money to the distressed tenants, he would only express his opinion, that if there were any corruption in the case, it was on the part of the landlords, who had reduced the tenants to a distressed condition; and he could not but think that such an application of money was rather praiseworthy than otherwise. He called upon hon. Gentlemen opposite to consider well the votes they would give on the question before them; for they might depend upon it, that if the decision of that House were against Mr. O'Connell, the public would look upon him as a man who, after being acquitted by an honest and impartial tribunal, whose decision would have been held sufficient in any other case, was convicted by that House upon political feelings and political hostility.

Sir James Graham

said, that as the subject was nearly exhausted, and the House weary, he could assure it he was not disposed to trespass upon its attention; but on this particular question he was most anxious to state to the House the feelings that actuated him, the opinions he had formed, and the reasons for the vote which he was about to give. There was something peculiar in the appeal of the hon. Member for the City of London to the Members of that House, which rendered it desirable that he should not give a silent vote on that occasion. The hon. Member had stated, that almost every hon. Member who had spoken on the opposition side of the House, in favour of the motion of the hon. Member for Bradford, had expressed his approval of the original motion, but stated, nevertheless, his intention to vote for the amendment. He had had no communication whatever with his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bradford as to the nature of his motion, nor had he made any suggestions as to the terms of it; for his own part he was anxious that the previous question should be adopted. He would not conceal from the House, that when the question was first brought forward, he was of opinion, not as the hon. Member for Southwark had supposed, that he had stated, that the transaction bore on the face of it conclusive evidence of corruption, but that primâ facie, it bore strong presumptive evidence that the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had, for his own profit and interest, taken an active part in this transaction. That was the gravamen of the charge, and that was the main point to which he had directed his attention. He had carefully read over the whole of the evidence, and he was now bound candidly and fairly to state, that the result of the best consideration that he could give to it was, in the first place, that the hon. and learned Member was, throughout the whole transaction, acting as agent and not as principal; secondly, that the agency was not of his own seeking, nor did he desire it, but rather that it had been forced on him; and, thirdly, that in no part of the transaction did he either contemplate personal benefit to himself, nor could he, from the nature of the transaction, if he had desired it, derive any benefit from it. Therefore, in the broadest and fullest sense, he was bound to give a full and entire acquittal to the hon. and learned Member, in the pecuniary transaction with Mr. Raphael. The motion of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bradford, rested on the construction of the 49th George 3rd. He was bound to say, that that Act was of perplexed construction, and of doubtful authority, and he was not aware, that it had ever been acted upon in any court. Moreover, he doubted whether Mr. O'Connell, acting as he did as an agent, could be liable to any of the penalties of that Act. In addition to this, he felt bound to say, as a man of honour, that in some proceedings in which he might have been engaged, he did not know whether he himself might not have been liable to its penalties; but he did not know enough of the law to take upon himself the responsibility of deciding, that, according to the 49th George 3rd, a gross offence had been committed. He, therefore, was not prepared to support that part of his hon. and learned Friend's resolutions. There was another resolution, however, which declared, that the proceedings were a gross breach of the privileges of the House. He should be sorry to express his opinion thus strongly on a retrospective view of this part of the case. If they adopted that resolution it would be impossible for them to stop there; they must resort to something further. With respect then to the main charge of personal corruption, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had been put on his trial by the House; the Jury to whom the case had been confided, which was worthy of, and possessed the confidence of all, had fully acquitted him of any charge or taint of the kind, and he was entitled to the full benefit of that acquittal. On these reasons he was not inclined to support the retrospective part of the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford. He might then be asked why did he intend to vote for the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford? He had been anxious to vote for the previous question, as it was a mode well known to Parliament—a mode by which the House said it was not desirous of coming to a distinct vote on any question submitted to it. But the noble Lord, the head of the Government in that House, was not satisfied with this. His noble Friend called upon the House to give a specific judgment—he would not let the matter rest on the Report of the Committee, but he would call upon the House to agree and confirm certain Resolutions which were founded on the substance of the Report. When, therefore, he was called upon to give a specific judgment on the case, he was bound to do so. He was willing to give Mr. O'Connell the full benefit of the acquittal, but, at the same time, being anxious to uphold the freedom of election, and the purity of Parliament, he was bound, before he gave a definite decision in the case, to look to all the circumstances of it. He had no quarrel with the Committee, because they kept within the terms of their instructions, and had confined themselves to the investigation of the transactions between Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Raphael. The words of the instructions were, "appointed to inquire into the circumstances of the traffic and agreement alleged to have taken place between Daniel O'Connell and Alexander Raphael, Esquires, touching the nomination and election of the said Alexander Raphael, as one of the Representatives in Parliament for the county of Carlow, at the last election for that county, and the applications of the monies said to have been received, and the circumstances under which the same were received and expended." So far from quarrelling with what the Committee had done, he had no hesitation in saying, that he read the instructions for their proceeding in the sense in which he believed they had read them. They acquitted Mr. O'Connell of any pecuniary corruption, and they found that the money bad been expended on objects, the legality of which they saw no reason to question. The evidence taken before the Committee abounded with proof which bore out the statement made by a noble Friend of his, that if the money had not been expended in an unexpected manner, if it had not been required for the purpose of defraying a portion of the expenses attending the election petition, a decided breach of privilege and a gross infraction of the law of Parliament would have been committed. The hon. Member for London had made some observations on this point, which he heard with surprise. He entertained the highest respect for that hon. Gentleman, and was surprised to hear language from him which seemed to imply, that because the money happened to have been expended legally, there was nothing now to consider. He was also surprised at the language of the hon. and learned Member for Newark, and, above all, at that of his noble Friend, the Secretary for the Home Department, both of whom characterised this question as of too trumpery a nature to engage the deliberations of the House. If the money had been spent as contemplated when the bargain was made, when the expenditure was not to be more at the election than Mr. Vigors believed necessary, would that contemplated payment have been legal or not, within the rules of the privileges of Parliament? The learned Sergeant said the transaction must have been pure, in consequence of the publicity of it, for if it had not been it would have been instantly exposed; but his answer was, that the transaction was to have been of a most private nature, and he would ask whether anything in the whole case was so wonderful as the exposure of it. It was a gross breach of confidence which brought to light a transaction which was never intended to be made public. The learned Sergeant, as well as the hon. Member for London, asked where was the corruption in this case? He (Sir James Graham) replied, in the sale of the representation of an Irish county. This had been clearly and unanswerably proved in all parts of the evidence. In point of fact, the county of Carlow had been hawked about as a damaged article. Mr. Vigors, in the first instance, said that no person would give 1,000l. for the representation of it. Mr. Latouche was in the first place applied to, but he would not have anything to do with it, Mr. Wallace, who was then called upon, would not look at it. It was then sent over to England for sale, and put up at something like a Dutch auction, for Mr. Raphael was, in the first instance, offered this seat in Parliament for 3,000l., which he refused, as being too much; and after some delay, a fresh treaty was opened for the sale of it to him for 2.000l., and after much huckstering and bartering, it was sold for the latter sum. Was then the gentleman thus sought out and cajoled an amiable and respectable man, who from his riches and character was entitled to respect, or had his public conduct won for him the esteem of this part of the empire? No such thing; for according to the testimony of Mr. O'Connell, this Parliamentary seat was sold to a person, who at the very time had been described to the hon. and learned Gentleman as a most faithless creature; and he had also stated, that the person he had so warmly recommended was the most incomprehensible of all imaginable vagabonds. He would, again, remind his noble Friend, that he would have agreed to the previous question had it been proposed; but, after the course that had been adopted, he felt bound to support the motion of his hon. and learned Friend. As for the mode in which the question had been brought forward, he begged to remind hon. Gentlemen opposite, that the hon. Member for Bradford was a perfectly independent Member, and not in any way connected with him or those who acted with him. If his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Bradford, had done him the honour to consult with him as to whether it was expedient or not to bring forward the question again, under all the circumstances of the case, he would have said decidedly not. The hon. Gentleman, however, had a right, if he thought proper, to bring the subject forward; but when he had done so, he (Sir James Graham) was not bound to give his opinion, and he should have recommended that the House should adopt a mode by which Parliament could give the go-by to the question. The noble Lord, however, said, that the House should not do this, and called upon the House to adopt a decided expression of opinion on the proceedings in this case; and, therefore, if he was thus driven to give his judgment, he must do so on the whole transaction. If he was right in this view of the case, he was not entitled to blink that part of the question connected with the Carlow Liberal Club. The hon. Member for St. Alban's stated, that Mr. Vigors had shown that the money to be given was to be expended on perfectly legitimate purposes. But, if the House would listen to two or three of the answers to questions put to Mr. Vigors, it would be perfectly clear that Mr. Vigors was, out of this money, to have credit from the Carlow Club for his expenses attending the previous election petition. It appeared that Mr. Raphael was bound to pay 2.000l., and Mr. Vigors, out of that 2,000l., was to be reimbursed his expenses. The first proof of this was, that Mr. Vigors stated, that he was in advance to the Club 700l. He was asked— Who were liable for the expenses of that petition of May, 1835?