rose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice "for a Select Committee to inquire into all the circumstancesconnected with the discharge of John Nicholl Thom, alias Courtenay, from the Kent Lunatic Asylum." He had to beg the indulgence of the House while he stated the details of a matter which he considered of great importance. He much regretted, that the hon. Member for Lincolnshire should have taken on himself to describe the motion as one got up for the purposes of party skirmishing; the hon. Member would find, that he was altogether mistaken in his supposition. Nothing could have induced him to take the present, to him very painful, course, but a sense of public duty. It had been his fortune to sit in that House for many years, and he had been throughout that period, a political opponent of the noble Lord opposite; but he thought the noble Lord would concur with him in saying, that during the whole of that period, nothing except what was kind and courteous had passed between them. The remembrance of this circumstance served to increase the pain he felt in bringing this subject forward, because the question was one which personally affected the conduct of the noble Lord in the prosecution of his public duty. Immediately after the unfortunate occurrence in question took place in the county which he (Sir E. Knatchbull) had the honour to represent, he had felt it his duty to solicit the noble Lord for information on the subject; and on that occasion the noble Lord fully admitted that the conduct of all parties engaged in quelling the disturbance was perfectly justifiable and satisfactory; and that, in point of fact, they could have adopted no other course. This admission greatly limited the extent of the question which he had to bring forward. He could assure the noble Lord, that he had no intention of making an attack upon Government, or of criminating either the noble Lord, or the Master General of the Ordnance. All he wanted was, an inquiry into circumstances, the nature of which, in his judgment, and he believed also in the judgment of the noble Lord, called for inquiry. All he desired was, to have the facts of this lamentable and extraordinary affair thoroughly investigated, and laid before the House, and he could not imagine, that the noble Lord would oppose the appointment of a committee for such a purpose. All he required was, that the House would agree to the appointment of a committee, to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the discharge from the Kent Lunatic Asylum, of the man calling himself Courtenay, not for the purpose of reporting that some one was criminal, but to elicit facts, and place them before the House. In that view of the case, he was sure the noble Lord would agree with him. If any thing should fall from him, or from any hon. Member who should support the motion, tending to inculpate the noble Lord, then, indeed, would be admit, that the noble Lord would be justified in resisting the motion; but he again repeated, it was not his intention or his wish to introduce into the discussion one single extraneous topic, or one which did not touch directly and immediately upon the subject. It was with great pain he reverted to the calamitous event which had taken place in the county of Kent, arising out of one of the most extraordinary violations of the peace upon record. He believed it to be a very generally entertained opinion, that inquiry should be made upon the subject; but even if such were not the case, still would he maintain the justice of such a proceeding, out of respect to those who, he regretted to say, had been deprived of the benefit and protection of parents and benefactors, by the unfortunate event alluded to. That event was a topic of very general conversation, and he had been frequently asked since its occurrence, how it happened that a person circumstanced as Courtenay was, should have been let loose on the public? That was, in fact, the main question, and one which he hoped the noble Lord would be able to answer satisfactorily. In the year 1833, a person calling himself Courtenay was convicted of perjury, on the clearest evidence, and sentenced to three months' imprisonment, and seven years' transportation. Shortly after this period, it appeared that he was of unsound mind, and under the 9th of George 4th, by the direction of Lord Melbourne, he was removed from the gaol at Maidstone to the county asylum. There he remained until October, 1837, when a warrant was sent by the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Home Department, to the authorities of the asylum, whereby a free pardon was given to Courtenay. The first letter on the papers before the House was a request that Courtenay might not be discharged, until his father, or some one authorised by him, attended at the asylum to receive him. Now, he wished to ask, by what authority the man called Courtenay was detained in custody after a free pardon had been sent down to him? The detention after was clearly illegal. He was, however, shortly after liberated. The act of 9th George 4th, under which Courtenay was sent to the lunatic asylum, directed that such person should there remain until a certificate should be produced signed by two medical men, stating him to be of sound mind, and that then the prisoner should be taken back to the prison from which he was removed, to finish the term of his confinement, if not yet expired. What happened in this case? The noble Lord had certainly commenced his proceedings under the provisions of the 9th George 4th. He applied to the visiting magistrates to send a certificate, and received one regularly signed by two medical men, on the 8th of September, stating that the prisoner was of sound bodily health, but of unsound mind. Now, as far as he (Sir E. Knatchbull) had been able to ascertain, no further inquiry was made by the noble Lord as to the condition of this person; and yet on the 9th of October, a free pardon, with an order for his immediate discharge, was sent down from the Home Secretary's office. That was the point on which he wished for explanation. He could not see why the noble Lord, acting in the first instance under the Act of Parliament, that was to say, as regarded the medical certificates, should, without further nquiry, give an order for the prisoner's dismissal. He knew, it was said, that though of unsound mind, he still might not be a dangerous character. Now, he believed most conscientiously, that if the noble Lord had made inquiry in the county of Kent, he would have found that nine out of ten, nay ninety-nine out of 100 persons, were of opinion that this individual could not be set free, and allowed to be unrestrained in his actions, without endangering, to a serious extent, the peace of the country. He did not mean to say, that the consequences which flowed from his liberation could have been anticipated by the noble Lord, or that on the noble Lord devolved the responsibility of those results; but he apprehended that he should be able to show, from the papers on the table of the House, what were the circumstances under which, and the real ground upon which, the noble Lord had granted Courtenay his pardon and liberation. Those papers enabled him to say, that it was through the interference of the gallant Officer opposite, that this liberation had taken place. He was glad to find that the hon. and gallant Officer was ready to acknowledge that fact, and thereby throw his protection over the noble Lord. There was no letter, that he was aware of, from the gallant Officer; but there were two documents which had some how or other got into the Secretary's office, bearing date the 15th and 16th of August, 1837, which would suffice to show, that the Master-general of the Ordnance had requested the liberation of the prisoner confined in the county asylum. Now, the time at which this happened was immediately after the election for Cornwall, the declaration for which was made, he believed, on the 10th of August. The hon. and gallant Officer was acquainted with Mr. Thom, the father of the prisoner, and Mr. Thom happened to be an elector of East Cornwall, and one likewise who had voted for the two liberal candidates. The hon. and gallant Gentleman admitted, that he knew Mr. Thom, and he (Sir E. Knatchbull) knew that Mr. Thom had promised to vote for Lord Eliot, but that instead of doing so, he had voted for the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself, and his unsuccessful colleague. At the commencement of the observations which he had taken the liberty to address to the House, he ventured to assure them that he should state nothing which was not in perfect accordance with exact and authentic statements; and that he should not go beyond the facts which those statements furnished. He could go much further, but he persuaded himself that the House, from what he had stated, would feel perfectly satisfied, that he had laid a sufficient ground for his motion. He demanded inquiry, and, therefore, he did not enter upon his evidence in detail. He did not forget, that it had often been stated since these unhappy events took place, that proper arrangements had been made for the safe custody of the prisoner. He could not say, that sufficient precautions had not been taken—the information he had received might not be correct; but he certainly had been given to understand, that at the time these unfortunate proceedings were going on, there was proof at the Home-office of the state of mind in which the man called Courtenay, was. There had been, at the same time, a letter from a medical gentleman, addressed to the Secretary of State, demanding an investigation of the individual in question, and affirming that it was not safe that he should be at liberty. In addition to this, he was enabled to say, from a letter dated the 22nd of this month, which he had received from Mr. Tooke, the late Member for Truro, that that gentleman had made inquiry at the Kent lunatic asylum into the state of Courtenay, and there learned, upon testimony which could not be doubted, that his condition of mind was decidedly such as disqualified him from being left to his own guidance—that, in fact, it was exceedingly dangerous to allow him to go abroad. There was another circumstance which, in some degree, appeared to be connected with the case. Very soon after the election for Cornwall, William Thom and his wife, the parents of the unhappy lunatic, paid a visit to the noble Lord opposite, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, at his country residence in Devonshire. The House would observe, that the time chosen for this visit was rather remarkable; and he confessed, that he felt curious to know, what that introduction was, which gained for those parties access to the noble Lord. Coupling, then, these various circumstances of the election, the visit, and the liberation, he thought that he had laid a sufficient ground for an inquiry. He hoped that the noble Lord would accede to the ap- pointment of a committee, and he hoped at the same time, that the noble Lord and the House would do him the justice to believe, that he would not, for any party purpose, bring forward such a motion. In his estimation, the criminal justice of the country was of far greater importance than any objects of party. That the Secretary of State should be exonerated from the imputations now cast, of indiscretion at the least, for he certainly did stand charged with indiscretion in the execution of his duty, was a matter of infinitely greater moment than any advantage which party could obtain by any motion in that House. The right hon. Gentleman concluded, by moving for a select committee to inquire into all the circumstances connected with the discharge of John Nicholl Thom, alias Courtenay, from the Kent Lunatic Asylum.

said, I rise, Sir, with great pain, to address the House on this subject, because, whatever may be the judgment of the House or of the country with respect to this transaction, and however blameless I may feel myself as to any imputation that may be cast upon me for the part I have taken in it, in the exercise of my best judgment, as far as that imperfect judgment could be exercised, at the same time, I must feel, that this most calamitous circumstance has occurred during the time in which I have held the seals of the Secretary of State; and I also cannot but feel, that the blood which has been shed, has been shed by a person who owed his liberation to me. Therefore, with whatever other circumstances this case may be accompanied, it is one which has occasioned me greater pain than any other with which I have had to do, and will continue so to cause me pain. [The noble Lord was here much affected.] His Lordship proceeded to say, that he could have wished that some part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech had been omitted. He could wish the right hon. Gentleman had not given his confidence to some of the statements he had brought forward; but those were statements affecting others rather than himself, and there were none which should prevent him from acceding to the appointment of a Committee of Inquiry to institute an investigation with respect to this subject. He felt perfectly confident, that whether, as regarded the Secretary of State for the Home Department, or his hon. and gallant Friend near him (Sir H. Vivian), or the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Turner), they had nothing to fear, nor had he anything to fear, from any inquiry that could be instituted by the House, or by any Committee of the House. He would not allude now to those parts of the right hon. Gentleman's speech which, as he had said, he would rather the right. hon. Gentleman had not introduced, but he would, in the first place, state what he considered to be the law on this subject, and then he would state what had been done by him in the exercise of the discretion vested in him as a Minister of the Crown. The right hon. Gentleman had not described, at any length, the provisions of the 9th Geo. 4th. The provisions of the Act were as follow:—

"Sec. 38. When any poor person chargeable to a parish is deemed insane, a justice of the peace, on due examination, may cause him to be sent to a lunatic asylum, and make order for payment of expenses; such insane persons are not to be removed without an order of two justices, unless cured.

