and he threw himself on the judgment of the house. The funds had not been advanced for the exclusive use of one or other of the candidates for Colchester, but for the purpose of enabling the reformers of that borough to send members who would support the reform bill.

• The Report was as follows:

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

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

ter.

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

"Your belief is strong to establish in your mind the distinction ?-Yes

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

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

time.

"By the Committee.-How much was the money, do you know?—I think it was 5007.

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

"By Mr. Harvey.-Who were hos.

Not a shilling of the fund had been contributed from the public money. He had done nothing more than any other individual would have thought himself justified in doing under the circumstances of the case.*

After a few observations by se

tile?-Mr. Mayhew and Mr. Harvey; that is my impression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"He was not returned?-Yes, he was. "And for that purpose the 5007. was advanced by the secretary of the treasury for the purposes of the election ?— Yes,"

veral members, Mr. A. Baring said that, the fact of 500l. having been advanced by the secretary of the treasury having come before the house, he would vote for a committee of inquiry in vindication of its privileges.

This subject was again incidentally resumed, on the 23d of July: Mr. O'Connell thought, that, though a statement had been made explanatory of the circumstances by a gentleman whose character was entitled to all respect; yet that statement ought to be confirmed by an examination of witnesses. If the money actually contributed had been, as he says, derived from private subscription, the proof would be easy and direct by the production of the books. To this, at least, the house was clearly entitled. The character, likewise, of the government demanded investigation on this point. He moved, therefore, that the evidence furnished in the first report of the inns of court select committee, be referred to a select committee of privilege.

Lord John Russell and Mr. Tennyson agreed in the impropriety of referring this subject to a committee, after the statement that had been made to the house by the secretary at war; and on the amendment being put, that the house think the explanation of fered perfectly satisfactory, Mr. W. Wynn said that, if they were now to decide that a denial of a charge by a secretary of the treasury was, in consequence of his high character, to overbear evidence and silence inquiry, a most danger. ous precedent would be established. The single circumstance that money had been received by lord Western, from the treasury, and that it had been applied to elec.

tion purposes, afforded sufficient grounds for the inquiry demanded. The secretary at war had interfered as such, and not as a private individual in the election at Colchester. His conduct ought to be the more scrupulously examined as he was the only public officer, intrusted with secret service money, who was not sworn to its faithful distribution, and consequently commanded a source of dangerous and unconstitutional influence. The expenditure of money on the part of any individuals, had always been considered as coming within the treating act.

Mr. Spring Rice said, he would endeavour to supply the house with the real state of the case. He did not contend that this was a question which ought to be decided upon a principle of confidence in the present ministry. The personal character of the individual accused was such as to convince any one that the jealousy, with which his conduct had been viewed, was unfounded. The declaration of a member in his place had always been considered as material evidence to guide the judgment of the house in cases of this nature. Every circumstance corroborated the statement of his friend. The obvious truth was, that large subscriptions had been entered into by the friends of certain political opinions; and a part of these funds had been transmitted to Colchester. Under these impressions he supported the amendment.

Mr. Baring believed, that the right hon. secretary was innocent of having taken money from the public purse; but he had invaded the privileges of the house. What were the facts of the case as admitted? Lord Western solicits from the secretary to the treasury

an advance of money for the expenses of an election; and most assuredly the interference of the latter in such circumstances, amounted to a gross breach of privilege. He could not observe such conduct, without expressing his astonishment at the improper lengths to which party-feeling was carrying the members of the present government.

Lord Althorp admitted, that a subscription had been raised, of which his right hon. friend being, as an individual, and not in his official character, appointed mana ger, he had as such, advanced money to persons who were engaged in supporting his own political opinions. It had been dis tinctly proved that the money had been raised by private subscription. He opposed the motion, because any reference of the matter to a committee would amount to an unjust censure.

Mr. O'Connell in reply said, that this was really a case in which from the unsatisfactory explanation which had been given, he was resolved to take the sense of the house, while he, at the same time, entreated them not to establish such a precedent, as that the treasury should enjoy impunity when detected in the very fact.

The amendment was carried by a majority of eighty.