—I considered myself responsible to Mr. Baker for those expenses. Is there any doubt about that?—Not the smallest doubt; I stated to him that I would be responsible for them. Was anybody responsible to you?—I considered that the county was responsible to me. I advanced the money on the faith that the county would repay me, but with very little hopes of it. I was perfectly aware, in the first place, that they were not able to do it; and, secondly, if they were, that I should not press them. This he considered as a very important question. He was sure, that the hon. Member for St. Alban's would admit that Mr. Vigors had advanced money on behalf of the Carlow Club, and in hopes of repayment, it appeared also, that he sought it, and from whence? Why from the 2.000l. advanced by Mr. Raphael. The House would bear in mind, that Mr. Vigors complained of the expenses of the election, in consequence of the high-flown notions that had got abroad respecting Mr. Raphael's generosity. Mr. Vigors said, that he had no doubt that the election might be managed so that the expenses would not exceed 400l.; with extravagant management they would be more; but, even when the payments were most liberal, they would not exceed 600l.; and when, as in the case of Mr. Raphael's election, the demands were double what they otherwise would have been, and the expenditure was lavish, the expenses did not exceed 800l. Now, how was the surplus of 1,200l. intended to be appropriated? Mr. Vigors furnished some information on this point. He was asked— Was it the distinct understanding that out of the first 1,000l. paid by Mr. Raphael, the election expenses were first to be paid; and, if there was any balance, it was to go to the petition that unseated Messrs. Bruen and Kavanagh in May?—Yes. That the second 1,000l., if not wanted for the petition that followed, was to go to the fund of the Carlow Liberal Club?—Exactly. I would observe, that the words, 'if not wanted for the petition,' should be omitted, for it was to go under any circumstances, in the case of his being returned, to that fund. This was a part of the case in which it appeared that Mr. O'Connell had exceeded his instructions. Mr. Vigors stated, that he told him that the sum in question was to defray the expenses of the nomination and the return, but not for the petition. Mr. O'Connell, however, stipulated with Mr. Raphael that the 2,000l. should also include the expenses of the petition. On this point, there was some curious evidence of Mr. Fitzgerald. He was asked— Ultimately you are aware, that there being a petition, the 1,000l., instead of being applied to the purposes of the county, was applied, or supposed to be, to the expenses of the petition?—Yes. And contrary to the advice of the members of the Committee then in London, Mr. Vigors allowed it to be so disposed of. Mr. Vigors might have acted as an agent in the proceedings of this county club, but he was by no means so well satisfied of that as he was that Mr. O'Connell was to be regarded in that capacity. It appeared also that not only the Committee disapproved of this money being so expended, but also Mr. Vigors. They were told then that the surplus was to be applied to one of two purposes; either for the payment of the general purposes of the elections in that county, at the option of the Carlow Liberal Committee, or to any political or other purpose. Here was a bargain and contract for money for votes and influence, and it was a corrupt bargain. The surplus, also, was stated to be intended for the protection of the Carlow freeholders. He could not help regarding this as a most monstrous proposition to be publicly and undisguisedly stated. It was a proposition which he should never have expected would have been brought forward in a Reformed Parliament, ostensibly jealous of the freedom of election. The learned Sergeant and the hon. Member for the City of London both said, that it was quite right on the part of the Carlow Club to say to these men, "We will take care, if you vote as we wish, that you shall not be hurt." This was the old language that was formerly used to corrupt the boroughs in schedules A and B. of the Reform Act. It was the old slang language that was used and well understood in the rotten boroughs before the Reform Bill. The corruptionists used then to say to individual voters, vote for us, and we will protect you from any injury to which you may be exposed. The mode of procedure, however, was much better managed now by a Liberal Club, when a plan was laid down, by which electors could be bought and transferred wholesale. He appealed to his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, as to the mode in which a plan of this kind would operate in a large constituency like that of Westminster. Supposing that a canvass was going on in that city among the small shopkeepers for a Conservative candidate. Some gentlemen connected with that party might go into the shop of a small trader, and ask him to vote, the latter might reply, that the cause they called upon him to support was not popular; and although he had no objection to do so, he could not afford it, as many of his customers, in consequence, might cease to deal with him. Now, supposing that these gentlemen formed themselves into a club, say the Carlton Club, and were in the possession of large funds. He put it to the House whether he had not argued the question fairly, and to prevent the appearance of anything like invidiousness, he had supposed a case affecting his own side of the House. The small shopkeeper might say, that he was afraid to support the Conservative cause; but the members of the club might use this language, which, according to the doctrine of the learned Sergeant, would only be protecting the purity of election, "We have large funds at our disposal, and we will take care that you shall not be ruined by your vote. We are powerful and rich; you have no cause for apprehension, and we will take care of you after the election." Would not this be an intelligible bargain, and it was nothing more nor less than opening a pay list for voters. He might go to a thousand other cases of the same kind, which would equally bear out his argument. To take another instance—supposing manufacturers discharged their workmen, and protection was given in this way, it might lead to the sale and the corruption of whole bodies of men. If the House of Commons allowed these proceedings to be passed over, the general adoption of this pernicious exam- ple was inevitable. He was prepared to vote for the previous question, but entertaining the feelings and opinions which he did, he should have been guilty of a base dereliction of his duty, if he had not openly expressed them. The hon. Member for London had said, that the constituency should vote sine spe, sine periculo, et sine timore. This system might do for Utopia, but it would never answer in a wealthy country like this, where there was such a demand for seats in Parliament, and where he feared it might be said, "Omnia Romœ venalia sunt." The learned Sergeant, however, stated that he thought that there might be a remedy for this. He stated, that if he could make up his mind for the ballot, he would have it in such cases. [Cheers.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite cheered, but he would ask, did they intend to adopt the language of the learned Sergeant? Were they prepared to say that they would give a conditional vote for the ballot? The learned Sergeant said, that he would vote for the ballot, if funds were not forthcoming in such cases sufficient to protect the voters. The learned Sergeant was willing to vote for the ballot, if they had not funds to protect the Liberal voters: that is to say, he would vote for the ballot, if he had not means of affording an ample supply of funds for the support of Liberal candidates, and for the corruption of needy voters. This, then, was the condition on which depended the learned Sergeant's supporting vote by ballot. He would, however, rather have the ballot than such an arrangement. The first question had reference to the personal character of Mr. O'Connell, and rather than put the hon. and learned Member on his trial a second time, he would abstain from voting. To leave that subject, however, and come to that which was immediately before the Committee, the first part of the charge was of a personal nature affecting Mr. O'Connell, of which he had said, the Committee had acquitted the hon. and learned Member. But then there was another question. The Committee, no doubt, had dealt with the general question, but he could not help feeling, that they had, on this part of the subject, stopped short in their inquiry, for they did not attempt to deal with the question as to what had been intended to be the appropriation of the contingent surplus. The learned Sergeant who spoke last night, and who, he hoped, was present, said, that he did not forget, in acting as a nominee, that he was pleading the cause of truth. He prided himself on his great fairness when he said this, and observed, that the Legislature ought not to forget that the paramount consideration for them was the investigation of the truth. The learned Sergeant stated, that the main object he had in view was to seek out and expose the whole transaction. But had not the learned Sergeant acted with a little Nisi Prius dexterity. He put, he said, Mr. O'Connell into the box to be examined; but he added, that it was for the purpose of laying a trap which he might see whether any hon. Gentleman would fall into, by putting questions to Mr. O'Connell. This, then, was the fair mode of seeking out the truth pursued by the learned Sergeant. The trap related wholly, he understood, to the offer of a Baronetcy, and certainly the hon. and learned Member for Dublin was entitled to demand that the Government should make a full and complete statement on the subject. From what took place last night, the hon. and learned Member for Dublin had aright to complain of the conduct of his Majesty's Government. According to what the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) said last night, he thought that the House was justified in supposing that the hon. and learned Gentleman had applied to Government for a Baronetcy, and had been refused, in which case he offered to Mr. Raphael that which he knew he could not give. At any rate, he considered that the hon. and learned Gentleman was entitled to demand from his Majesty's Government a full and frank explanation of the case. His noble Friend said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman, either from vanity or levity, had made a solemn promise of a Baronetcy, to influence Mr. Raphael's decision at a critical moment. Surely this was a grave imputation on the fair dealing of the hon. and learned Member. The hon. Member for the City of London had alluded to the proceedings that took place for Breach of Privilege at the end of last Session. He regretted the steps then taken, because he thought that the House appeared to wish to send gentlemen of the greatest respectability to Newgate in great numbers, and with unnecessary harshness; and, above all, he objected to the course taken in sending a most respectable solicitor down to Norwich to attend the Assizes, in the custody of a common jailor. He was not prepared, in this case, to ask for anything that would have the necessary effect of leading to the infliction of punishment; but he thought the House should agree to a prospective resolution, which might operate as a warning, and a future example to others. He would only add, if the House had a regard for its character, it should not continue to punish little retail offenders in bribery, while it let those escape who were wholesale dealers in corruption.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