"Sec. 39. Visitors of a country lunatic asylum may discharge and deliver up any pauper lunatic to his relatives and friends, on their undertaking that he shall no longer be chargeable.

"Sec. 44. Persons found, on examination before two justices, to be so far disordered in their senses as to be dangerous to be permitted to go abroad, may be sent by the justices to a lunatic asylum (as in the case provided for by sec. 38.)

"Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to extend to restrain or prevent any relative or friend from taking such insane person under their own care and protection.

"Sec. 54. Where any person is kept in custody as an insane person, by order of court, or-by his Majesty's order subsequent thereto, two justices may inquire into their settlement, and make order for their maintenance.

"Sec. 55. If any person, while imprisoned under sentence of imprisonment or transportation, shall become insane, and it shall be certified by two physicians or surgeons, that such person is insane, the Secretary of State, may, by warrant, direct him to be removed to a lunatic asylum, and such person being so removed, shall remain under confinement in such asylum, until it shall be duly certified to the Secretary of State by two physicians or surgeons, that he has become of sound mind; whereupon the Secretary of State is hereby authorised, if such person shall still remain subject to be continued in custody, to issue his warrant to the keeper of the asylum, directing him to remove the person back to the gaol from which he was sent; or if the period of imprisonment shall have expired, that he shall be discharged,"

Now, there was no provision in this 55th. section similar to those in the 39th and 44th, empowering the relations or friends to take charge of the parties; but, it was evident, that while Parliament did not think it necessary to give any such power with respect to the former case, with respect to the visitors of county lunatic asylums, it was considered necessary to define the power they should have. Any enactment restraining the power of the Crown would have been an encroachment on the prerogative of the Crown to pardon and discharge convicts, if it thought fit. If the clause he was referring to were capable of a construction to the contrary, it would lead to very absurd consequences, inasmuch as while any person of sound mind who had committed an offence might receive a free pardon, if the man was of unsound mind at the time, or after the commission of the offence, the Crown would not have the power of giving him a free pardon, or even of commuting his sentence. This would manifestly be an absurdity; but he did not understand the right hon. Gentleman to put such an interpretation on the statute. Such was the law of the 9th of Geo. 4th., with respect to insane persons; it took a certain care of persons who were lunatics, and whom it would be dangerous to themselves or others to allow to go abroad; and it also took care of criminal lunatics. Now, according to the enactments of that Act, there was nothing in the case of this person, as he should endeavour to show, supposing him merely to be a lunatic, which should have prevented him from exercising his powers as Secretary of State in a manner analogous to other cases, and giving Courtney up to his friends or relations, who would take care of him as any other lunatic was taken care of. But, then, there was the circumstance, that this person was a criminal. Let them, however, consider what was the criminality of which he had been guilty. If it had been an offence against the person—if he had committed murder, or if he had stabbed any one—then it would have been necessary to have taken peculiar precautions before confiding him to the care of any of his friends. But the offence was not one of that kind; it was perjury—an offence which he conceived might be committed by a person of unsound mind, who was, neverthe- less, in all other respects, perfectly harmless. It was an offence, too, which a person of unsound mind might be very apt to commit, but which did not imply malignity or malice being felt by him, either against his fellow men or against any particular individual, If a person of sound mind committed the offence of perjury, he was liable to be sent abroad for seven years; but there were two ways in which he might be treated. If he were labouring under ill health, he might be kept on board the hulks instead of being sent abroad; if there appeared anything in his case entitling him to mercy, he might be sent to the Penitentiary. Being considered unfit to be transported in consequence of ill health, and being kept, therefore, on board the hulks, he would be confined there according to the ordinary course for a period of three years, and then he would receive a free pardon. If he were sent to the Penitentiary, the regular course would be to confine him there for two years. But the case of this person was, that he had been kept four years in confinement, under the order of Lord Melbourne, in the lunatic asylum in the county of Kent. As regarded him, he considered that the provisions of the 9th of George 4th applied, which declared that such persons might be given up to their friends, provided there was nothing extraordinary in the circumstance at the time. As a criminal he had undergone a greater extent of confinement than he would have undergone on board the hulks. Such being the state of this person, he would next refer to the circumstances which induced him to consent to his release. The noble Lord here referred to a letter which he had received from Lord Denman respecting the case of a lunatic who had committed murder, and stating his Lordship's opinion with respect to the confinement of such persons when it was once ascertained that they were not in a sound state of mind. In reply to Lord Denman he declared that great precaution ought to be used before persons were set at liberty who had committed violence while in a state of insanity. He referred to those letters for the purpose of showing the manner in which he thought these cases ought to be viewed when personal violence had been committed or attempted. Here, however, the person in confinement was in a very different situation. He had been convicted of a very ordinary description of offence, and no life had been threatened, and no act of violence committed. John Nicholls Thom had been convicted of perjury, and he had been four years in confinement in a lunatic asylum. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that he had seen the father of Thom while he was at Endsleigh, some time in August last year. He had now come to a part of the case in which he thought the right hon. Gentleman had deviated from the course which it would have been necessary for him to have pursued, if he had wished to keep the case free from party. If the right hon. Gentleman had wished to make it a case of the mere exercise of the prerogative of mercy, or the exercise of discretion in the case of a criminal lunatic, he did not think that it was at all necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to impute motives to him nor to connect the recommendation of his hon. Friend near him with the election which then took place. He did not remember, that the father of Thom was recommended to him by any one. He knew that at Endsleigh he saw but few persons on anything connected with official business. He was told, that a person wished to see him, and very often persons connected with the property, farmers in the neighbourhood put questions to him unconnected with official duties, and probably the reason of seeing the father of Thom was, that he supposed that Mr. Thom was one of those persons wishing to consult him. Generally speaking, with regard to criminal cases, he was very unwilling to see persons connected with the prisoners; and as it was very disagreeable especially as far as regarded the exercise of his duty, as to the advice which he might find himself obliged to give, it was very probable that if Mr. Thom had written to him previously, as to the business on which he wished to speak to him, he should not have seen Mr. Thom. All he remembered of the interview was, that Thom appeared to be an old person, apparently in a respectable situation, seemingly a farmer. He was accompanied by his wife and both appeared to be in great distress at the confinement of their son in a lunatic asylum. They said, they had been there, and the persons they saw told them that no danger was likely to arise from his liberation. He told them as he had before stated to the House, that even putting aside the question of immediate danger from a person confined in a lunatic asylum, he could not be liberated without proper care being taken of him lest he should relapse into any paroxysm of insanity. They promised, that the utmost care should be taken of him by themselves, and that their son had a sufficiency of property to pay for the utmost care being taken of him. That interview took place in August, and the order for the liberation of John Nicholls Thom was not given until the month of October. During that time application had been made to the visiting justices of the lunatic asylum with respect to the state of Thom. A correspondence took place between his right hon. Friend and himself on the subject, but he supposed it was in a private letter which was lost, or it was not improbable it was discussed in private interviews between them as his right hon. friend was on a visit with him about that time. The visiting justices referred to the certificate of the medical superintendent, which merely stated, that the man was a lunatic, fancying himself a knight, and having a right to an estate and to a castle. That certificate was dated the 8th of September, and the man was liberated on the 3rd of October. Now, he had to ask, if the apprehensions which the right hon. Gentleman had referred to, prevailed in the county of Kent as to Thom being a dangerous person, and likely to commit personal violence, if that were the general opinion in the county of Kent, was it not likely that the visiting magistrates would have sent some account of their being apprehensive of danger from his liberation? The right hon. Gentleman might say, it was their wish to avoid all interference with the matter. Could, he asked, any thing incline them, from political motives to refuse giving information to the Secretary of State. He believed the truth to be this, as the right hon. Gentleman had, on a former night, stated it, that neither the magistrates nor any one else thought that Thom was likely to be at all dangerous, if placed under proper care when released from a lunatic asylum. He considered the conduct of the father of Thom very extraordinary; for he had engaged to him—and the man had admitted it in a letter which he had sent—that proper care should be taken of his son; but, instead of providing for him as he ought to have done, he delivered him over to a person named Francis, a friend of Thom, and a person not fitted for such a charge. The right hon. Gentleman had made an allusion to the connection between the Cornwall election and the liberation of this man. He could assure the right hon. Baronet he was totally ignorant of any such connexion; he had never inquired into the politics of the father or of the son. With regard to his right hon. Friend near him, he would explain his own conduct. All he knew was, that his right hon. Friend never spoke to him about the politics of the father or son. It was not until about eight or ten days ago he had seen a paragraph in The Standard newspaper, in which it was declared, that this person, the Father of Thom, had voted for his right hon. Friend at the last election. His right hon. Friend, who sat on the bench near him, stated, that he did not know of it before, that he had not the least conception that the man had voted for him; but he said, he would go and ascertain whether it was the fact or not. That was the answer of his right hon. Friend to him. He must say, then, with all the wish of the right hon. Gentleman to avoid party politics, he should not have laid himself open to the charge preferred against him before the debate began, and that the right hon. Gentleman ought not, wishing to avoid it, to have connected the Cornwall election with the exercise of the discretion of the Secretary of State. For himself he would say, whether he exercised his discretion properly or not, he left to others to judge—but this he would say, that never yet had any decision been come to less connected with politics than this had been, and less connected with the election of any members of that House; and, he might add, that no decision more perfectly free from party feeling had ever been come to by any person filling the office which he then occupied. He had not the smallest conception that it was making for or against a party. With respect to the mischief that had occurred, he thought that the right hon. Gentleman was not right in saying, that the liberation of Courtenay had occasioned the calamity. He must say, if he had not the information upon the best authority, if he had not seen and received the accounts that had been transmitted to him, he could not have believed, that such utter and entire ignorance prevailed in Kent, as that credence could be given to that person. There had been at different times a discretion exercised by the Secretaries of State with respect to such persons, and yet, if any calamity had afterwards arisen from the liberation of persons so situated, he wished to know, if it was the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman that all such cases should be made matter of crimination against the Secretaries of State? He referred to the case of Stephen Warder, a man convicted of assault at the Middlesex sessions, and delivered over to his friends for the purpose of being put in a lunatic asylum; William Willins, found guilty, in 1812, of murder in a state of insanity, and delivered over to the overseers of the parish. He could say, that it was not his intention to exceed or go beyond the power of former Secretaries of State. He might have acted unwisely, or not exercised a sound discretion in liberating that person; but he wished the House to consider, that it was not because unhappy events had followed, that he was, on that account, to be considered the occasion of them. There were several cases brought before him for the purpose of his giving his decision respecting them. They related to prisoners acquitted on the ground of insanity. It had been stated, that personal solicitation was found to have effect in those cases that had been brought before him, and that he had imprudently given way in those cases. He would only say, that he had exercised the best of his judgment in those cases. In the greater number of cases he refused the applications, as he thought he better guarded the public from acts of violence by refusing the liberation of such persons, than by acceding to a request that lunatic persons, found guilty of murder, or of any act of violence, should be liberated. Even in some of those cases, however, he thought he had not overstepped his duty in consenting to the liberation of such unfortunate persons. He remembered the case of a woman who had committed child murder while she was labouring under insanity. The crime was the consequence of delirium. On the assurance of her family that she should be taken care of, and that they would guard against any return to insanity, she was given up to them. He could not say, that another murder might not be the consequence of that liberation. Was he to feel responsible for it? His opinions might be erroneous. The exercise of his discretion might be unwise; but all he could say was, that he did exercise that power, which he felt to be one of extreme difficulty, and very painful in its exercise, in the way which he thought was the most conducive to the ends of public justice, and at the same time so as not to inflict upon individuals greater pain than was necessary for the ends of public justice. With these opinions, and with these sentiments, he readily concurred in the appointment of a committee, and he hoped that when that committee was appointed, it would be influenced more by the desire to judge soundly, sanely, and wisely, than to indulge in the hope of making out a case which might inflict party or political injury.

