§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he supposed 335 there was to be no answer to the question, and therefore he would take the opportunity of explaining an error into which he had fallen, relative to a matter which he had referred to a few nights ago. On that occasion he inquired of the Home Secretary if he could account for the great increase which had been made in the list of magistrates for the county of Huntingdon. He stated that three Liberals had been passed over, that the sis new magistrates were all Tories, and that four of these were clergymen, and the other two were laymen. It was because he wished to state where he was correct and where he was incorrect that he now called the attention of the House again to the subject. He had been told by the gallant General the Secretary for War that he was wrong in every way, from beginning to end; but he thought he could satisfy the House that he was much nearer the truth than the gallant General. Of course the gallant General's denial was a Parliamentary way of tolling him (Mr. Duncombe) that he had spoken an untruth, a conclusion which anybody would naturally draw. The hon. Member for the county, too, advised him to place no reliance upon those who had instructed him in future—advice which he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to transfer to his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department. That right hon. Gentleman was certainly right in saying that, instead of four, only three of the new magistrates were clergymen, and that the remaining three were laymen. The mistake arose from one of the laymen bearing the name of Spurling, which was also the name of a clergyman there, and his impression had been that it was the clergyman, and not the layman, who had been appointed to the magistracy. With regard to the three Liberals who had been passed over, the right hon. Gentleman said that one of them—the Rev. Mr. Shafto—had been passed over because he resided in the same parish with his brother, who was a well-known magistrate there. But here the right hon. Gentleman was perfectly wrong; for he (Mr. Duncombe) had been informed that the brother had gone to the county of Durham four or five years ago to reside, and would not return. Therefore, if there were any man who ought to have succeeded to that gentleman in the commission of the peace it was certainly the Rev. Mr. Shafto. The hon. Member for the county had denied that any one of the clergymen had canvassed for him; but he (Mr. Duncombe) 336 had received a letter from a gentleman who stated that he not only saw one of them canvassing with the hon. Gentleman, but also saw them mobbed. The Rev. Mr. Grove, he believed, did not canvass, but he voted for the Tory candidates. The other, the Rev. Mr. Stopford, not long since brought an action against one of his parishioners, which was tried before Barn Pollock, from whom he received a severe rebuke by being asked how a minister of the Gospel could go to law with a parishioner to-day and meet him at the Sacrament to-morrow? Well, these gentlemen had been put into the commission of the peace, and three others had been passed over. He came now to the statement of the Secretary for War, who had given him such strong denials on a previous night.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid, it was passing the limits of order for the hon. Member to reply in detail to an hon. Gentleman who had addressed the House in a past debate. He had understood from the hon. Member that he merely desired to make an explanation in reference to certain points on which he had been misapprehended. To re-open the whole question, and reply to the hon. Gentleman who spoke in a former debate, would be entirely out of order.
§ MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he merely wished to make a personal explanation, as he had been accused of stating what was not true in that House. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he was incorrect from beginning to end. He (Mr. Duncombe) had stated that there had been no contest for Huntingdon for thirty years; and, to a certain extent, he was wrong. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that there had, for he himself had stood two within that period. He would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman when? He knew that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had a contest at the time of the Reform Bill; but when was the other? It was true that Mr. Prendergast, an eminent barrister, once went down to Huntingdon, but he received the answer which was proverbial in the town, "It's no use your coming here, our Members are return in Lord Sandwich's drawing-room." Mr. Prendergast withdrew before the nomination, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would surely not call that a contest. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that Huntingdon was not a pocket I rough; but he (Mr. Duncombe) held in I hand a book which gave all the informa- 337 tion needed. It told them that Huntingdon was celebrated for its agricultural produce and its soft cheeses, and then it gave all the polls which had taken place since 1832. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said, as a proof of his independence, that he voted for the Repeal of the Corn Laws, while Lord Sandwich was on the opposite side. But the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was not quite candid in his relation of that matter; for he forgot to tell the House that at that time he was Surveyor General of the Ordnance, and was, therefore, a subordinate in his brother's Government. In conclusion, he (Mr. Duncombe) ventured to say that what he had advanced the other night was substantially correct from beginning to end.