observed, that the last sentence of the right hon. Baronet bore a singular contrast to the course which he had suggested at the earlier part of his speech. If, as the right hon. Baronet had stated, this was a wholesale case of bribery and corruption, if it were a mass of iniquity, how could the right hon. Baronet reconcile that with his declared determination to give the inquiry the go-by by means of the previous question. This fallacy pervaded the whole of the speech of his right hon. Friend, and it broke out to such a portentous extent, as to take away the whole force which his argument might otherwise have. His right hon. Friend said, that he would be disposed to pass to the previous question if his noble Friend had not proposed an amendment; but what would have been the practical inference from adopting that course? Why, that the House of Commons wished to get rid of a subject as unimportant, which they had referred to the judgment of a Select Committee, which had reported on it, and which the right hon. Baronet represented as a case of great importance. Would not such a course be a censure on the body to whom the House had delegated the inquiry? Would it not compromise the honour, the integrity, and the principle, of the House itself? This, they were called upon to do, to suit the convenience of Gentlemen opposite—they were called upon to withhold their opinion on a subject which had been already inquired into and decided upon by a Committee of the House, composed of men whose integrity, intelligence, and honour, did not for a moment admit of the slightest doubt. The resolution of the Member for Bradford certainly reflected on the decision of that Committee. To show that they were so considered, he would refer to that able speech, the best yet pronounced on this subject, the most convincing—the address of the hon. Baronet who spoke from the second bench, the Member for Devonshire, who was himself a Member of the Committee. That hon. Gentleman said, "We are on our trial. His hon. Friend, the Member for Warwickshire, also said, "I consider that we are on our trial." His hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Suffolk, although differing from him in other arguments, said, "I look on myself as so much a party in this case, that I shall abstain from voting on the occasion." This was the opinion of those Gentlemen; but if it had not been their's, would it not have been the opinion of the people of England. And were the House to shrink from the discharge of the duty, they would expose themselves to the imputation of cowardice, the Committee to the charge of partiality, and the whole proceeding would be generally looked upon as a mockery and a farce. What was it the House was called upon by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) to affirm? Any new proposition, or to go a step beyond the recommendation or opinion of the Committee founded upon the evidence? Was any attempt made to entrap the House into a vote on any proposition or opinion other than that, having delegated to a Committee, chosen impartially from the whole body of the House, the delicate and responsible task of examining into, and giving a judgment upon the facts of this case, the House should affirm the opinion which that Committee, after mature deliberation, had unanimously come to. He congratulated the hon. Member for Bradford on the complete success of his motion—on the happy proof of consistency which he had exhibited—on the love he seemed to have for running upon the scent, even though he might chance to hunt alone. For, on the part of all the most prominent Members on the other side who had taken a share in this discussion, and even on the part of those who were disposed to support him, any concurrence in this proceeding was disavowed, and the hon. Member was abandoned by one or the other of them in almost every one of his resolutions. One hon. Member could not give his assent to the resolution about the 49th George 3rd; another, the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, said, "If I had been consulted, I would have told the hon. and learned Gentleman, that it would have been infinitely better to let the matter rest where it is;" and another would prefer that it should get the go-by. Was there one individual who said, that the hon. and learned Gentleman had acted rightly or justly? He would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether had this not been a case involving considerations connected with a particular individual, the House would ever have heard a word about his motion? He would ask the hon. Member in the face of the country—and let the country and the House answer the question—each hon. Member putting the question to his own mind, to his own heart, and his own conscience—he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, whether this motion would ever have been heard of, if the question had not affected the character of an individual of great political importance at the present juncture? [Hear, hear.] He was quite ready to admit of that individual's political importance; and he assured the hon. Gentlemen who cheered him, that he should never shrink from expressing in any place, at any time, or at any hazard, his dissent from the views of the hon. and learned Member alluded to, when he thought they were wrong, and when he felt that it was his duty to differ from him; but he would never be guilty of the base cowardice of not doing his best to defend that hon. and learned Gentleman from charges such as these, which would never have been brought forward in this second shape at all, had it not been for their immediate connexion with the hon. and learned Member. For months on months the changes had been rung on these charges, which, after all that had been said upon them, had been found, on inquiry, to shrink into nothing. The question had been submitted for investigation to a competent and impartial tribunal. It had there undergone a full and fair investigation—a decision was pronounced upon it; and yet it was again attempted to be brought before the House. Now, was it seriously meant—it had not been so reasoned by his noble and right hon. Friends opposite—but could it be pretended that the whole of this charge which had been so long pending—which had already been decided by a Committee—but which, notwithstanding, had again been revived and placed on the Notice Book—could it be pretended that this charge was any other than a personal one against the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Dublin, and suggested with a view of fixing a stigma upon his public character? He objected to the previous question, on this occasion, because by acceding to it he should render null the decision of their own Committee. He should vote for the resolutions of the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, because they ask the House to affirm nothing but opinions which the Committee had already pronounced, in reference to some observations that had been suggested before it. He must point out the strong distinction between the position, laid clown by his hon. Friend, the Member for London, and the version of it given by his right hon. Friend opposite. It was not right or fitting that the opinions of one entitled to so much respect should be misrepresented, and scattered over the land in a caricature, like some of those lately exhibited in the print-shops. The hon. Member had been made to say, that it was just that a candidate should go round to the constituency and say to each, "If you vote for me, I will guarantee all the expenses you may be put to in consequence." More flagrant, bribery, more rank corruption than this it would be impossible to conceive; but the hon. Member said no such thing. He said, that he considered it to be quite just and legitimate that if an elector, by reason of his independent conduct, should suffer wrong, those who had sympathized in his loss, and who agreed with him in his opinions, should afford him an indemnity. Some Gentlemen appeared to differ from him on the point. Well, let them put the case to themselves.—He would ask his hon. and learned Friend, the Recorder, under whose judgment the Committee had passed, and been condemned without benefit of clergy—certainly a most merciful verdict for their sentence—he would ask the Recorder, than whom no man would be more incapable of holding out to a voter the slightest promise of future benefit or reward,—to suppose a case. Let him suppose, that after the hon. and learned Gentleman's election, an individual had come to him, and proved, that in consequence of his attachment to the horn and learned Gentleman—an attachment founded on political principles, he had suffered injustice, and been deprived of his livelihood; he put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman, whether he would not have been justified in extending to that man the utmost relief that he thought the case required? The whole case would depend on whether or not there had been any agreement to procure the vote; if there had been, directly or indirectly, such a compact, then corruption must exist; but if no such bargain had been formed, then there would be no room for such an accusation.—[Hear! Hear.] Hon Gentlemen opposite seemed to imply, by their cheers, that there was such an engagement, but he denied it, upon the evidence that had been adduced; though, at that late hour of the night, when it was necessary to come to a speedy decision, he would not attempt to go into it.—["Oh! oh!] Those Gentlemen who had read the evidence attentively would remember the letter which referred to the providing of a fund for compensating voters, and which stated that that fund was absolutely necessary to make good their losses, in case it should be wanted for such purpose; but which contained an injunction that no hope, promise, or expectation of reward should be held out to any individual for his vote. The passage would be found in page 69 of the Report, as follows:— The principal expense will be to indemnify tenants who vote against their landlords' wishes; they may want from one year to half a year's rent. The greater part will only be a loan, and will be repaid. It will not, also, be required until after the election, and will be unconnected with any previous stipulation. [Read on! Read on!] Hon. Gentlemen will be enabled to fill up the outline— The tenantry who vote for us will thus expect that the Gentlemen who compose the Local Committee should prevent their landlords from ruining them by sudden demands at periods when the Irish farmer has nothing to sell. It would be great presumption in him to differ from the House of Commons, but gentlemen conversant with Irish phraseology knew that the word "expect" bore in Ireland a meaning very different from its English signification. That, however, made no great distinction here, because the words on which he really rested his position were those which implied that there ought to be no previous stipulation for the payment of money. The whole of the case turned upon the evidence of this stipulation, and therefore he held, that in providing a fund for the indemnity of the electors of Carlow, there could be no corruption. He partly agreed with his right hon. Friend as respected any money transactions whatever between the voter and the candidate, or those who act for him; but he was prepared to defend cases of that description, if they were kept within the just and legitimate bounds he had mentioned. They might be, and were, perfectly just and innocent when no expectation of any kind was held out. He confessed that the practice was liable to abuse; but he could not consent to admit, on the evidence laid before the House, that any breach of privilege had been committed in the present case. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to think that this part of the case was excluded from the consideration of the Committee. Why, the hon. and learned Member for Bradford came forward with a charge imputing corruption, delinquency, and breach of privilege, and it was well understood by the Committee appointed to consider the subject, that the whole case turned upon that very question of breach of privilege. To shew this, there was the evidence of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, who informed the House that the first thing the Committee did, in order to cause the proceedings to assume a tangible form, was to read the resolution moved in the House, attributing to the hon. Member for Dublin corruption, trafficking in seats, and a breach of privilege. It was apparent that all this had been thoroughly gone into by the Committee. The hon. Gentleman who brought the charge forward treated it, himself, as a breach of privilege, and-yet his right hon. Friend overlooked this material fact. The right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Cumberland, was certainly the last man in the House whom he should expect to find supporting any measure tending to impugn the decision of a Committee of this House. The Committee appointed to inquire into the question before the House was more in conformity with the spirit of the Grenville Act than any which bad been appointed since the passing of that Act. The course taken with respect to that Committee was adopted on the principles on which the Grenville Act was founded—to escape the irritating excitement of angry debate, the heated passions of crowded benches, and the fever and fatigue of protracted discussion. Yet his right hon. Friend wished to produce the very results which that Act was intended to obviate, and to bring before the House again a case that had been submitted to the decision of a Committee. He entreated the House to consider that they were not required to pronounce any judgment of their own; they were called on merely to support the judgment of their own Committee. He entreated them to see that the inquiry had terminated in the verdict originally pronounced, and unanimously acquiesced in by the House of Commons, as affecting the individual to whom it related. He trusted, then, that the House would not, at the bidding of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, who seemed to delight in accusations, sanction a motion which no man who had participated in the debate had done otherwise than deprecate. It appeared that the chief parties against whom the accusation was levelled were not Mr. O'Connell and Mr. Vigors. They had been acquitted, and a new indictment—which was, however, contrived so as to involve the old question—had been framed against the Carlow Liberal Club. Were it not for the clamour raised against that association, and against the part they had taken in protecting the freeholders of the county, he believed that the House generally, and the public, would have been satisfied with the judgment of the Committee, and that neither hon. Gentlemen nor anybody else would ever have thought of impeaching it. He therefore hoped that the resolutions proposed by his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) would be carried by a great majority. Hon. Gentlemen opposite asserted that Ministers were forcing on this question to a division. He was unwilling to attribute to the other side the responsibility consequent upon the proceedings of an independent Member like the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Hardy), especially as his course had been repudiated by many of them; but it was that hon. and learned Member who was forcing on the subject, to which his right hon. Friend opposite wished to give the go-by. He would not give the go-by to it; he would not hazard the character of the Committee and of the House itself, nor would he endanger the authority of the future proceedings of the House. He could not consent, after instituting an arduous and searching inquiry, after having arrived at an unanimous resolution on the subject of it, and having reached the goal of their long labours,—to relinquish the fruits of the investigation. The House ought to be especially cautious how they delegated their judicial functions, and should intrust them to none but men of grave wisdom and proved integrity; but having once appointed a Committee, composed, as this was, of men of the highest honour and respectability, nothing but imperious and undeniable necessity should induce them to set aside its decision. The unanimity of its verdict ought to be conclusive with the House, and he called on the House, as it valued its own character, as it valued the Report of its own appointed and approved Committee, not to go one step beyond that Committee's Report, but to support the finding and assert the purity of its members. [Question, question.]