"As I have been so distinctly referred to by the right hon. Baronet, I hope the House will so far indulge me, as to hear my reply to what has fallen from the right hon. Baronet. I rejoice in the opportunity which has been afforded to me of replying to him, and of refuting the calumnies which have been so lavishly put forward, not only in party newspapers, but as the right hon. Baronet himself has stated, have been made a subject of public conversation. I myself have not read any of these paragraphs, except one, which appeared in The Times newspaper; but I understand, that many paragraphs of a similar nature have appeared in party newspapers. Those paragraphs have stated, that the vote of the father of the unhappy man was made by me the condition of his release. A calumny more foul, a charge more false, was never yet made against any man on the face of the earth. I, trust, before I sit down, thoroughly to satisfy the House of this. In another place a noble Lord referred to the release having been gained through the means of a county Member, as if that release had been tainted with corruption. A noble Duke, too, in the same place gave his opinion upon the subject. That noble Duke whose good opinion, beyond all others, I am anxious to possess, had stated that the discharge of Courtenay had been brought about by influence, as if he did not think it was clear from corruption; and the right hon. Baronet in bringing forward this motion said, he had no desire to criminate any one; he declared, indeed, that it was not his wish spargere ambiguas voces—certainly be has not been at all ambiguous—for he says, if he has said any thing, that he distinctly imputed the release of the unfortunate man to a vote given at the Cornwall election. The right hon. Baronet has stated, that he is in possession of documents which contain information not fitted for this House, but only to be produced upon a committee. I call upon the right hon. Baronet to say whether or not his information is contained in an anonymous letter. Has he, or has he not received an anonymous letter. Will the right hon. Baronet have the goodness to give me an answer? I now tell the House that it has been stated to me, that he has received an anonymous letter, and I now ask the House whether it is fit, or proper, or becoming, that an anonymous letter should be brought up as the means of substantiating an accusation against an individual. During my life I have received many anonymous letters, but I always treated them with the contempt that they deserved, or I put them into the hands of the individual who was attacked in them. I should like to know are the right hon. Baronet's suspicions made up of such materials? What part of my life could have given rise to his suspicions? What have I ever done that could make the right hon. Baronet suppose that I could be guilty of what he has charged me with? The right hon. Baronet once came and asked me a favour in my office [Sir E. Knatchbull was understood to express dissent]. Do you say it is not so? Does the right hon. Baronet say that such is not the fact?

I have not the slightest idea of what the right hon. Gentleman is referring to.

You came to my office and asked me—I ought to say the right hon. Baronet came to my office, and he stated he had a favour to ask of me; it was to place his brother in the Horse Artillery. I now ask the right hon. Baronet, did I make it a condition of granting him that favour that the right hon. Baronet should come and give his vote to this side of the House? And I would as soon have insulted the right hon. Baronet by asking that from him, as I would in asking the meanest individual in Cornwall that the condition for the release of his son should be his giving me his vote. I say that there is no part of my conduct through life which can give any man the right to suppose, that I could be guilty of such conduct. I can only state, most distinctly, that it is within this week, and this I say upon my honour, that I ever heard that this man had voted for Sir William Trelawney or for me. When my noble Friend asked me the question if he had done so, I was not aware of it. Having thus pledged my honour to that fact, I believe I might sit down. During a service of fifty years in a profession particularly sensitive as to the point of honour, I believe, that after the pledge I have given, I might let the case rest here. But I wish now to show to the House, shortly and distinctly, and by document, that the release of that poor man could have had nothing to do with the election for Cornwall. It was not necessary for me to get votes for the county in that way." The hon. and gallant Member then proceeded to say that his opponent was five weeks in the field before him. He had himself never canvassed. He had attended some markets and fairs and he might have brought his influence to bear upon many voters who had promised his hon. opponent, but he declined exercising it. He said to every man who declared he had promised to vote for his opponent that he would not ask any such person to break his word. He wished now to show distinctly, that the release of Courtenay had nothing to do with the county of Cornwall election. His hon. Friend, Mr. Turner, had given a letter to Thom's father, but when it was delivered to him he could not recollect—he could not say whether the letter was brought to him before or after the election. The right hon. Baronet was mistaken in supposing, that he knew Thom's father. He should not know him if he entered that House; but he knew, that there were some of Thom's connexions in the neighbourhood of St. Columb. A friend writing to his hon. Friend on the subject said this:—

"I have but now seen Mr. Thom, at Mr. Ferris's request. He informs me, that it was about a fortnight after he received your letter that he delivered it to Sir Vivian, at Bodmin. There was a public meeting there on that day, and as Sir H. Vivian left the room, Thom gave him the letter, and asked his permission to write to him on the subject of his son, which was granted; nothing else took place."

He understood, that the letter was not delivered to him until after the 16th of August. This letter enclosed one from his unfortunate wife. Now, let any hon. Member look to the two letters and see whether it must not of necessity have been the case, that this was the first time he must have heard of the transaction. It was impossible that he could have seen any of the family before these letters were received. The election took place on the 8th of August, and the letters he referred to were dated the 15th and 16th of August. He had also another letter, which was sent to him by the mother-in-law of Thom. It was as follows:—

"To Sir Hussey Vivian, Bart.

"Sir,—My husband, Mr. Thom, of St. Columb, having spoken to you at Bodmin respecting his son, and you having kindly promised to receive with attention a letter from him, will, I trust, prove my apology for now troubling you. I am on all occasions his amanuensis, as the gout in his hands prevents him from using his pen, and should I be too prolix in laying before you the particulars of the case, I hope, Sir Hussey, you will pardon me, for I am interested, deeply interested in it; he is my husband's only remaining child; his private character before he left his home (Truro) was exemplary, and far better known to Mr. Turner, their present Member, than to myself, who have been his step-mother but a few years.

"The young man in question (and for whose liberty I now solicit your benign influence, with our august and lovely young Queen, who has recently ascended the throne, and whose reign, under the blessing of divine Providence, will, I hope, be long and happy,) was, from an epileptic attack at the commencement of the year 1832, deprived of his senses; he left his home, and travelled under the fictitious name of Sir William Courtenay; unknowingly (it was evident), he swore falsely, was convicted of perjury, and sentenced to transportation, before any of his friends, who were offering large rewards for discovering him, knew where he was; his insanity was then clearly demonstrated by the physicians who attended him, and he was confined in an asylum in Kent; he is now much better and wishes his liberty; his private property is good, sufficient to make him comfortable with Ins friends.

"I will now rest satisfied, that I have put his case into the hands of a Gentleman, a Minister of the Crown, whose public character as a soldier and a friend I revere, and who stands so high in the estimation of our whole neighbourhood.

"I am, Sir Hussey, totally unacquainted with the etiquette used in laying such a case before her Majesty, yet I feel assured, if you will condescend to undertake it, her tender and philanthropic heart will listen to you, for he has been guilty of no crime.—I have the honour to subscribe myself,

"Respectfully, your most obedient,

"SUSAN THOM.

"St. Columb, Aug. 30, 1838."

He asked whether, when an application of this kind was made by the father, the mother-in-law, and the wife of the un- happy mart, he was wrong in forwarding the application. He found, upon looking to a Parliamentary return, that the discharge of lunatics from asylums was not an uncommon transaction. He found eighteen discharged from Chester; thirty six from Cornwall; from Derby forty-five; Staffordshire, ninety-four; and in every other county men were so discharged. Was there, then, anything extraordinary in his asking for the discharge of a madman? He was told, indeed he always understood, that no man could be guilty of a crime who was labouring under insanity. It seemed extraordinary, that his noble Friend had not taken any precaution, when he had made previous inquiries, provided the man were of the dangerous character alleged. But if that were so, why had his medical attendant not said a word on the subject? Upon the promise of the father, therefore, to take charge of his son, Lord John Russell listened to his (Sir H. Vivian's) address in his favour, and set him at liberty, having previously in his opinion, taken every reasonable precaution that no ill consequences should result from his li oration Now, he must say, also, that if the man was as dangerous a lunatic as alleged, it was rather ext ao in ary, that between October and May no representation had been made from the county of Kent on the subject. He deeply deplored the event which had recently occurred; but he also deeply regretted, that that state of ignorance should exist in that part of England where civilisation first took foot in this country, and which might be termed the head-quarters of the Established Church, which should admit of the possibility of such an occurrence. In conclusion he had only to observe, that if it should be deemed desirable to have an inquiry on this subject, he should give his vote in favour of it.

said, that he had known this unfortunate man, Thom, for twenty years, and his object in rising was, first to do justice to the statement and character of his hon. Friend (Sir H. Vivian), and secondly, to rescue the character of poor Thom from the imputation of being an incendiary. The hon. Member was understood to say, that in 1821, Thom had been the articled clerk of one of the first solicitors in the county of Cornwall; and he would state to the House the character which had been given of this man at that period, by an eminent attorney who was a great partisan of Lord Eliot's at the last election. The attorney said, that he had known Thom as a boy a few years older than himself, and that he did not recollect any instance in which Thorn had evinced a cruel disposition. He was generous, open-hearted, and humane, and if in his right mind would have been one of the last men in the world to do a cruel action. After that period he himself became acquainted with Thom. He had been concerned in large mercantile transactions, perhaps the largest in the county of Cornwall, and he had selected Thom to superintend his establishment. Thom had served him faithfully, honestly, zealously, and justly for several years, and when he retired from business, he made Thom his successor. He intrusted Thom with a large capital, and it was only truth to state, that Thom had fulfilled honourably all his engagements towards him (Mr. Turner). Why, then, should he not perform towards Thom this act of duty in speaking the truth of him? At the end of the year 1832, Thom left Truro for Liverpool with a considerable amount of property in malt. That property was converted into money, and he would now read to the House the last letter which Thom had written to hi family before he became insane. The letter was dated May 3, 1833, and he addressed his wife in the most affectionate terms:—

"Liverpool, May 3, 1832.