GENERAL PEELsaid, that as the hon. Gentleman had made a personal appeal he would answer him respecting the contests at Huntingdon at once. The first was when he first went to the borough, when he was opposed by a Gentleman whose politics somewhat resembled those of the hon. Gentleman. That was in 1830 or 1831, and after the passing of the Reform Bill, he was again opposed by a gentleman who polled a considerable number of votes in his favour. The hon. Gentleman insisted that Huntingdon was a pocket borough of Lord Sandwich. Now he could tell the hon. Member that if Lord Sandwich and all the House of Lords were to unite together to return him (Mr. Duncombe) for the borough of Huntingdon they could not do it. He said that with all respect to the hon. Member, for the reason was that his political opinions were not in unison with a large majority of the most respectable constituents. The hon. Member said that three gentlemen of Liberal politics were passed over, and among them the Mayor of Huntingdon. What opportunities the hon. Member had of knowing that gentleman's political opinions he (General Peel) did not know. He was precluded from voting at elections, as he hold a situation in the Stamp Office; but he (General Peel) had known him for many years, and he had reason to believe that his political opinions were more in unison with his (General Peel's) than with those of the hon. Member. He was very sorry if, in what he said on a former occasion, he had said anything to offend the hon. Member; he only meant to say he had been misinformed from beginning to end of his statements; and he still thought so, but he never meant to say that the 338 hon. Gentleman made those assertions of his own personal knowledge.
§ MR. FELLOWESsaid, he could not help expressing his regret that the hon. Gentleman had thought fit to renew this subject after what had been said on the former occasion. The hon. Gentleman had said that everything which he had previously stated was correct. Now, with all respect for the hon. Member, he begged to tell him that what he had stated on a previous occasion was substantially wrong. He had represented him (Mr. Fellowes) to have said that none of these clergymen canvassed with him at his election. He had never said anything of the kind. What he had stated, and what he would repeat, was this, that these gentlemen were not put into the commission of the peace as a reward for political services. And he begged to tell him that though some of these gentlemen were Conservatives, and one or two did canvass with him, they did not take any active part in the election for the county. The hon. Gentleman had brought forward the name of the Rev. Mr. Stopford, and had alleged that his was a very improper appointment. He believed that some charge was brought against that gentleman at the assizes, but whatever the decision was, there was nothing to affect his personal character, or make him unfit to be in the commission of the peace. So far from that rev. gentleman taking any active part in the election of the county, he did nothing beyond giving his vote for his hon. Friend and colleague. Although he was the agent of a large estate belonging to his brother, he would not influence any of the tenants, and the majority voted for the Liberal candidate. With respect to Mr. Spurling, what he stated was, that his father, who was since dead, and whom he had succeeded in the estates, was the owner of large property in the county; that he was a clergyman, and that he took a very active part in the election, not for the Conservatives, but for the Liberals. With regard to Mr. Shafto, he (Mr. Fellowes) certainly knew him as a strong political opponent, but he did not believe that he had been passed over on that account. He did not know how the hon. Gentleman was acquainted with the fact that Lord Sandwich had refused to appoint three gentlemen to the commission of the peace because they were Liberals, unless the hon. Member had had private communication with the noble Lord upon the subject, He believed that the hon. 339 Gentleman was entirely in error upon this point. He did not know the object of the hon. Gentleman in making these charges; but, if they had been made for political purposes, he begged to tell him that the noble Lord against whom he had directed them stood too high in the esteem and respect of those who were acquainted with him, and that nothing which fell from the hon. Gentleman would damage his character in the slightest degree.
§ MR. HUNTsaid, he hoped the House would allow him one word in defence of a personal friend, Mr. Stopford. As a proof of the high esteem in which that rev. gentleman was held, he might state that he had lately been appointed by the University of Oxford one of its proctors.