Sir Robert Peel:

if the House thought it for the interests of the hon. and learned Gentleman mainly concerned, that this discussion should be adjourned, he should willingly concur in that suggestion; but he confessed he was of opinion with the right hon. Gentleman opposite, that it would be most advantageous to that hon. and learned Member that the debate should be tonight brought to a conclusion. He thought there must be an unanimous wish on the part of the House that three more days should not elapse without the final settlement of the question. To pass, however, to the consideration of it; there was a mode by which it sometimes happened that hon. Gentlemen evaded the difficulties of an embarrassing question, and so far as personal feelings were concerned, he wished he could have reconciled to his sense of duty the evasion of this discussion in the manner to which he alluded—namely, by absenting himself from the debate, and declining to give his vote. But he thought the instances were rare in which a man could consistently with his public duty, abstain from being present at a discussion, or could evade the difficulty it might involve by absenting himself from it. The true course was to meet the difficulties as they occurred, and to strike the balance between conflicting obstacles, rather than to shrink from encountering them. It was his wish, upon this question, to act as nearly as he could in a judicial capacity, and he was hound therefore to state, whatever ridicule he might incur for the announcement from hon. Gentlemen opposite, that he was not a party to the motion brought forward by the hon. and learned Member for Bradford. He did not see the resolution which had been moved until he read it in the votes of the House; at the same time, he did not consider that it detracted from the importance of the question that it had not originated in party feelings, but was brought forward by an independent Member of the House, of unimpeachable character, who, without reference to the sentiments or opinions of others, did that which he considered to be his duty, and rested the question which he brought forward, not on the basis of party or personal feeling—but merely upon the importance which might be attached to it by the House. The present question had been introduced by the hon. Member for Bradford. He, as an individual Member, had he been consulted, would have willingly advised him not to persist in it; but his counsel not having been solicited, he found himself called on to declare his sentiments upon the subject, endeavouring to reconcile, as nearly as he could, his duty to the individual to whom it referred, and to the public, a portion of whom he represented. He wished to reconcile strict justice to the hon. and learned Member for Dublin with deference to the Report of the Committee, and with the performance of his duty to the people of England. He came down to the House, like many others, wishing to hear the discussion, and not having his mind made up as to the course he should pursue. On coming into the House, there were three objects which he resolved to bear in mind as regarded this debate. The first was justice to the hon. and learned Member, whom it principally concerned; the next, deference to the opinion expressed by the Committee which had sat upon the subject; and the third, the performance of those duties which, as a Member of this House, he owed to his constituents, and to the public. The debate proceeded, and a proposal was at length made which he thought relieved him from the difficulties he had to contend with, and which reconciled the three objects he was desirous to combine. A motion was made to pass to the other orders of the day, or to meet the original resolutions with the previous question—which was tantamount to implying complete satisfaction with the verdict of the Committee, by a resolve not again to agitate a question that had been already submitted to adjudication. By whom was this proposition made? Was it made by any Member of this House indifferent to justice, ill-qualified to form an opinion on the merits of the case, conceited or jealous in his disposition, or one to whom the feelings and the honour of the Committee were a matter of utter indifference? The proposal to meet the motion with the previous question was made by no less an authority than the Chairman of the Com- mittee—whose position in that body had been the most dignified—in whose opinion the most implicit confidence was reposed, and to whose feelings unqualified deference was due. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman was, as he thought, seconded by his noble Friend, also a Member of that Committee. Thus was there a motion intended to be made by the Chairman of the Committee, and seconded by an eminent Member of it, which was thought reconcileable with justice, perfectly consistent with the honour and feelings of the Committee, and with the discharge of public duty; and what had intercepted it? The motion had been distinctly announced, but some private and scarcely audible suggestion was made by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), who gave advice to the hon. Gentleman, the impartial arbiter upon this subject, as regarded both the interests of the Committee and of the public; and the hon. Gentleman in consequence had not fulfilled his intentions, although his noble Friend had understood that he was seconding the proposal. Had that motion been made and seconded, the noble Lord would not have been entitled to make his motion, and he must say, considering the circumstances under which the noble Member for South Lancashire was placed, it would have been only common justice and fairness, if he was under an erroneous impression respecting the course pursued, at once to have made him acquainted with his mistake. The omitting to put that motion had, therefore, occurred through mere accident, or rather through a mistake, and a mistake for which the noble Lord was plainly responsible; he said responsible, because, if his suggestion had not been offered, the Chairman of the Committee would have persevered, and it was thus plain, that the noble Lord had availed himself of an opportunity which would not otherwise have presented itself of moving an amendment on an intended motion. He was anxious to have escaped a discussion of this question, from a multiplicity of considerations, which, separately, might not have justified that solicitude, but which, when combined, formed an adequate cause for it. He did not mean to say, that with the disclosures contained in the evidence before him, he was inclined altogether to disregard it, but he was anxious to avoid any appearance of giving an indirect sanction and encouragement to disclosures of confidential intercourse, which neither tended to elevate a man higher in the scale of society, nor to increase the probability of excluding, from a public question, private considerations, which ought not to influence the decision. He must say, as to the evidence, this was that portion which he was most anxious to disunite from it Instead of being allowed, he would not say to give a go-by to this motion, but to meet it in a fair, Parliamentary, and constitutional manner—because, after reviewing all the circumstances of the case, he could not think it necessary to revive the discussion,—instead of being allowed to meet the question in a manner satisfactory to the Committee, to the public, and to himself, by giving his vote for the previous question, he was forced to consider the proposition of the noble Lord, which appeared to him to be of a nature utterly unprecedented. There was a clear distinction between acquiescing in an adjudication and adopting the verdict of a tribunal. The noble Lord insisted upon dictating to the House the precise terms in which they should express an opinion. He required from hon. Members, not an acquiescence in the decision of the Committee and a reluctance to disturb it, but the adoption of the sentiments of the Committee, and the use of the precise words in which that tribunal had recorded them. He was not present when the evidence was given; the parties who made up the Report might have many questions to settle, which required a compromise of past opinions, and this might have led to the insertion of any words justifying that mutual concession. In order to obtain general concurrence, words might have been inserted, in which all parties would not have acquiesced, but from a desire to promote unanimity. The noble Lord had not been present at the discussions in the Committee, nor had he heard the reasons which led to the insertion of such words, and yet he wished to compel the House to employ the precise words in which the Report of that Committee was drawn up. That body had acquitted Mr. O'Connell personally, and he entirely concurred with them, and he gave the hon. Member the full and unqualified benefit of that acquittal. He fully admitted the hon. and learned Member's right to take his stand upon that Report, as he himself had said. He would not go into the evidence, he did not wish to show that the Report was not perfectly satisfactory as regarded Mr. O'Connell; but be was quite sure that the Committee had considered the chief part of their duty to be to inquire into matters personally concerning him. This imputation was, they considered, the gravamen of the charge, to be of a personal nature, and he was not quite convinced, that they had thought it within the strict line of their duty to determine whether the whole transaction amounted to a breach of privilege. He repeated, then, that the noble Lord had no right to dictate the literal adoption of the Report, but as the rules of the House fully required him to acquiesce entirely in that Report, he was of course entitled to ask the noble Lord the meaning of several expressions contained in it. If the noble Lord inquired if he would acquiesce willingly in the Report, and would not disturb the decision of the Committee, he would say yes; but if the noble Lord would not permit him to do this, but demanded an unqualified adoption of it, then he (Sir R. Peel) must clearly comprehend the meaning of two passages in it, before he could say that they expressed his sentiments. The first was, that in which the Committee declared their opinion, "that the whole tone and tenor of this letter" from Mr. O'Connell to Mr. Raphael, "were calculated to excite much suspicion and grave animadversion." Now, what meaning did the noble Lord attach to the most important phrase in this passage—namely, "grave animadversion?" Did he, by these terms, mean to imply a censure on Mr. O'Connell, after the evidence which had been produced? If he did mean to express his reprobation, either qualified or unqualified, then on what ground did he blame Mr. O'Connell? Was it for a breach of privilege? If so, why did he not define the offence Mr. O'Connell had committed? Suspicion was a justifiable cause of inquiry, and he thought the noble Lord contended, the inquiry having been made, that the charge must be a false one. But the noble Lord adopted, in addition, the words "grave animadversion;" and these, as applied to a charge, were widely different from a mere suspicion. Suspicion attaching to a party formed a good reason for inquiry, but let him say, that grave animadversion belonged only to a case when the charge had been substantiated. If the use of these terms implied a censure on Mr. O'Connell, he wished to know what was the offence laid to his charge, and he thought that those parties who acted as his judges, and also those interested in behalf of Mr. O'Connell, would have required an explanation upon this point, relative to the embodying of these words in the resolution of the noble Lord. The other part of the Report, with respect to which he felt much doubt, was this—he was called on to adopt the Report on the responsibility of a Committee of the House of Commons, and he wished, therefore, to have his doubts resolved. The concluding paragraph of the noble Lord's resolutions was this—"that it appears also, that this money has been expended under the immediate direction of Mr. Vigors, and others connected with the county of Carlow, on what may be called legal expenses, or so necessary, that this House sees no reason to question their legality, and that the balance was absorbed in defending the return of Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors, before the Committee appointed to investigate it on the 28th July, 1835." Now, he contended, with all deference to the noble Lord, that the necessity of the expenses was not a test to try their legality. A case might occur, in which expenses were necessary, and yet not legal. [Lord John Russell: I said "unavoidable."] "I said unavoidable," says the noble Lord. What I say is, that the House is called on to adopt the resolutions of the Committee, and the noble Lord has proposed a resolution which does not agree with the resolution of the Committee.