"My dear wife,—I merely write to inform you that I have just discharged the malt, which has given every satisfaction to the purchaser. The measurement has exceeded my expectation by twenty-four Winchesters. There are the malt sacks in the vessel, and also about half a bushel of the bottom scrapings; this you will get screened immediately: I am well and in good spirits (thank God for it). As I shall write you again in a day or two, my letter will be short. The letter you will receive by post, shall contain all I have to say, and as it will be subsequent to this, I need not prolong. I have paid the Captain of the vessel all the freight. With my kindest regards to all, I remain, yours affectionately,

"J. N. THOM:

"In haste with bad materials."

From the date of that letter they heard nothing from him for some months. It appeared, however, that in the interval, he had gone down to Canterbury, and that he had succeeded in gaining 950 votes there, and that was the strongest proof of his insanity that could be adduced. The House had heard of his subsequent proceedings. Nothing like them could have occurred in any other part of the country. They had, however, taken place, and within so short a distance of the headquarters of the Church in England as to make men afraid of what might be passing at a distance from them when such absurdities could be perpetrated in their immediate vicinity. The hon. Member read a letter, beginning, "My dear Sir William Courtenay." Here was a person who was not Sir William Courtenay, who was nevertheless addressed by that title. It was signed "Gordon and Francis." There was another letter addressed, "Sir William Courtenay, Knight of Malta." These were from Kentish gentlemen, who styled him thus, though they might have known him to be plain John Nicholls Thom. This letter said, "I am grieved to hear from Miss O. that you are not so well as I could wish. I am fearful you are not allowed to take exercise sufficient for your health. Let me persuade you to take exercise in your room if you are not allowed to take it in the open air." Thom's friends came to him to interest himself, and he said he would go to Sir Hussey Vivian. The hon. Member read the answer of Thom's father to certain questions put to him by the hon. Member:—

"'Did I ever ask you to vote?' 'No.' Did Sir Hussey Vivian ever ask you?' 'No, never; I only saw him fur five minutes.' 'Had you not promised to vote for Hussey Vivian before I gave you a letter to Sir Hussey respecting your son?' 'Yes, months before.' 'Did you promise to vote for Lord Eliot at the general election?' 'I was once asked, long before the general election, if I would give him my vote. I did not decide immediately; I considered myself independent, to vote according to my own mind. I had long before given my vote to Mr. Whitfield for Sir Hussey Vivian and Sir W. Trelawney.' 'Last week I think you went to see Lord John Russell; did you take a letter to Sir Hussey Vivian?' 'No, I did not; the only letter I received from Sir Hussey Vivian is herewith forwarded to you.'"

Having put these questions and received these answers, he would show, that the very letter which this person supposed he received from Sir Hussey Vivian, he did not receive from him, but from his secretary. It was dated the 7th of September, 1837; it merely acknowledged the receipt of a letter of the 13th of August, and there was not a word about the election in any one of these letters. He would tell the House that he suggested to the family of Thom to apply to Sir Hussey Vivian, and he promised to point out to the hon. and gallant Baronet, what could be done for them; and on referring to the dates of the letters, which were the 15th and 16th of August, it would be seen, that they could not have influenced the election which closed on the 8th of August. He had been informed that the unfortunate lunatic had suffered from confinement, and that his health had been seriously injured. He had a money interest in the death of the man; he paid him an annuity for his life, and any influence he exerted to effect his liberation was disinterestedly exerted. He apprehended that every Gentleman in that House, under similar circumstances, would have acted in the same way. From the correspondence he thought the magistracy would find it hard to get out of the matter with clean hands—he wished to God they could. If such things had occurred to him, under his own nose, he should have insisted upon an inquiry being instituted. Why did Mr. Francis keep the man in his house, and not send him to his friends in Cornwall? Why was his wife not informed? The day before he died she received an anonymous letter, and the next day there was a letter from Mr. Gordon, and on a comparison between that and the anonymous letter, it was as clear as that two and two make four that both letters were the hand-writing of the same man. The letter said, "Your husband is dead, come and bury him." A man who could write to this man's wife and say "Your husband is dead, come and bury him," was no credit to the gentlemen of the county of Kent. On the 19th of October, 1837, a correspondence took place with Mrs. Thom, of St. Colomb, the step-mother of Thom, with reference to a letter of Mr. Manic, dated the 5th of October, addressed to the father of the unfortunate man, with reference to his liberation from the lunatic asylum, on the application of his friends. He did not think the unfortunate man ought to have been released without the attendance of some of his friends. But the superintendent of the asylum stated, that two of the visiting magistrates had been of opinion that he should be justified in releasing him, and he accordingly left the asylum. This showed that two of the visiting magistrates, who were supreme in these matters—

Was this after the warrant for free pardon?

Yes; but what was the condition of the free pardon? "It is requested that William Courtenay may not be discharged till his father, or some person acting for him, attends at the asylum to receive the prisoner." The release took place under the eyes of the magistrates, and they must, of course, have believed he was in a sound state. When it was considered what mischievous and fatal consequences had followed in the county of Kent, that it was with the knowledge of the magistrates that this unfortunate man had been enlarged, and that afterwards he was suffered to traverse the country with a number of followers, most of them armed, and that a person could not be found who would apply to have him confined and prosecuted, whereby the county would have been spared these scenes; he thought much blame was imputable somewhere.

observed, that he had ventured, on the part of those who had sent him to that House, to protest, during the irregular discussion which took place before this motion came on, against the abandonment of the public interest involved in a debate on a question of a party nature, and of a party quarrel. He had been stopped at this observation, he was sure very properly, by the Speaker, and prevented from going on with the subject any further. The right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir E. Knatchbull) disclaimed, at the commencement of his speech, anything like party feeling, and denounced, in the strongest terms, the imputation which his (Mr. Handley's) remarks conveyed; but in the course of that speech he furnished him with a complete justification of what he had felt it his duty to state. To those who paid attention to the right hon. Baronet's speech, there was not only in his matter but in his manner an evident party zeal, which displayed itself in the minute details into which he entered, to show how the relatives of Thom and how he himself voted, as well in an attempt to prove, that the return of his right hon. Friend was connected with this poor man's release. The right hon. Baronet also stated, that, in the conversation in which he took part, the general complaint was, that such a person as Thom should have been released. He could only say, that relatives near and dear to him had perilled their lives in order to prevent this occurrence, and one of them, Major Handley, formerly a Member of that House, was fired at by this unfor- tunate person; and when he rode up to ask this person to surrender himself (which he did not find by any of the papers on the table that the magistrates had done), he was placed between two fires, and narrowly escaped with his life. It was natural, then, that he should make inquiries into the matter; but he must say, that he did not find in everybody's mouth the exclamation, "Why was this man released!" But the universal matter of astonishment was, that such things should have been allowed to exist in the county of Kent, and that there could have been found in that civilized place unfortunate, ignorant, and misguided wretches, susceptible of being acted on by this deluded man in the manner that had been proved. He should feel justified by the strong and almost universal support by the public, of the view which he took in preventing this subject of reproach from being stirred any farther in that House did he not think, that inquiry was called for in justice to the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell), and his right hon. Friend (Sir H. Vivian). He felt it incumbent on him, however, to move, in addition to the motion of the right hon. Baronet, Sir E. Knatchbull, calling for an inquiry into the circumstances of Thom's release, these words, "and also into the state of education of the lower orders of East Kent, the scene of these occurrences." He believed, that if the House acceded to his motion it would produce one good effect, that the committee would not sit for nothing, but would at least arrive at the conclusion that if hereafter any unfortunate lunatic should happen to be discharged he should not be allowed to go at large in East Kent, where so many ignorant and fanatic people dwelt.

Connected as I am with the city where this unfortunate maniac rendered himself so notorious, I think it right to acquaint the House that it was not the lower orders alone that have been the partisans of this madman. The most respectable individuals were so blinded by party feelings as to vote for him when he was a candidate for the representation of the city of Canterbury. Two most respectable Conservative tradesmen proposed and seconded him as a fit and proper person to sit in this House. Gentlemen of liberal professions, and even a clergyman of the Church of England, all of Conservative politics, voted for him; and it is not the least lamentable part of this man's history, that in the nineteenth century, gentlemen should be found, so carried away by party feelings, as to wish to see as a Member of this House, an individual whom the hon. Member for East Kent has stated to have been notoriously a dangerous maniac.