On the 27th of June, Lord Brougham said that, with much reluctance, he felt it necessary to bring under the notice of their lordships a breach of privilege which, in other circumstances, he should most gladly have allowed to pass unnoticed. A case had been heard in that house when the learned judges were present, in which an appeal had been dismissed with costs. He was pub

licly charged in the Morning Post with having, in that instance, falsified the entries in their lordships' minutes; with having, after moving that the judgment below be affirmed, recorded by an entry in the journals of the house, that the proceedings had been only postponed. Now, the truth was, that the gentlemen, whose business it was to make these entries, made the one in question in the usual way. He gave no directions as to the mode in which it should be done. After judgment had been given, and until the amount of costs had been ascertained, the entry had been subjoined, that judgment was postponed.

Lord Wynford admitted that the paper alluded to was a gross breach of the privileges of the house; and earl Grey did not see how it was possible to refrain from taking steps to maintain their own dignity.

The marquess of Londonderry congratulated the noble and learned lord on the woolsack on having at last made the discovery, that the press could, by any possibility, be guilty of making attacks on the dignity of the house of Peers. He therefore cordially approved of the motion for calling the printer to the bar.

laboured under a similar apprehension. Having read the speech of the noble lord on the woolsack, he entertained no doubt that the judgment of the court below had been affirmed, but on referring to the votes, he found that the consideration of the case had been postponed. The written minutes were, likewise, very different from the printed votes. He had no objection, however, to the declaration, that the publication was a breach of privilege.

After a few words from earl Grey; the motion was agreed to, and, in compliance with the orders of the house, the printer of the Morning Post appeared at the bar. He was briefly examined; and, a few remarks having been made by the duke of Wellington and lords Lyndhurst and Radnor, he was, on the motion of Lord Brougham, discharged; and a motion that the editor of the paper attend the house, agreed to.

On the 30th of June, Mr. Bittle stone, the editor of the paper, at tended at the bar of the house of lords, and having made a statement in his own defence, was, after a

few observations from several of their lordships, remanded in custody. On the 1st of July, there was presented to the house a petition from Mr. Bittlestone, praying to be set at liberty, the consideration of which was deferred till next day, when after an admonition from the lord chancellor, he was discharged.

On the 24th of June, Colonel Williams brought under the notice of the house of Commons, as a breach of privilege the obstruction which he had met with, in his progress to parliament from the soldiers that lined the streets during the musical festival in Westminster abbey. He seriously com. plained of having been compelled to proceed to attend on his parliamentary duties through "a bristle of bayonets." He moved an address to the crown for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it had been ordered that an opening should be left for members of parliament to enter the house. After a short conversation, however, the subject was dropped; and this ridiculous motion was withdrawn.

ON

N the 6th of May, the marquess of Londonderry brought under the notice of the House of Lords, the case of General sir J. Campbell imprisoned at Lisbon, by the Portuguese government. He would not, he said, have brought forward the case had it not been for the cruel treatment which that officer had met with at the hands of Don Pedro. He had been seized subsequently to his having ceased to be an officer in the service of Don Miguel, and had now been imprisoned for eight months. It was said that papers addressed by viscount Santarem to individuals in this country were found in his possession; but it did not appear that he was at all aware of the nature of these communications. An inquiry had indeed been instituted, but with the results of it he was not at all acquainted. Many British subjects were most unjustly treated by the authorities at Lisbon. He concluded with moving an humble address to his majesty to direct that there be laid before the house copies of despatches or correspondence with his majesty's secretary of state for the foreign department or by his majesty's ambassador at Lisbon, relating to the imprisonment in the

dungeons of St. Julian's, at Lisbon, of sir John Campbell, late an officer of the British army.

Lord Grey said, no doubt could be entertained, that sir J. Campbell was employed in the service of Don Miguel; for when he was taken prisoner there were found on his person papers from viscount Santarem, the minister of Don Miguel. On all the circumstances having been detailed to his majesty's advocate-general, his opinion was, that sir J. Campbell had no claim upon the British government. Representations, however, were made to the Portuguese government, which refused either to give him up unconditionally, or to release him on his parole. While, therefore, he denied that his majesty's ministers had been inattentive to the rights of British subjects, he had no objection to grant any papers that could be produced consistently with the interests of the public service.

The Duke of Wellington confessed, that he had always viewed the case of sir J. Campbell with jealousy, in consequence of his having served in contravention of the foreign enlistment bill. It was simply the circumstance of his having been taken with despatches on his person that justi