Lord John Russell:

I must interrupt the right hon. Baronet, in order to explain that I desired the resolution to be copied, and the word "unavoidable" was copied "necessary." I did not observe this.

Sir Robert Peel

—What he contended was, that the unavoidableness or necessity of the expenses—whether one term or the other was used—was no test of their legality; and he objected to approving a resolution of the Committee which seemed to imply that the necessity of the expenses constituted a sufficient reason why their legality should not be questioned. When the noble Lord called for the opinion of the House on the transaction, he not only opened the Report of the Committee, but he opened the whole of the evidence. If the noble Lord required the House to record its opinion that the expenses were unavoidable or necessary, he imposed upon it an obligation to express its opinion of the whole transaction fully. The opinion of the House was to constitute the rule by which other people were to judge whether such expenses were legal or not; and if, on reading the evidence thus produced to the House, the House recorded its opinion that the expenses were necessary—if by this proceeding the important rules of constitutional practice, devised to guard the purity of elections, were slurred over, should the House of Commons be hereafter called upon to punish persons who had acted under the sanction of this proceeding, the House would be in a position in which it could not administer justice. The only part of the evidence to which he should refer was that which related to the appropriation of the money which had been advanced for the election. It appeared, that the first 1,000l. paid by Mr. Raphael for election expenses was to be paid down in the first instance, and if any balance remained, after defraying the election expenses, it was to go to defray the expenses of the petition which unseated Messrs. Bruen and Kavanagh. Did the House mean to sanction that? Did it mean—not shrinking from adjudicating the question, but determined to give an opinion upon it—to sanction, or, at all events, to express no disapprobation of a transaction by which it was stipulated, in respect to this 1,000l., by an express contract, that if any surplus remained, it should not go to cover any legal expenses connected with the election, but to discharge a debt incurred on account of a previous election? Did Gentlemen deny the fact to be as he had stated? Then he must be allowed to read the evidence of it. Mr. Vigors was asked, "Was the distinct understanding that out of the first 1,000l. paid by Mr. Raphael the election expenses were first to be paid, and if there was any balance, it was to go to the petition that unseated Messrs. Bruen and Kavanagh in May?—Yes. That the second 1,000l., if not wanted for the petition that followed, was to go to the fund of the Carlow Liberal Club?—Exactly. I would observe that the words, 'If not wanted for the petition,' should be omitted, for it was to go under any circumstances, in the case of his being returned, to that fund. Do you mean that this was not merely your construction of it, but that you believed that Mr. Raphael also understood it in this point of view?—That was my construction of it, and which I meant to convey to him; whether he understood it or not I cannot exactly answer, but I intended to convey that to him." Then suppose a case of a city Member going through a contested election, and incurring a debt of several thousand pounds; did the House mean to sanction this proceeding, that a contract might be made with a person hereafter to be returned, for a larger sum than the expenses would be likely to amount to, and if there was a surplus, that that surplus might go to pay the expenses of the previous election? Did Gentlemen mean to sanction this? [An hon. Member:" In the relief of poor electors."] The question was, whether the money could or could not be applied to other than election expenses. It was said that it was to go to a Liberal club, and be appropriated to the paying a year's rent, or half a year's rent, of tenants who were in arrear. If the House sanctioned the appropriation to either of these objects, or confirmed, by its silence, the resolution of the Committee, whose Report it was forced to review, why confine the compensation to tenants? Why not allow voters in cities or boroughs, when they are apprehensive of the consequences of freely exercising their franchise, to be indemnified for losing the good-will of their customers? In either case the violation of the right of election was equal, and in each case the claim for compensation would be equally valid. And the House must consider, when it was laying down a principle, that it could not limit it to bonâ fide cases of alleged wrong; if it opened a door on this pretext, a flood of unrestricted evils would rush in. The right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had had sagacity enough to foresee the evil consequences of such a case; but his sagacity in devising a precaution against them was not equal to the sagacity with which he foresaw the evil, because reading the evidence, and finding that the tenants "expected" remuneration—rusticus expectat:—expect was an awkward expression he admitted, but the right hon. Gentleman offered the House one consolation. He declared that the evil would be limited to England, for, on the best lexicographical authority possible, the right hon. Gentleman owns he was able to assure the House that between the meaning of the word expect in Ireland and in England the difference was very great. And this was the profound and satisfactory explanation given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a reason why there should be no apprehension in England of any evil consequence from this source. If, hereafter, any person in England made a claim upon a Liberal Club for compensation, and should consider himself entitled to expect it, the right hon. Gen- tleman would then come forward and tell him, "Your expectation, though not wholly groundless, was without foundation; for I am an Irishman, deeply read in the Anglo-Hibernian language, and I give you warning, that 'expectation' in England is a totally different thing from 'expectation' in Ireland." Unfortunately, the Legislature had not sustained this interpretation; for the Bribery Oath, which was administered in both parts of the empire, contained the word "expect," and with the same meaning. He asked the House, then, whether or not, if a case like this were made out on any other occasion, in other times, and under other circumstances, and a majority of the House of Commons had such a resolution brought before them, they would not have recorded their protest against it? The Chancellor of the Exchequer had said that this proceeding had been instituted against a conspicuous individual on the ground of political animosity, but he did not think so. Yet he might ask, whether, if the individual had been any other than the principal party actually concerned, would the Government have felt called on to defend him? Had the individual belonged to this side of the House, what would have been their course? He did not say that the hon. Gentlemen opposite would not have made allowance for the circumstances under which unfair and ungenerous disclosures might have taken place, but this was certain, that if their sense of duty and their generosity had prevented them from visiting the man with punishment, the sense of the duty they owed to the public would have pointed out to them the propriety of entering their protest against the public offence. Mr. Ridley Colborne [Cries of "Question,"] would detain the House but a short time, but it must be admitted that he was entitled to make a few observations after the preliminary remarks of his right hon. Friend. His right hon. Friend complained with some bitterness, of his having withdrawn his motion of the previous question, but he thought his right hon. Friend not entitled to make that withdrawal a ground of complaint. What were the circumstances? Being the first to rise he said he felt it was necessary for him to conclude with some kind of motion; he did not, however, know exactly how the question was to be met, but he would propose the previous question. In his opinion the resolutions must meet with the approbation of the House; what were they but a literal copy of the resolutions. of their own Committee. He wished to meet the question in the way that was most congenial with the general feeling of the House. He wished to allude to another observation of the right hon. Gentleman; he had alluded to the Report as if a compromise of opinion had taken place in the Committee. He would state what occurred in the Committee. Having adjourned to consider their Report, he returned home, and without consulting any human being, he sat himself down to draw up what he thought a fair and just Report of the proceedings. When the Committee met again he told them what he had done. He said he felt that he should have done it better if he had availed himself of the advantage of the assistance of any one of the members of the Committee; but as his situation was very peculiar, and he was bound to act most impartially, he thought that his best way would be to draw up the Report, and then submit it to their consideration. If it did not meet with their approval, he was ready to tear it in pieces, and throw it into the fire. He then read over that which he had drawn up, and subsequently read paragraph by paragraph; they all said they entirely coincided, and they thought it a just view of the question. Even that did not satisfy him; but he asked them individually to rise in their places, and declare their opinion; every one did so, and they all acquiesced in that Report. With the exception of a few verbal alterations, that which he had produced was adopted as the Report of the Committee. In drawing it up, he had not adopted one man's opinion more than another, but had endeavoured to take an unbiassed view of the case. All that he desired was a fair Report; if any one had differed from him in opinion it would have been a source of no annoyance to him. He should not have been in the least hurt if the Members of the Committee had said it was little to the purpose. His only object, he repeated, was to take a fair view of the case:— Si quid novistt rectius istis Candidus imperti, si non, his utere mecum. He had only one more observation to make. He was sure the hon. and learned Member, who made the Motion, did not wish to persecute the hon. and learned Member for Dublin; but certainly the course which he had pursued savoured of persecution—and, instead of repressing the influence of that Gentleman, he believed it would have a contrary effect. He was not an admirer of all the conduct of that Gentleman. His influence in his own country was great, and he had no fear that it would ever be so great in this country; but if such should be the case, on looking at the motion of the hon. and learned Member for Bradford, he must consider that hon. and learned Member as the most liberal benefactor of the hon. and learned Member for Dublin.