said, that he should, in the first place, express his hope that his hon. Friend (Mr. Handley) would not press his amendment, because, though he concurred in many of the observations which fell from his hon. Friend, he feared it would not answer the purpose of clearing up in public opinion the circumstances out of which this unfortunate transaction sprung. He also rose for another purpose, and that was to entreat the House to suspend until to-morrow the nomination of the Committee for which the right hon. Baronet had moved. He, like his noble Friend, was most anxious that this subject should be fully and fairly investigated, which he thought was absolutely necessary after the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman, and the invidious insinuations with which his whole speech was filled. This was a question which ought to be investigated, particularly after the temper which had been displayed by those who were not justly liable to the imputation of entertaining the strongest and most eager opinions in politics. He, thought the Committee should be composed of men of high station and experience—men in whose character and judgment even their adversaries placed confidence. There were such men to be found on the other side of the House. It was unpleasant—it was deeply painful—to him to make observations on this Committee, according as he found by the paper it was intended to be moved by the right hon. Baronet. But having communicated with the right hon. Gentleman, and having met from him a positive refusal to adopt any suggestion as to what he (Lord Howick) conceived to be an improvement in the formation of the Committee, he had no resource but to bring another list before the notice of the House, and to call on the House to defer the nomination to another day, when they might have an opportunity of considering the list of the right hon. Baronet, and that which he submitted, to declare which of the two was most likely to give a fair and impartial determination on this subject. He should read the list of the right hon. Baronet and that which he meant to propose, He did not mean to propose any alteration as to the Gentlemen selected from his own side of the House; nor did he mean to substitute for any of those on the other side any Member who agreed with him in opinion. He was content, that there should be, according to the present proposal, eight Members from the Opposition, and seven from the Ministerial side; but he asked, in common fairness and justice, that the eight Gentlemen selected from the other side should be persons who, from their experience, character, and station, united, as much as was possible, the confidence of both parties in that House. He trusted that the House, as well as the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel), would feel convinced from his long experience in the office which was now concerned, as well as from his talents and character, that he was the most fit person to pronounce an opinion on this subject. In the right hon. Gentleman's honour he had the utmost confidence, and he had no hesitation in committing the case of his noble and right hon. Friends to the right hon. Baronet's hands. He trusted, that the right hon. Baronet whom he thus appealed to, would not refuse to serve on this Committee; because, there was no use in mincing the matter, his noble and right hon. Friends were called on to answer no less a charge than that of prostituting their high power and authority—of debasing and degrading in the eyes of every honourable man, by employing them for the meanest and dirtiest of political and party purposes, those powers which were committed to their hands for the purpose of securing the due administration of justice to all classes and all ranks in this great country. This was no light or ordinary charge to be brought against public men; and it was the more invidious, because not openly and directly made on matter to form the ground of an act of impeachment, but conveyed by the strongest insinuations, with a professed absence of all party topics. With these observations he should take the liberty of reading the two lists; and in doing so, he begged to be understood as not throwing the slightest imputation on those whom he meant to omit, though he must with fairness admit that there was one hon. Member whose name was proposed by the right hon. Baronet who did appear to have his feelings strongly excited on this subject—he meant the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Praed), as he cheered very heartily all that fell from the right hon. Baronet respecting the Cornwall election. Now, as there were some on the right hon. Baronet's list who appeared to be very strongly actuated by party feelings, so there were others of less experience and less station in that House (he spoke with all due respect) than those whom he proposed to substitute for them. The list proposed by the right hon. Baronet was as follows:—Sir E. Knatchbull, the Earl of Lincoln, Mr. Fox Maule, the Marquess of Chandos, Viscount Howick, Mr. Praed, Mr. Shaw Lefevre, Mr. Darby, Mr. Harvey, Lord Hotham, Mr. Langdale, Sir H. Hardinge, the Solicitor-general, Mr. Plumptre, and Mr. Pendarves. The list he proposed omitted the names of the Earl of Lincoln, the Marquess of Chandos, Mr. Praed, and Mr. Darby, and proposed in their places those of Sir Robert Peel, Sir R. Inglis, Sir T. D. Acland, and Mr. R. Clive, and he hoped, that the House would concur with him in thinking that these lists ought to be printed with the votes, and taken into consideration tomorrow or some future day.

said, the direct allusion which has been made to me is the only reason why I present myself to the House. I do not refer to the conduct of the noble Lord, and say which of us has exhibited a greater disposition to treat a subject of great judicial investigation in a factious spirit; neither will I refer to the speeches of those who have addressed the House further than to say, that they failed to establish, in my mind, a charge which, if proved, I considered one of a most flagrant character, and which related to a subject of great and grave importance, calling for the serious attention of the House. It was in that view and with that feeling that I testified the attention which I thought the question demanded by the cheer which I gave. I profess my conviction to be totally free, except so far as it has been biassed by the observations the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir H. Vivian), who has partly satisfied my mind, by a reference to dates in his favour; but I now consider myself in the position of a challenged juror, and I therefore think I am at liberty to protest, in the name of the noble Lord beside me (the Marquess of Chandos), and the others similarly circumstanced—particularly as I am persuaded no notice of the matter will come from them—against the superfluous, gross, and unnecessary affront put upon the Members to whom the noble Lord has objected. Having, at the request of the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull), agreed to serve on this Committee, and being prepared to do my duty fairly and impartially, I must now consider myself released from taking any part in that proceeding.

Having been requested by my right hon. Friend (Sir E. Knatchbull) to sit on this Committee, I feel that I should not be doing my duty to myself, or to those who sent me here, if I were for one moment—after the insinuation which the noble Lord has presumed to throw on my character—to hesitate in requesting my right hon. Friend to withdraw my name. And in so doing I do not in any way wish to be understood as consulting the noble Lord's (Lord Howick's) feelings about me, for of them I am perfectly careless; but I never will allow the noble Lord, or any man, to criticise my conduct as an independent Member, or to throw any doubt on the honesty of any verdict which it may be my duty to give.

, having been requested to sit on this Committee, felt bound to admit that if the right hon. Baronet was selected on the ground of superior abilities and greater experience than those whose names were proposed to be omitted, all must have concurred in the election, but he wished to know from the noble Lord (Lord Howick) on what grounds he asserted that his honour was not as unimpeachable as that of the right hon. Baronet.

had not the smallest difficulty in stating that he did not throw the slightest imputation on those hon. Gentlemen whose names he proposed to omit. He appealed to those hon. Gentlemen who heard him, whether he had not expressly used the words, that he meant no disrespect to those whose names he proposed to omit. All he said was, that he thought there were others of superior qualification in point of experience and station in that House. Of course nothing could be farther from his intention than to offer to any of those Gentlemen what the hon. and learned Member who had last spoken seemed to feel was a personal affront. Nothing but necessity could make him ake the course which he had done, for on communicating privately with the right hon. Baronet, he refused to curtail even one individual name at his (Lord Howick's) suggestion. The necessity, then, of making invidious comparisons was not one of his seeking; but, in justice to his noble and right hon. Friends, though they did not object to the nomination of the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull), he felt it his duty to make the proposal which he had submitted.

said, that as a proof of the fair intentions of his right hon. Friend (Sir E. Knatchbull), supposing that his (Sir R. Peel's) qualifications were such as the noble Lord had described them to be, over-estimating he must think his pretensions to be on the Committee as compared with those of other Members, he was bound to state, that his right hon. Friend had some time since asked him whether he would be willing to serve on it, and he had distinctly replied that he would rather not be placed upon it. He had thought that, as the world at least must consider his position with respect to the noble Lord to be one of constant collision in political matters, it would be infinitely better that he should not be placed on the Committee. Besides, he was a member of so many committees, that he found it utterly impossible to discharge the duties which in consequence devolved upon him. He must now state to the noble Lord, that for him now to serve on the Committee was quite out of the question, after the manner in which the request had been made to him. He had suggested to his right hon. Friend, and he understood him to acquiesce in the propriety of the advice, not to appoint a Committee which should have the power of expressing any opinion on this subject, thinking the matter too important to be left for decision by any selection of Members that could be made, but to restrict the duty of the Committee to the presentation of the evidence taken before it, and to debar them from making any report. That being the case, it appeared to him of comparatively little importance on which side the numbers might preponderate, though it would be of the utmost importance in the event of their having to express au opinion on the conduct of the noble Lord and the other parties accused. He had not heard the names intended to be proposed by his right hon. Friend till that day, but he felt bound to say, that he did not think it would have been possible to select any hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House in whose integrity and ability the public would have greater confidence. He could not acquiesce in the propriety of the course which his noble and hon. Friends near him had thought fit to take, because he did not consider, that a suggestion made by an individual Member of Parliament ought to induce any hon. Member to withdraw from the performance of a public duty which the House might feel inclined to devolve upon them. He hoped, therefore, they would not refuse if the House should think it right to call upon them to serve. He ventured to say, there were no men in that House who had taken a less offensive part in the politics of the day. His noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Chandos), was known to entertain strong opinions on certain questions, which he did not fail to urge in the House of Commons, yet his noble Friend had scarcely ever made a speech without being complimented by those who differed with him on the absence from it of party feeling and personal acrimony. He did believe, that to the other hon. Gentleman, his hon. Friend who now sat in Parliament for the first time, his right hon. Friend on his right hand (Sir E. Knatchbull), the noble Members for Nottinghamshire and Leominster, and the hon. Member for Aylesbury, the honour of any man might with perfect safety be intrusted. On these grounds he thought the objections of the noble Lord to the Committee—proposed by his right hon. Friend could not be sustained, particularly as his right hon. Friend agreed with him that the Committee should not express any opinion. It was utterly impossible that he, by consenting to serve, should acquiesce in the justice of the reflections cast on his right hon. Friend by the noble Lord. He must say, also, that he consented with great reluctance to the appointment of a Committee at all. There were some special circumstances, particularly the great loss of life which had been suffered, that exempted this case from ordinary rules; but, whether he was in or out of office, the circumstances must be very extraordinary which would induce him to devolve upon a Committee of that House an inquiry into the administration of justice. He thought it right to guard his reluctant assent to the appointment of a Committee by that statement, and he hoped the present case would never be drawn into a precedent. He was not surprised that his right hon. Friend, the Member for Kent, should desire an inquiry, for the satisfaction of the relatives and friends of the deceased, or that the noble Lord, and those whose conduct was called in question, should be equally desirous of an inquiry; but he never should take those natural impulses into account; he should always look into the abstract merits of the case, without a desire to gratify any party, and nothing but the peculiar circumstances of the present case could have induced him to consent to the appointment of the Committee. He trusted that the noble Lord opposite would withdraw the objections he had made to the proposed list, and above all he hoped that nothing would induce his hon. Friends near him to countenance those objections by refusing to serve.

said, as he could not arrogate to himself any higher character or greater honesty of purpose than the hon. Gentleman to whom the noble Lord had objected, he could not consent that his name should remain on the list, for he should then feel, that he was acting in accordance with the feeling which dictated the noble Lord's amendment. Whatever weight he might attach to the observations of the right hon. Member for Tamworth relative to withdrawing from a public duty, the noble Lord's peculiar mode of proceeding in this matter was calculated to throw a slur on the hon. Gentleman to whom he had alluded, and he must therefore decline serving.

trusted he might be excused from serving on the Committee named by the noble Lord, if the forms of the House would allow it.

hoped it might not be his painful duty to be compelled by a vote of the House to serve on the noble Lord's Committee. If it should be so, he should discharge the duty with greater reluctance than any which had ever been confided to him by the House. He trusted the noble Secretary at War would not press his amendment, which had had the effect of impressing men as honourable as himself with the conviction that he meant to impugn their personal honour, though he was sure the noble Lord had no such intention.

