We have been somewhat surprised at the silence maintained by the purists of the "Liberal" press, in reference to certain proceedings in the Court of Exchequer against several ministerial members of parliament. The facts, we apprehend, are these ;—A club was formed about two or three years since, called the Westminster Reform Club. It consisted, if we remember rightly, of nearly all the "Liberal' members of the House of Commons, together with sundry other gentlemen who intended to be M.P.'s as soon as they could find convenient constituencies, and of a good number of sucking barristers on the look-out for commissionerships and colonial appointments.
A great number of names were entered, and, we believe, advertised, each man's subscription being fifteen guineas. Mr. Alderman Wood's house in Great George-street was taken, at a rent of a thousand a-year, and the advertisements went forth in great state, and decorated with the highest names that either Whiggism or Radicalism could furnish.
When, therefore, the tradesmen of Westminster were honoured with the orders of a club, in whose published lists they saw the Cavendishes, Russells, Ebringtons and Greys, the Denisons and Byngs and Winningtons, how could they dream of such a thing as risk? How could it come into their heads that they might as well have a gang of swindlers for their clients, as this select assembly of the "Liberals"—the Westminster Reform Club? Yet what is the actual state of the case? Nothing else than this ;—these noble and Liberal Reformers have ordered in wine and drunk it; have purchased knives and forks and made use of them; have hired spoons and saltsellers, and many other things, and have at last "dissolved into thin air," become "the late Westminster Reform Club," and left the poor shopkeepers unpaid!
The fact would appear almost incredible, had it not been proved to the satisfaction of no fewer than four successive juries! The purveyors of the wine and hardware, the furnisher of the silver forks and spoons, have severally brought their actions against Mr. Humphery, late sheriff of London, and now M.P. for Southwark; against Mr. Hector, M.P. for Petersfield; against Mr. O'Brien, a member of the O'Connell tail; and against Mr. Cuthbert Rippon, one of the four joints of the smaller tail of my Lord Durham, being his nominee for his own borough of Gateshead. In every one of these actions the juries instantly returned a verdict. But these worthy and very "Liberal" gentlemen still resisted, moved the Court, and finally succeeded in satisfying the judges that they, as individual members of the club, were not liable, but that the remedy of these poor tradesmen must be sought solely of the club itself, such club being, in fact, defunct! And thus the tradesmen are defeated in their just claims—these four "Liberal" and wealthy M.P.'s shift the responsibility from their own shoulders to those of a body which is known to be non est inventus, and the shopkeepers find themselves not only losers to the full amount of their goods, but also saddled with costs to the extent, probably, of some four or five hundred pounds! So much for the "liberality" of "Reformers"—so much for the honour of "Liberals !"
And are there no mysteries in this transaction, which the purists of the "Liberal" press might help us to unravel? Might not the Chronicle inquire of its friend Mr. Parkes—originally, we believe, one of the founders of this respectable society—what became of all the hardware and furniture, all the spoons and forks which the Reform Club bought, but forgot to pay for? Might it not ask, also, whether—as the funds of the society were insufficient to pay for the wine which it drank, and the spoons which it bought or hired—its patriotic and "Liberal" landlord, Mr. Alderman Wood, was also a sufferer by its deficiency, or whether the very moderate rent of only 1000l. a-year for a house in George-street, was first duly paid, and then the shopkeepers shown the empty purse, for their comfort, and the non-liability of individual members, for their satisfaction! Many such little points as these will naturally suggest themselves, and the Chronicle ought not to attempt to blink the subject. Its own friend, Mr. Hector, M.P. for Petersfield, instructs his counsel to say, that he resists the claim "in order to expose the club." Mr. Hector's opinion, therefore, clearly is, that there is something which ought to be exposed—that tricks have been played which ought to be brought to light. It is not fair in the Chronicle to try to balk so praise-worthy an intention.