Mr. Roebuck

[Cries of "Question!"] assured the House that he would detain them but a short time if they would but afford him a patient hearing.

The Speaker

said, that it would hardly be necessary for him to inform hon. Members that the course now pursued was the most certain way of extending the time consumed in the debate. The business of the House would be more speedily and more decently proceeded with, if every hon. Member who rose to take a part in the de-bate were heard with patience and attention.

Mr. Roebuck

said, that the question before them related to the purity of election. It was whether or not a certain set of persons were justified in raising money for the purpose of protecting voters. He had a right so to state the question. When parties said that there had been corruption, it became them to know who had made that charge, in order that they might know the sense in which the term was used. Now, he must observe, that it came from the opposite side of the House, and there sat the Tory party. The right hon. Baronet had asked them to produce an instance. He must complain of the interruption that proceeded from the hon. Member for Derbyshire. He promised not to detain them long, but how could he be supposed capable of collecting himself to state this difficult question, unless he were allowed to proceed with some regularity. He wished to bring the matter home to the parties whom he saw opposite. He wished to ask certain hon. Gentlemen whom he saw on those benches certain pertinent questions, and he would begin with the hon. Gentleman who had brought the subject forward. If not allowed to state the argument, he would hope that he should be allowed to state the question. The hon. Member for Bradford had been three or four times accused of being himself one of those who had corrupted the purity of election. Let that hon. Gentleman rise in his place and state on his honour as a Gentleman that he had not done so. The right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, had said a great deal about the purity of election, he wished him to state whether he had never bought a seat. He wished also to ask the noble Lord (Mahon), the Member for Hertford, to state on his honour whether he had never bought a seat. He now held in his hand an answer to the question which had been put by the right hon. Baronet. One word more and he had done. He had before him an account of a judicial investigation in a court in Scotland. The subject of inquiry being some corrupt practices in a borough between Sir E. Sugden and Mr. Gordon. Now, the right hon. Baronet had inquired whether there ever had been a case in which proceedings against any individual belonging to his party had not been pressed? His answer was the case to which he had just referred. Before he sat down he would again call upon the hon. Member for Bradford to state if he had never had anything to do with corrupt practices at elections. If the hon. Gentleman would answer that question, he would rest content.

Mr. Hardy

said, that there were several accused parties before the House. There was the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. He hoped hon. Gentlemen would do him the justice to hear him; for he had been accused in a most indecorous and improper manner. Let us, exclaimed the hon. Gentleman, have justice for once from that side of the House. Let me be heard as a man who is accused falsely before you. Sir, I do not know the number of accusations that have been made against me; but I will begin with the last. Unsupported though it is by anything like evidence—unsupported though it is by anything like notice having been given to me, the hon. and learned Member for Bath has thought proper to adopt, on this occasion, that "tu quoque." I should have thought that the hon. and learned Member for Bath, and the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, would have been ashamed to adopt that course, for when a man addresses another with a tu quoque he admits his own guilt, whatever he may attempt to fix on another. I can tell the hon. and learned Member for Bath, as I would tell the hon. and learned Member for Dublin if he were here, that his accusation of bribery against me is unjust and unfounded. The transaction alluded to occurred ten years ago. I beg that hon. Gentlemen will do me the justice to hear what I have to say. A petition on the ground of bribery was presented against me in consequence of some transactions alleged to have occurred in the borough of Pontefract. The right hon. Baronet below me was my nominee on that occasion; Mr. Sergeant Spankie and Mr. Harrison were my counsel. In the course of the investigation I put myself into the witness-box in order to be examined, and they did not dare to ask me a question. And now as to the charge of the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has done me the honour of giving me his particular notice, and has thought proper to say that I delight in accusations. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I come into this House as independent as he. I can tell him that I delight no more in accusations than he does in imposing taxes. I can tell him that I knew who I was attacking in bringing a case against the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, but finding that no other hon. Member brought the subject forward, I felt it to be my duty to do so. I made my account, however, for a full allowance of vituperation, of misrepresentation, and of every species of calumny that could be heaped on me. And now for the hon. Member for Wales (Mr. R. Colborne), who has thought proper to accuse me of a wish to persecute. I hear the hon. Members cheer. I tell him, and those who surround him, that I have brought forward a case of as flagrant corruption as has ever been brought forward on the other side of the House by those who have dared to defend the conduct of the parties on this occasion. As regards the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, he is not the sole delinquent in this matter. Do not my resolutions bring also before you Mr. Vigors and Mr. Raphael, and the Carlow Liberal Committee? Every one is as much accused as another; but not one word is said by the hon. Gentleman opposite in defence of any one of those individuals, except the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, and the public will guess why. If the hon. Member for Dublin had been a mere banker on this occasion, as Mr. Vigors was willing to represent him, I should be glad to know whether there would be the same objection to the sifting of this case. If amongst the dramatis personœ of this affair of corruption, instead of the hon. and learned Member playing the part of banker, that had been done by Messrs. Wright and Co., not a single attempt would have been made to defend the conduct of those parties. The hon. and learned Member proceeded to contend that if these accusations could have been brought against any individual connected with his party, the hon. Gentleman opposite would have been anxiously prosecuting them in every possible way. He did expect that somebody who called himself a Reformer would have come forward to put an end to such corrupt practices. They now have the hon. and learned Member supported in such transactions, even by those who had formerly denounced him in the King's Speech. Upon the first night of the Session he waited to see if any Liberal Member would take up this matter; and it was not until the last moment that he gave notice on the subject. Having given that notice for inquiry, a Committee was appointed. The hon. and learned Member would have objected to his being on the Committee, but he was quite sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman would have no objection to his (Mr. Hardy) being a nominee, he having the hon. Member for Newark as his pocket nominee at the time. The hon. and learned Member would have done so, knowing that there was but little chance for him (Mr. Hardy) against the hon. and learned Member for Newark. Now he would wish to ask if there ever yet was a case brought more home to an individual than this; or if there ever yet was a case in which an individual was treated with more fairness? They had the matter of the charge from week to week in the public papers, and yet the hon. and learned Member for Dublin obtained a delay, and was at length compelled to acknowledge that an inquiry ought to take place. He had felt it to be his duty to read over the testimony that had been given. He would ask hon. Gentlemen opposite, who were prepared to vote against this question, if they had read the evidence? Every person who had done so was competent to vote upon this occasion, and he should not impugn that Member's vote. The hon. and learned Member for Dublin had every advantage in this inquiry. He had the appointment of friends of his own on the Committee; and he had gentlemen who knew nothing of adjudication, except what they acquired at quartersessions. That hon. and learned Member had the advantage of his own witnesses being examined. There was Mr. Vigors, his colleague in the matter. Was there not Mr. Fitzgerald, one of the parties, examined? Was there not Mr. Tyrrell? Was there not Mr. Baker? All persons connected with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin. Those who were participes criminis were examined as witnesses, and yet all these were interested in concealing the transaction; and in spite of all these, there were circumstances to show the most gross corruption—of corruption that was not to be defended. He did not impeach the finding of the Committee. He took it for granted, that the Committee were right in acquitting the hon. and learned Member for Dublin of pecuniary corruption, and putting money into his own pocket. They had heard the case of a man making a bargain that the expenses of a petition were to be paid, that man having seventy votes at his command, and contracting with Mr. Raphael to procure his return for Carlow. He would ask if there could be a case of greater corruption than that. The hon. Member for Bridport had taunted him (Mr. Hardy) with not having examined the 49th of George 3rd sufficiently; and with having overlooked the provision which makes it legal to expend money in legitimate election expenses, bona fide incurred; but it seemed to him, that the hon. Member wanted some of the tact and ingenuity of the lawyer, for he had himself omitted to notice the fact that the provision in question only applied to expenses already bona fide incurred, and not to contracts to aggregate those expenses. He was determined to be heard if he stood there for hours, and those who had interrupted him throughout might expect resolution on his part. The hon. and learned Member for Newark had talked of its being legal to indemnify the voters for the losses they had sustained in consequence of their votes, but in this case it appeared that Mr. Vigors had actually given the electors of Carlow notice, that this money would be divided among such as should suffer. While on this subject he would refer again to that letter of Mr. O'Connell, which stated that Lord Duncannon, the father of Mr. Ponsonby, had written to arouse his tenants strongly in his son's behalf. Did the great Liberal landlords, who thus wrote to their tenants, doubt for one moment that their requests would be complied with? No. And he could assure the noble Lord, the foster-father of the Reform Act, that, while he had extended the representation, he had also widened the field of corruption. It was, indeed, on the example, and in pursuance of the maxims, of the noble Lord himself, that he (Mr. Hardy) brought this question first before the House. He had an extract from a speech of the noble Lord, delivered in answer to Sir E. Sugden, in which the noble Lord said—"It is my opinion, that as long as I am a Member of this House, I ought to do my utmost in causing the laws to be properly supported. One of them is, that the sale of seats in the House, either directly or indirectly, shall not be allowed." The noble Lord had called on him to see the principle carried into execution—a duty he was engaged in doing to the utmost of his ability. How was the noble Lord engaged now? Was he engaged in preventing the sale of seats at Carlow, or was he not rather holding out an intimation that hereafter Members might sell seats with impunity? Perhaps he ought to add—provided they were under the wing of the hon. and learned Member. The noble Lord had characterised his allusion to the offer of the Baronetcy as a trumpery attack; but he had also alluded to it for the purpose of showing that the hon. and learned Member had been unable to procure a Baronetcy for the Sheriff of London. But why did not the Sheriff have the Baronetcy? Because he would not have it. His answer was, that he preferred the chance of a seat in the House of Commons to a Baronetcy. But what was the real secret of the transaction? Why, on the day when Mr. O'Connell offered Mr. Raphael the Baronetcy he had 1,000l. of Mr. Raphael's money in his hands, which would have been forfeited to the Carlow Club had Mr. Raphael accepted the Baronetcy; besides, that it would have saved the 600 votes which were struck off. He thought, that this was the most reasonable explanation that could be offered on the subject of the Baronetcy, and he hoped the noble Lord would thank him for it. But if this was the answer, what course was the noble Lord adopting? Was he prepared to follow up his principle as one of the great principles of Reform, and to hold forth to the constituencies of the country, that such principles as those might be acted upon? Was the noble Lord prepared to link this principle to those principles of civil and religious liberty by the promulgation of which he hoped to go down to posterity on the page of history? If he was, and if he was to be supported in that course by those who sat behind and around him, then he hoped that when those hon. Members—those who styled themselves Reformers—came to meet their constituents, they would not forget that they had set themselves up as Radicals, while they had at the same time refused to entertain a motion, the only objection to which was, that it was an attack on a Committee of the House. Those might be the principles of the noble Lord, and of those who voted with him, but he had acted throughout in a conscientious feeling of right, and he should persevere in pressing the question to a division, even though he should not have a single vote to support him. He felt, that he should be able to justify himself to those to whom he must hereafter account, and he now left the case with confidence in the hands of the House.