said, it appeared that the ceremony of placing the names of those who were to form a Committee on the paper was to be a mere farce. He could not at all understand what was the object of it, if they were to be precluded from considering whether the Committee would be a fair and impartial one, or from making alterations in its composition without having it supposed that they meant any undue disparagement to the Members named in the first instance. There was no ground whatever for supposing that the noble Lord meant to pass any slight on any of the Gentlemen named by the right hon. Baronet opposite. He was sure all on his side would disclaim any such imputation, though it was just possible that one of those hon. Gentlemen (the Member for Aylesbury) might feel somewhat of the zeal of a novice for the opinions he had lately espoused. "When I remember," proceeded the hon. Member, "that a few years ago that hon. and learned Gentleman celebrated the anniversary of the death of King Charles 1st by a calf's head dinner at Cambridge, and when I remember that those sentiments were adhered to by him for a considerable time afterwards, it may be supposed that with all his talents he may feel somewhat of the zeal of a convert." There was no intention on that side to cast any slight on the hon. Gentlemen opposite who had been alluded to, but there was a determination not to permit the order of the House relative to printing the names of a Committee to be made ineffectual. The noble Lord had allowed the same number of names originally proposed on the opposite side to remain on the list; he left Gentlemen opposite in possession of the majority—all he asked was, that some change should be made in the persons selected. He hoped that the House would accede to the amendment, which he thought just and reasonable.

was sure the House would allow him to say a few words. Whatever opinions he had entertained, and to whatever extent he had modified them long ago in the cloisters of Trinity College, he was not such a fool as to suppose, that the House would be much interested in discussing that question, however important it might seem to the hon. Member who had just spoken. "I shall only say," continued the hon. Gentleman, "with respect to the particular fact stated, that I will not be so irritated by the grossly unfair nature of the attack made upon me, as to forget what I owe to the hon. Mem- ber, and what I owe to the orders of this House. Therefore I attribute only to a lapse of memory in the hon. Member the gross misstatement he has made."

said, that he could not speak as to the fact alluded to by his hon. Friend, the Member for Lincoln, having no knowledge on the subject, but he would ask the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury whether he had not done this? [Question.] He was speaking to the question strictly. What he wished to know from the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury was, and he might controvert it if he could, whether he had not within two months of the time he was first returned to that House professed opinions adverse to those of a youthful Tory—opinions which were extremely Whiggish, if they did not amount to downright Radicalism? Now, giving the hon. and learned Gentleman every credit for good intentions, it was clear that he was liable to sudden convictions—to have new lights breaking in upon his mind.

rose to order, and submitted, that the hon. Member for Cambridge was not speaking to the question before the House.

said, that he must put it to the discretion of the hon. Member for Cambridge himself to determine how far his argument related to the discussion before the house. At present it seemed to him (the Speaker) that the hon. Gentleman was anticipating the debate hereafter to come on with reference to the nomination of the committee.

said, that if he were out of order he would at once submit; but he did not think he had departed from the question under the consideration of the House. However, he had but one sentence more to utter, and that was, that although, giving the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury credit for the sincerity of the conviction which influenced the change in his opinions, he thought that hon. and learned Gentleman had shown such a versatility of judgment as rendered him unfit for a duty of this kind.

The hon. Member for Cambridge seems to assume, Sir, that I am unable to answer his question, and therefore he says I have shown such a versatility of judgment as renders me incapable of being a good juror. I beg, however, to give the hon. Gentleman the same short answer that I have given to the hon. Member for Lincoln, and that answer is, that there is no more truth in what he has stated than there is in the statement made by the hon. Member for Lincoln, that in the University of Cambridge I celebrated the anniversary of the execution of Charles the Martyr by a calves' head dinner.

I give the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury as flat a contradiction as he has given me. ["Chair, order,"]

said, that if the noble Lord had entertained any doubt of the wisdom of the course which he had taken, the manner in which the subject had been treated by his own friends must satisfy him on the point, and that all he had done was to open the door to personalities. He did not rise in defence of his hon. Friend, but merely to protest against the monstrous doctrine that had been laid down, that because at an antecedent period a man had held other Political opinions than those he now entertained, he was, therefore, incapacitated from honourably discharging his public duty. He put it to the noble Lord to say whether he would act upon such a principle?—whether he would deem a change of opinion a ground for excluding a Gentleman from becoming a Member of a committee, the duty of which was not to decide, but simply to conduct, an inquiry, with a view to ascertain facts? If they were to act upon such a doctrine, all he could say was, that that House would be nightly occupied with criminations and recriminations, and that they would not only be derogating from the character of the House, but rendering it impossible for hon. Members to perform their public duties. Whether his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Aylesbury had or had not modified his political opinions since his residence in Trinity College, Cambridge, was not a question into which they had any right to inquire; but this he would say, that he never heard his hon. and learned Friend's name mentioned unaccompanied with the acknowledgment of the high honour by which on every occasion his conduct was guided, and the talents by which he had gained distinction, that entitled him to the weight and consideration he enjoyed in the University to which he belonged, as well as in the councils of the nation.

admitted, that the course pursued by his noble Friend was inconvenient, but then his noble Friend was compelled to pursue that course. They all knew that both sides of the House were bound to compromise something to each other on occasions like the present; and the only object which his noble Friend had in view was to render the construction of the committee so fair and impartial, that both parties would be satisfied with it. With this intention his noble Friend had asked the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for East Kent, to alter some of the names he had proposed; but as the right hon. Gentleman refused to accede to his noble Friend's request his noble Friend had no other course to pursue but to raise the objection which he had made for the purpose of having the committee altered. With respect to the relative numbers his noble Friend had never intended to make any alteration, as the numbers would still be a majority in favour of the hon. Gentleman opposite of eight to seven. For his own part, he thought, that his hon. Friend had exercised a wise discretion in what he had done, and he trusted, that his noble Friend would take the sense of the House upon the subject, as his only object was the attainment of truth and justice—without regard to party feeling or party purposes.

said, that as the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury had left the House it was not impossible that the matter would be carried beyond the walls of that House, and to prevent such a result he felt it necessary to move, that the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury be ordered to attend in his place, and that the hon. Member for Lincoln be likewise ordered to remain in his place.

Motion agreed to, and the Sergeant-at-Arms was directed to obtain the presence of the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury forthwith.

said, that this motion had produced much embarrassment, and he would put it to the right hon. Baronet, the Member for East Kent, whether he would proceed further? The right hon. Baronet must know, that the unfortunate men who had been committed to gaol in consequence of being implicated in this transaction, were shortly to take their trial before the regular tribunal of the country, and, therefore, the only effect the inquiry proposed by the right hon. Baronet could have, would be to prejudice the minds of those who might be called on to serve as jurors at the trial. He, therefore, hoped, that the right hon. Baronet would not persevere in his motion.

said, that this discussion showed very clearly how impossible it was for that House to appoint a fair committee—especially an election committee. He doubted whether, in fact, they could appoint an impartial committee under any circumstances; and as he did not think the present committee called for, all he could say was, that he was prepared to give the motion of the right hon. Baronet a direct negative.

said, that nothing was farther from his mind, in bringing forward this motion, than either party feelings or party motives. All he wanted was, that justice should be done, and that some satisfactory investigation of the facts of the case should take place. He had told the noble Lord in the first instance, that his object was to get a committee appointed who would report the evidence, but would have no power to give any opinion on it. He could not, after what had passed, consent to the alteration proposed by the noble Lord, and, therefore, he must take the sense of the House upon his motion.

The House divided: Ayes 124; Noes 94: Majority 30.

Committee to be nominated.

The first name on the list (Sir E. Knatchbull's) was agreed to.

On putting the name of the Earl of Lincoln,

Viscount Howick moved, that the name of Sir Thomas Dyke Acland, be substituted for that of the Earl of Lincoln.

I shall take the sense of the House on this name.

asked, whether the consent of the hon. Member for North Devon, to the motion, had been obtained, as was usual.

admitted, that it was usual to obtain permission of hon. Gentlemen before naming them on committees, but, in his opinion, the circumstances of this case were so peculiar, a list of names having been proposed, which proved unsatisfactory to one side of the House, that it became the duty of an hon. Member to serve, and he should, therefore, persist in his motion.

thought, that before the House was called upon to say, that the Earl of Lincoln should not be on the committee, it was reasonable, that the House should have some grounds stated for expunging his name.

was perfectly aware of the difficulty imposed upon him by the remark of the right hon. Gentleman, but, undoubtedly, he did not intend to assign those reasons which led him to desire the omission of the noble Lord's name from the committee; he must say, however, that it was impossible anything could be further from his wish than to say one one word to the prejudice of the noble Earl. Such an intention had never entered his mind. But he would appeal to the House, whether the committee as it now stood was a fair committee. He wished to ask every hon. Member who heard him, whether, speaking as men spoke in the lobby, and not speaking as they were in the habit of doing before that House, the objections he made to the list of the right hon. Baronet were reasonable or unreasonable? Was the committee, as it stood, distinguished by a character of impartiality, absence of excited feeling, great knowledge and great experience on questions of great difficulty and great importance? Was that character so clear, he asked, without meaning the least personal disrespect to the hon. Gentlemen to whose names he objected, that no improvement could be made in it; but while he said this, he must also add, that he felt so much the inconvenience of these personal discussions, and he did so earnestly deprecate division on this subject, that he hoped, some alternative might be found. He, wished, therefore, to ask the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Knatchbull) whether he would consent to let both lists be cancelled, except the right hon. Baronet's own name, and then consult with his Friends on his own side of the House, and settle with Gentlemen on that (the Ministerial) side of the House—not with him—so that a committee satisfactory to both sides might be appointed. He made the proposition because he felt himself in difficulty, that if the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Acland) were substituted by a party division, for the noble Earl, that hon. Baronet would probably decline to serve, He threw out this suggestion for the consideration of the right hon. Baronet the Member for East Kent, and the right hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth. If the committee, as now constituted, were appointed by the House, he should decline to serve.

said, if the noble Lord had made his proposition some days back he should have had no objection at all to it; but after what had passed he did feel most strongly, that he should not be discharging his duty if he gave way.

could not consent to the ready construction which both sides of the House had put upon the character of this committee when they designated it as a party committee. When he heard it stated, that there were eight Members of the committee on one side, and seven on the other, he, for one, as a proposed member of the committee, must beg leave to dissent from being marshalled in either party. If, therefore, any Gentleman were now computing the numbers and the balance of party in the committee, in order to arrive at an anticipation of which way their opinion might be likely to incline he must beg leave to tell that Gentleman that he was probably mistaken in his reckoning as to which way his vote would be given. But with respect to the appointment of this committee, he must declare, that it was disgraceful to the House, and calculated to render its character most unamiable with the people, if they were led to think from the proceedings of the House that evening, that fifteen Gentlemen could not be found to do the duty of a committee of inquiry, who were likely to do that duty without being influenced by party feelings. Although he had been honoured by his name having been placed on the committee by the right hon. Baronet opposite, yet he could not consent to be a party to an inquiry, begun with party spirit, and which must, therefore be unsatisfactory in its results.

The House divided on the original motion:—Ayes 104; Noes 134: Majority 30

The name of Sir T. Acland was substituted.

On the question that the Marquess of Chandos be one of the members of the same committee,

Viscount Howick moved, that the name of Sir R. Peel be substituted for that of the Marquess of Chandos.

said, that the occasions were very rare on which he shrunk from the performance of any duty which the House might think fit to impose on him; but in order to record his sense of the injustice of the objections made to the appointment of the noble Marquess, he would, on this occasion, break through his customary rule, and decline to serve on the committee.

could not abstain from stating, that the conduct of the noble Lord was somewhat extraordinary in having proposed the name of the right hon. Baronet on the bench below him. The noble Lord could not have so far forgotten that he had but the evening before ascertained, in a private conference, that the right hon. Gentleman had an objection to serve on the committee.

The objection made by the gallant Officer was of so idle and trivial a nature, that he scarcely thought it necessary to notice it, What the gallant Officer had stated was perfectly true, that the right hon. Baronet had expressed an unwillingness to serve upon the committee; but, then, he understood, that the right hon. Baronet's reluctance to serve arose out of feelings of delicacy towards a political opponent. However, it was the desire of his political opponents, and it was equally desirable for the House and the country that the right hon. Gentleman should serve upon the committee. He trusted, under these circumstances, that the reluctance of the right hon. Baronet would yield to these considerations. All, then, that he could do under the circumstances, would be to persist in the amendment which he had moved.

thought a motion of this kind ought to have some grounds to support it. It was incumbent upon the noble Lord to state any objections which he entertained towards his noble Friend, the Member for Buckinghamshire. There was no man in the House who, on the ground of his long experience, ought to be considered to have more fitness for the discharge of duties of this kind. His noble Friend had, for the last twenty years, been a Member of that House, and, during all that time, his noble Friend had paid the greatest attention to all the important questions that had come under the attention of Parliament. The objection urged against the Earl of Lincoln's youth, and want of long experience of the business of Parliament, did not apply to his noble Friend, the Marquess of Chandos. The noble Lord would not manifest a proper degree of courtesy to the House, and would not show that respect to the House which was its due, if he did not put them in possession of some reasons for the course he now pursued. But the noble Lord was confident in his majority, and he thought doubtless that his sic volo, sic jubeo slat pro ratione voluntas ought to be sufficient. If the noble Lord thought otherwise, he would have condescended to inform the House what were the objections which he entertained towards his noble Friend. The Noble Lord opposite, in refusing to state the ground of objection to the noble Lord's fitness to serve on the committee, had laid down a doctrine to which he, as an independent Member of that House, felt bound in the strongest manner to object.

said, after the division that had taken place, it was quite manifest that the power of naming the committee now rested in the hands of the noble Lord. He would, therefore, leave the appointment of the committee entirely in the hands of the noble Lord, being perfectly aware that, in the names he was about to propose, he was not likely to receive the sanction of the noble Lord or his friends. He, therefore, now left entirely to the noble Lord the nomination of the committee.

was anxious to settle the question amicably, and it was by no seeking of his that anything unpleasing towards any individual had taken place. He was sure that the House would not sanction such appeals as had been made to him by the hon. Baronet and the Member for Yorkshire, that he was bound to state what objections he entertained towards the noble Marquess. Nothing could be further from his intention than to mean anything personally offensive to the noble Marquess. He could not state any further reasons for wishing the change than this, that he thought that the right hon. Baronet (Sir Robert Peel) would make a more useful member of the committee than the noble Marquess.

, after what had occurred, could not leave the House without making a few observations. When the noble Lord opposite had done him the honour to mention his name, he felt bound to say, with respect to any opinions which the noble Lord entertained of him, or towards him, they were to him a matter of the most perfect indifference. But he must take the liberty to say, that when the noble Lord brought forward an accusation against him before the House and the country, he had a right to ascertain the reasons that existed for that accusation. He had a right to ask the noble Lord why he had objected to him as unfit to serve upon that committee. The noble Lord stated, that he had moved the substitution of the name of the hon. Baronet, because that he would be a more useful member of the committee. He fully concurred in that opinion, and he thought that the highest service that could be conferred upon the committee would be to place the name of the right hon. Baronet upon it. It was not his intention to put the House to the trouble of any vote upon this subject, for when an objection was made to placing his name upon the Committee, he would not consent under such circumstances to serve upon that com- mittee. He repeated, in conclusion, that he was bound to believe the statement of the noble Lord, that he meant no insult towards him. He would, therefore, say no more at present with reference to what had occurred, and would leave the House to form their own decision on the conduct which had been pursued by the noble Lord. [The noble Marquess left the House.]

thought, that the noble Marquess was under a great misapprehension as to what had taken place. If they established the rule that no objections could be stated against a party named on a committee, without stating the reasons of the objections, there would be, at once, an end to such objections, for it was easy to perceive the practical difficulties that would result if the reasons of all objections were obliged to be stated. Now he did not see how any one could think himself insulted because one party should suppose that a committee was not fairly constituted, and should propose to alter it by the rejection of some names and the substitution of others. He did not shrink from saying without any intention to give offence, that the committee which had been originally proposed, was not a tribunal, with the constitution of which, that side of the House had perfect reason to be satisfied. The House lad laid clown a rule, that the names of those who were to compose such committees as the present, should be previously known. And what was the use of this, unless to give an opportunity of making alterations, and he did not know how this could be done, if every Member whose name was objected to felt he was personally insulted by being objected to. He thought it would be better if the hon. Baronet would adopt some amicable arrangement by which a fair committee could be constituted to the satisfaction of both sides of the House.

said, that the hon. Member could not have been in the House in the early part of the evening, or he would have seen that it was impossible, after what had happened, that he could take the course suggested. He should have been glad to have taken the course suggested, or any course that would have led to a satisfactory result; but having proposed certain names, and they having been objected to, he found it impossible, under the circumstances, to withdraw those names, or to give up those individuals whom he had originally proposed.

said, the objections stated, were not objections to the names merely, but individuals were objected to, because it was alleged that their party feeling was such as to incapacitate them from serving. Now, the objections to one hon. Member were, that he had cheered the speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Kent, and that therefore he was incompetent to sit on his committee. Surely these were unprecedented objections.

The House divided on the original motion—Ayes 112; Noes 131 Majority 19.

The name of Sir Robert Peel was placed on the committee.

said, that it was his duty to acquaint the House that Mr. Praed, a Member of that House had been ordered to attend in his place in that House, but the wish of the House could not now be carried into effect, as the hon. Member could not be found.

said, that the object which the House had in view in making the order, could not be carried into effect, with respect to the Gentleman who was absent, but they could follow it up with respect to the Gentleman who was present. He therefore intended to move, that the Gentleman who was in his place, should be called on by the Speaker. It became his duty to move, that the hon. Member should be called on in his place to give a promise to the House that he did not intend to carry any further the matter which had occurred that evening.

said, after what had occurred, it became his duty to inform the hon. Member for Lincoln, that the House expected that he would give them an assurance that he did not intend to accept any hostile message on the part of the hon. Member who had left his place. He wished to know did the hon. Member consent to this?

rose and made some brief observations which did not reach the gallery.

stated, that he did not express to the hon. Member his own opinion, but the opinion of the House, and in deference to that opinion he now called upon the hon. Member to give the House that assurance on his part which it was reasonable for him to expect.

trusted, that whatever party feelings might exist, honorable Members would feel somewhat for the character of a fellow-member, and would be as indulgent to him as the peculiar position in which he then stood, might seem to require. He was not aware of any discussion having taken place between himself and the hon. Member for Aylesbury of a hostile nature. He made some general remarks upon the committee proposed by the right hon. Baronet; but he expressly stated, and he believed in doing so he spoke the general opinions of the ministerial side of the House, that he had no wish to cast any disparagement upon, or insinuate anything against, the character of those hon. Gentlemen whose names were proposed. He distinctly stated, that, than the character of the noble Lord, the Member for Buckinghamshire, none stood higher. He also stated, that the hon. Member for Surrey was a gentleman who, in his political opposition, had never given the least offence to that (the Ministerial) side of the House, and that there could be no ground of objection to him as a Member of the committee, but the shortness of the time during which he had been a Member of the House. He afterwards spoke of the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury, and observed, that there could be no ground for objection to him on account of his character; but he certainly added, that there might be some objection, however erroneous to him, on account of his acting with the zeal of a novice upon the opinions which he had formed. He believed, that that hon. and learned Gentleman had been in the habit of attending meetings in the University of Cambridge, and used to avow certain opinions there; to which circumstance, however, he (Mr. Bulwer) should not have alluded, if he had not always understood, that the hon. and learned Gentleman retained those opinions just as warmly as ever. That, he believed, was all that he had said of the hon. and learned Gentleman. Well, that hon. and learned Gentleman replied to him and said, that he had made use of some expressions that were grossly unfair, and, as he supposed, charged him with having been guilty of a lapse of memory. He made no reply, thinking, that as it related to a matter of fact, it was not worth while entering into the subject, especially as he considered that what the hon. and learned Member said, was perfectly Parliamentary. His hon. Friend, the Member for Cambridge then spoke, and the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Praed) in his reply to some observations of his hon. Friend, did gratuitously, and, as he thought, in a manner that indicated considerable excitement, give him a strong denial upon the point of fact which he had previously stated. He then rose, and said, that as it was a matter of fact between himself and the hon. and learned Gentleman, he conceived it was necessary, in his own vindication, that he should give the hon. and learned Gentleman that contradiction which the forms of the House would allow. What, after this, was it, that he was required to do? He had no other explanation to give, and the House would not, he felt assured, require him to make an apology. What was the state of the matter? The hon. and learned Gentleman went out of the House; but an intimation was given to him (Mr. Bulwer), that he ought not to leave his place, though it was not his intention to have done so, even if that intimation had not been given. The hon. and learned Gentleman had thus left him in this situation; that the hon. and learned Gentleman was to be in a condition to take what further notice he pleased in this matter, while the House was desirous of binding him down by the word of a gentleman, and a man of honour, not to take any further notice of it. Now, he did not think, that that was exactly fair. If this were made a matter of mutual arrangement between him and the hon. and learned Member for Aylesbury, it would be perfectly fair, but to call on him to take a certain course, unless the conformity of the hon. and learned Gentleman were also required, would, in his opinion, not be fair.

said, that the hon. Gentleman was not called on to make any apology. If the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Praed) had remained or come down to the House when sent for, the House would not have parted with either hon. Member until they had given security to keep the peace; but all they required under the present circumstances was, that the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bulwer) should submit to the pleasure of the House by giving the assurance demanded of him until the next sitting, when both hon. Members would be present.