Lord Mahon

said, that if he had thought the hon. and learned Member for Bath had intended to make a mere vague charge against him, unsupported by reference to any particular case, he would have abstained from rising to answer him; but if the hon. and learned Member alluded, as he had no doubt a perfect right to do, to the evidence taken before the Hertford Election Committee, then he was prepared with an answer to the charge. The only person who made any charge whatever against him before the Committee was one voter, Russell Davies by name, who swore before the Committee, that he had offered him 10l. for his vote. He could not himself be examined before the Committee in contradiction, because he was the person directly and immediately interested; but after the decision of the Committee had been made known, he then caused an indictment for perjury to be preferred against Davies, under which he was convicted of that crime, and on the trial of that indictment, he (Lord Mahon) swore on oath that he had never, on that or any other occasion, offered him or any others a bribe. He believed that this was all he need state on this occasion, in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Bath.

The House divided on the original question; Ayes 169; Noes 243; Majority 74.

The following resolutions were then, severally carried: That it appears to this House, that Mr. O'Connell addressed a letter bearing date the 1st of June, 1835, to Mr. Raphael, in which an agreement for Mr. Raphael's return for the county of Carlow, for 2,000l., was concluded. That the tone and tenor of this letter appears to this House calculated to excite much suspicion and grave animadversion, but it appears, upon a careful investigation, that previous conferences and communications had taken place between Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors, and other persons connected with the county of Carlow, and that Mr. O'Connell was acting on this occasion at the express desire of Mr. Raphael, and was only the medium between Mr. Raphael, and Mr. Vigors, and the Political Club at Carlow. That it appears to this House that the money was paid to Mr. O'Connell's general account at his banker's in London; that it was, however, advanced to Mr. Vigors the moment it was called for; that, though some of it was paid in bills, the discount was allowed, and that the amount was, therefore, available whenever wanted; that it is, therefore, the opinion of this House, no charge of a pecuniary character can be attached to Mr. O'Connell. That it appears to this House, that this money has been expended, under the immediate direction of Mr. Vigors, and others connected with the county of Carlow, on what may be called legal expenses, or so unavoidable that this House see no reason to question their legality; and that the balance was absorbed in defending the return of Mr. Raphael and Mr. Vigors before the Committee appointed to investigate it on the 28th of July, 1835.''

Lord Stanley moved the following resolution: That it appears that there was between the contracting parties a distinct understanding that if any surplus should remain after providing for the legal expenses of the election of Mr. Raphael, that surplus should be applied in the first place toward defraying the expenses of a petition upon a previous election, and in the next to the fund of the Carlow Liberal Club; and that such understanding calls for the notice of this House, as liable to a serious abuse, as of dangerous precedent, and as tending to subvert the freedom and purity of election.

Mr. Warburton

Sir, I have but one observation to make; I dispute the matter of fact stated in the noble Lord's resolution. If I have collected the evidence properly, so far as regards the letter of Mr. O'Connell referred to in the first resolution of the hon. Member for Bradford, the understanding to which that hon. and learned Gentleman acceded to was, that the sum in question should go first towards defraying the legal expenses, and if any balance remained, that that should be applied, not to paying the expenses of a by-gone election, but the expenses of a coming contest, which was proved to be fully expected by the fact that counsel were retained.

Lord John Russell

said, the grounds on which I resisted the motion which has just been disposed of by the House, were, that I was ready to abide by the decision of the Committee. I found myself unable, therefore, to propose the previous question, knowing that to propose it would have been merely saying, that on a question of a very grave character, and on resolutions of a very criminatory kind, this House was not prepared to come to any decision on the subject. But having rested on the decision of the Committee, I must say, that I am not prepared to agree to a resolution, either of the kind proposed by my noble Friend, or any other which would go beyond the opinions contained in that Report. I am satisfied with that investigation. My hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, says, that he disputes the facts of the resolution which has been proposed. I make no comment upon them. Whether my hon. Friend be right or wrong I do not say; but I do say, that if the Committee agreed on those facts, and thought them material to report to the House, I conclude they would have so reported. I, therefore, am not prepared to come to a resolution which I, for one, cannot but consider as absolutely unnecessary, and I shall, therefore, take the liberty of moving, "That the other Orders of the Day be now read.

The House divided on Lord John Russell's motion: Ayes 238; Noes 166—Majority 72.

The other Orders of the Day were accordingly read, and the House adjourned at a quarter past three o'clock.

We subjoin the Lists of the First Division. The Members voted in a similar manner on the Second Division, the only difference being, that a few Members left the House. On this account we think it needless to publish the duplicate List.