Mr. Rice, Sir De L. Evans, and Sir H. Hardinge having severally expressed their hope that the hon. Member would comply with the request of the Speaker.

asked the right hon. and gallant officer (Sir H. Hardinge) would he, if placed in the same situation, consent to do so?

The right hon. Gentleman having declared that he would,

bowed submission to the Chair, and gave the required assurance to keep the peace.

The nomination of the committee was then resumed, and proceeded with as Lord Howick proposed.

Sir H. Hardinge and Sir T. D. Acland both requested to be excused from acting on the committee, but we did not understand that the request was complied with.

rose, pursuant to notice, to move that an humble address be presented to her Majesty, praying that she will be graciously pleased to direct her Minister at the Court of Spain to take such measures as may be requisite to insure the immediate settlement of the just claims of the officers and noncommissioned officers and privates of the late British Auxiliary Legion, acting in the service of her Catholic Majesty, under the authority of licences issued by order in Council by the British Government. The hon. Member proceeded to call the attention of the House to the fact, that not above 5,100 men returned to this country out of 14,000, such had been their sufferings through various deprivations, through fever and the sword. It was most important the House should know that the officers of the Spanish Legion had had no pay from the 30th of June, 1836, to the present time. So deep was the distress into which they were plunged, that many of them were now compelled to perform the most menial offices, in order to procure their daily bread; and he regretted to say that the only thing which her Majesty's Government had done towards rewarding, or even consoling, those unfortunate men, was the mere act of conferring an honorary distinction upon their leader, the gallant General opposite, who certainly well deserved the favour. This almost total disregard of them by the Government of their native country formed one amongst the many just grounds of complaint which they might urge, for he contended that the Government had virtually sent them out to Spain. In his opinion, the Government would be guilty of a great dereliction of duty if they did not enforce the claims of the officers of the Legion, and of the men also, many of whom were to be seen in a starving condition in the streets of London and Glasgow, and other large towns. He thought those who had engaged the services of those men, and had caused them to shed their blood for the purpose of advancing their own political views, ought not to desert them in the time of their distress, and leave them to perish after they had made them serve their turn.

observed that since the hon. and gallant Officer (General Evans) had returned to the House as the Member for Westminster, his conduct had drawn upon him much deserved animadversion, because he had not supported the claims of those men whose services he had enlisted, and whose blood he had caused to be shed. If he had acted in a manner consistent with propriety, he would have come forward as the advocate of their claims. The Legion had fought nobly and honourably; and he did not attempt to throw any blame on the hon. and gallant Member as an officer, considering the circumstances with which he had to contend; but he must say, that after his term of servitude finished in Spain, he was one of the first of the whole force to leave that country. He was informed, on tolerably good authority, that on the evening he left Spain the hon. and gallant Officer rose at the mess, and told the officers, that his object in leaving was to proceed to England, and there, not only in his capacity as the commander of the Legion, but as a Member of that House, firmly, honestly, and steadily to advocate their claims, and get the payment of their demands. He was also informed, but he hoped it was not the case, that the hon. and gallant Officer was escorted to the coast by a guard of honour, which was composed, not of members of the Legion, but of Spanish troops. That was currently reported to be the fact, and he now gave the hon. and gallant Officer an opportunity of denying it. He was told, that the hon. and gallant Officer had come home crowned with glory, and decorated with honours received in Spain; but had he been the hon. and gallant Officer, he would have hurled those honours at the feet of the Spanish minister instead of receiving them with satisfaction, while the just demands of his brave soldiers remained unpaid. It was true, that some documents, purporting to be instruments of payment, had been issued, but so valueless were they, that he knew of one instance of a man having given his scrip, described at the value of 100l., to the publican in whose house he resided to defray a debt of 5l. Colonel M'Dougal, one of the officers of the Legion, to whom a large sum was due, had nobly come forward, and said, he would give up the whole if he got the claims of his brave fellow-countrymen who were suffering from numerous privations satisfied. In a memorial which that gallant Officer had presented to Lord Melbourne, and also to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston), he stated, that the claims of those persons ought to be immediately attended to, on account of the sickness, hardship, suffering, and mortality which prevailed in the Legion. If an officer of such high distinction made that statement, would the House entertain any more doubts about the validity of the claims? He hoped, that Government would take into consideration the situation of these men, and that the noble Lord himself, the Secretary for the Foreign Department, would not object to a firm and strong remonstrance to the court of Spain, in order that their just claims might be satisfied.

did not complain of the observations which had been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had addressed the House on the opposite side, but, on the contrary, he felt gratified at the way in which this motion had been brought forward. There were, however, a few points on which he wished to offer some observations. In the first place, it had been stated, that the Legion was composed of 14,000 men, but that statement was not correct, for the Legion was never so numerous. When it went out it was but 8,000 strong, although an addition to that number was afterwards sent out. He begged, also, to repeat what he had before stated, and which he contended was the fact, that the losses, although great, were not greater than those of other armies placed in similar circumstances. Immediately on his arrival from Spain it appeared to him that this was made a party question, and a committee of officers of the Legion had assisted those who were his political opponents. The question was mixed up, as it appeared to him, with his claims to the representation of Westminster, and such conduct inclined him to think that the course pursued was not the one most likely to afford a prospect of a settlement of the claims of the Legion. He had, also, personal reasons for not putting himself forward in reference to those claims, for the whole Legion had been treated as mercenaries, and being himself the largest claimant, he thought if he had brought forward the subject he would only have injured the cause of both officers and men. He conceived that what had been stated was not quite fair as regarded the Spanish government, which, although blameable in not making greater exertions to pay its debts, was yet so embarrassed that some allowance was to be made for the delay which had taken place. He considered, that the manner in which this subject had been agitated had injured the claims of the Legion, as it had influenced, in some degree, perhaps, the Spanish government to believe, that the claims of both officers and men would have been settled by the English Government. He would cordially support the motion of the hon. and gallant Officer, but he could not consent to any motion which went to coerce the Spanish government. The amount of the claims of the Legion was about 220,000l., and he felt convinced, that it would be paid as soon as possible. The motion, however, might stimulate the Spanish government to greater exertions, and he should therefore support it, and he trusted that it would not be resisted by the government.

thought, in bringing the claims of persons who were entitled to indulgent consideration before the House, it would have been better if hon. Members had consented to lay aside all party topics; but he should not be tempted to follow the example which had been set him, or to oppose the motion which had been made. He was bound to say, in confirmation of what had fallen from his hon. and gallant Friend, that the men of the Legion had received every thing which British soldiers, at the termination of their service would have had any right to expect. On retiring from the service, their marching money had been paid to convey them home; and although they had not received their gratuities, they would not have been entitled to those by the rules of the British service. In regard to the large arrears which were due to the officers, their exact amount had not yet been ascertained; but a commission had been appointed, and from the character of those who composed that commission, it was to be expected that justice would be done to all parties. It had been said, that the British Government were bound to exert all their influence to obtain a settlement of those claims, and in that particular, he fully agreed with the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman was mistaken if he thought that the Government had shown any remissness on the subject. He could assure the House that either by communications with the Spanish Minister, or by instructions to the English Minister at Madrid, or by communications with the Spanish Minister in London, very few days passed in which some steps were not taken by the Government to forward the settlement of the claims of the Legion. He denied that, by the proceedings of Colonel Wylde in the formation of the second Legion, the Government of this country was in any way involved, and that the Government were in no way responsible. It was true, that arrears were due by the Spanish Government to the men and officers of the Legion, but it was only just to make some allowance for the difficulties in which that Government was involved by the civil war which still continued. It was not fair to assume that the non-settlement of the claims of the Legion arose from indisposition on the part of the Spanish Government to discharge its debts, for he believed, that the cause was solely inability to meet the demands. But that was no reason why the British Government should not press for a settlement of those claims, and he could assure the House that no exertion should be spared in order to effect an object so desirable. He had no wish to oppose the motion of the hon. and gallant Officer, but the wording of that motion required, he thought, some alteration. He should, therefore, propose, that the motion should be for an humble address to her Majesty, praying that her Majesty would be graciously pleased to direct her Minister at the Court of Madrid to continue to use his best endeavours to obtain an early settlement of the claims of the men of both the Legions, That would render the motion applicable to both Legions, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman's motion only referred to one, and it would at the same time, put the motion in conformity with international usage. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman consented to that alteration, he should then give the motion his support.

would rather advise his hon. and gallant Friend to acquiesce in the alteration proposed by the noble Lord, for it was probable that the unanimous opinion of the House of Commons would give some little prospect of a final settlement of the claims of the Legion. The only difficulty he felt in making that suggestion, arose from the introduction of the word "continue," as proposed by the noble Lord, for by the introduction of that word it might appear that the House was satisfied with the exertions which had been made to obtain a settlement, although they had no evidence that anything whatever had been done. Still, notwithstanding that objection, as it was desirable that the opinion of the House should be unanimous, he thought it would be better to accede to the proposed alterations in the wording of the motion. He would assure the hon. and gallant Officer opposite that he was much mistaken when he supposed that those on his (Sir R. Peel's) side of the House had acted from party views in reference to this question. He had always fully estimated the difficulties which the gallant Officer had to encounter, but he had ever contended, that the responsibility of failure rested, not with the gallant Officer, not with the Legion, but with her Majesty's Government, who had originated and encouraged the expedition. For the disappointment resulting, the Government alone was responsible, and not the gallant Officer. He felt strongly the claims of the Legion; but there were other claims upon the Spanish Government which called equally loud for a settlement, and he could not consent to give the claims of the Legion precedence before those claims to which he alluded. There were the claims of British merchants recognised by Spain, and which she was bound by treaty to pay, but which had never yet been settled. Those claims demanded the utmost exertions of the Government to obtain their settlement, although he admitted, that the Government was bound to forward the settlement of both. The noble Lord had denied that the Government was in any degree responsible for the proceedings of Colonel Wylde, but he held in his hand an agreement accepted by the Spanish Government and signed by Colonel Wylde, and what, he would ask, was to be inferred from that document, but that the British Government had sanctioned his proceedings? He trusted the motion which had been made, would be unanimously agreed to, and that it would have the effect of obtaining for the officers and men of the Legion a settlement of their claims upon the Spanish Government. In giving his assent to this motion, he begged to be understood as in no degree implying an opinion that under any possible combination of circumstances they could be preferred against the British Government.

The Amendment suggested by Lord Palmerston was agreed to.