List of the AYES on the First Division.
Agnew, Sir Andrew Barneby, J.
Alford, Lord Beckett, Sir J.
Alsager, Richard Bell, Matthew
Arbuthnot, hon. H. Bentinck, Lord G.
Archdall, M. Beresford, Sir J.
Ashley, Lord Blackburne, I.
Ashley, hon. H. Blackstone, W. S.
Bagot, hon. W. Boldero, H. G.
Baillie, hon. D. Bolling, W.
Baring, H. B. Bonham, R. F.
Baring, W. B. Borthwick, P.
Bradshaw, J. Jackson, Sergeant
Bramston, T. W. Jermyn, Earl of
Brownrigg, S. Inglis, Sir R. H., Bt.
Bruce, Lord E. Jones, W.
Bruce, C. L. C. Jones, T.
Bruen, Col. Irton, S.
Bruen, F. Kerrison, Sir E.
Calcraft, J. H. Knightley, Sir C.
Castlereagh, Viscount Law, hon. C.
Chandos, Marq. of Lawson, A.
Charlton, E. L. Lees, J. F.
Chichester, A. Lefroy, T.
Clive, Viscount Lincoln, Earl of
Codrington, C. W. Longfield, R.
Cole, Viscount Lowther, hon. Colonel
Compton, H. C. Lowther, J.
Conolly, E. M. Lucas, E.
Coote, Sir C., Bart. Lushington, S. R.
Corry, hon. H. Lygon, hon. Col.
Darlington, Earl of Maclean, D.
Dick, Quintin Mahon, Lord
Duffield, T Manners, Lord C,
Dugdale, W. S. Marsland, T.
East, James Buller Mathew, G. B.
Eastnor, Viscount Maunsell, T. P.
Eaton, Richard J. Meynell, Captain
Egerton, W. T. Miller, W. H.
Egerton, Sir P. Mordaunt, Sir J., Bt.
Egerton, Lord F. Morgan, C. M. R.
Elley, Sir J. Neeld, J.
Elwes, J. P. Norreys, Lord
Entwisle, J. Ossulston, Lord
Estcourt, T. G. B. Packe, C. W.
Estcourt, T. S. B. Palmer, R.
Feilden, W. Parker, M.
Ferguson, G. Patten, J. W.
Finch, G. Peel, Sir R., Bart.
Fleming, J. Peel, W. Y.
Foley, E. T. Pemberton, T.
Follett, Sir W. Perceval, Colonel
Forbes, W. Pigott, R.
Forester, hon. G. Plumptre, J. P.
Fremantle, Sir T. Plunket, hon. R. E.
Freshfield, J. W. Polhill, F.
Gladstone, Trios. Pollen, Sir J., Bart.
Gladstone, W. E. Pollington, Viscount
Glynn, Sir S. Praed, W. M.
Goodricke, Sir F. Price, S. G.
Gordon, W. Pringle, A.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Reid, Sir J. R.
Goulburn, Sergeant Rickford, W.
Graham, Sir J. Ross, C.
Green, T. Rushbrooke, R.
Greisley, Sir R. Russell, C.
Hale, R. B. Ryle, J.
Halford, H. Sandon, Lord
Halse, J. Scarlett, hon. R.
Hamilton, Lord C. Sibthorp, Colonel
Hardinge, Sir H. Smith, A.
Hawes, T. Smyth, Sir H., Bart.
Hay, Sir J. Bart. Somerset, Lord E.
Henniker, Lord Somerset, Lord G.
Hill, Lord Arthur Stanley, Lord
Hill, Sir R. Bart. Stormont, Lord
Hope, J. Sturt, H. C.
Houldsworth, T. Tennent, J. E.
Hughes, W. H. Thomas, Colonel
Trevor, hon. A. Wyndham, W.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Wynne, rt. hon. C. W.
Twiss, H. Wynn, Sir W.
Tyrell, Sir J. Yorke, E. T.
Welby, G. E. Young, J.
Whitmore, T. C.
Wilbraham, hon. B. TELLERS.
Williams, Robert Hardy, J.
Wortley, hon. J. S. Clerk, Sir G., Bart.
List of the NOES.
Acheson, Viscount Collier, J.
Adam, Admiral Conyngham, Lord A.
Aglionby, H. A. Crawford, W. S.
Ainsworth, P. Crawford, W.
Anson, G. Crompton, S.
Astley, Sir J. Curteis, H. B.
Attwood, T. Curteis, E. B.
Bagshaw, J. Dalmeny, Lord
Baines, E. Denison, W. J.
Baldwin, Dr. Denison, J. E.
Bannerman, Alex. Dillwyn, L. W,
Baring, F. T. Divett, E.
Barnard, E. G. Donkin, Sir R. S
Barry, G. S. Duncombe, T. S.
Beauclerk, Major Dundas, J. C.
Bentinck, Lord W. Dundas, hon. T.
Berkeley, hon. F. Dunlop, J.
Berkeley, hon. G. C. Ebrington, Lord
Bernal, Ralph Edwards, Colonel
Bewes, T. Elphinstone, H.
Biddulph, R. Etwall, R.
Bish, T. Evans, G.
Blackburne, J. Ewart, W.
Blamire, W. Fellowes, N.
Bowes, J. Fergus, J.
Bowring, Dr. Ferguson, Sir R.
Brabazon, Sir W. Ferguson, R.
Brady, D. C. Fergusson, rt. hon. C.
Brocklehurst, J. Fielden, J.
Brodie, W. B. Fitzgibbon, hon. Col.
Brotherton, J. Fitzroy, Lord C.
Buckingham, J. S. Folkes, Sir W.
Bulkeley, Sir R. Forster, C. S.
Buller, C. Fort, J.
Buller, E. French, F.
Bulwer, H. L. Gaskell, D.
Bulwer, E. L. Gillon, W. D.
Burdon, W. W. Gisborne, T.
Burton, H. Gordon, R.
Butler, hon. P. Goring, H. D.
Buxton, T. F. Grattan, J.
Byng, G. Grey, Sir G.
Byng, G. S. Grosvenor, Lord R.
Campbell, Sir J. Grote, G.
Campbell, W. F. Gully, J.
Cave, R. O. Hall, B.
Cavendish, hon. G. H. Hallyburton, hn. D.G.
Cayley, E. S. Harland, W. C.
Chapman, M. L. Harvey, D. W.
Chichester, J. P. B. Hastie, A.
Childers, J. W. Hawes, B.
Clay, W. Hawkins, J. H.
Clements, Viscount Hay, Sir A. L.
Cockerell, Sir C., Bt. Heathcote, J.
Codrington, Sir E. Hector, C. J.
Colborne, N. W. R. Heneage, E.
Hindley, C. Power, J.
Hobhouse, Sir J. C. Pryme, G.
Hodges, T. L. Rice, rt. hon. T. S.
Hodges, T. Rippon, C.
Horsman, E. Robarts, A. W.
Howard, P. H. Roche, W.
Hume, J. Roebuck, J. A.
Hurst, R. H. Holfe, Sir R. M.
Hutt, W. Rundle, J.
Jephson, C. D. O. Russell, Lord J.
Jervis, J. Russell, Lord
Johnston, A. Russell, Lord C.
Kemp, T. R. Ruthven, E.
King, E. B. Sanford, E. A.
Labouchere, H. Scholefield, J.
Lambton, H. Scott, Sir E. D.
Leader, J. T. Scott, J. W.
Lefevre, C. S. Scrope, G. P.
Lennard, T. B. Seymour, Lord
Lennox, Lord G. Sharpe, General
Lennox, Lord A. Smith, J. A.
Lister, E. C. Smith, R. V.
Loch, J. Smith, B.
Long, W. Speirs, A.
Lushington, C. Strutt, E.
Lynch, A. H. S. Stuart, Lord D.
Mackenzie, J. A. S. Stuart, Lord J.
Macleod, R. Stewart, V.
Macnamara, Major Talbot, C. R. M.
M'Taggart, J. Talfourd, Sergeant
Marjoribanks, S. Tancred, H. W.
Marshall, W. Thomson, C. P.
Marsland, H. Thompson, P. B.
Maule, hon. F. Thompson, Colonel
Methuen, P. Thornely, T.
Molesworth, Sir W. Townley, R. G.
Morpeth, Lord Trelawney, Sir W.
Mostyn, hon. E. Troubridge, Sir E. T.
Mullins, hon. F. W. Tulk, C. A.
Murray, rt. hon. J. Turner, W.
Nagle, Sir R. Villiers, C. P.
O'Brien, C. Vivian, Major
O'Brien, W. S. Vivian, J. H.
O'Connell, Maurice Wakley, T.
O'Connell, M. Walker, C. A.
O'Conor, Don Walker, R.
O'Ferrall, R. M. Wallace, R.
Oliphant, L. Warburton, H.
O'Loghlen, Sergeant Ward, H. G.
Oswald, J. Wason, R.
Paget, F. Wemyss, Captain
Palmer, General Westenra, H. R.
Palmerston, Lord Weyland, R.
Parker, J. Whalley, Sir S.
Parnell, Sir H. White, S.
Parrott, J. Wilbraham, G.
Parry, Sir L. P. J. Williams, W.
Pattison, J. Williams, W. A.
Pease, J. Williams, Sir J.
Pechell, Captain Wilson, H.
Pelham, hon. C. Winnington, Sir T.
Pendarves, E. W. Winnington, Capt. H.
Philips, M. Wrightson, W.
Philips, G. R. Wrottesley, Sir J., Bt.
Pinney, W. TELLERS.
Potter, R. Stanley, E. J.
Poulter, J. S. Steuart, R.