The Sun. — London, England, 1848-05-13 00:00:00

_responsible to its authority. Such officers had ba found most valuable in carrying out the bankruptcy laic * which he had passed, and he was satisfied they would be equally useful for the purpose be now co ntein plated. As to another p oint connected with tlae practice of the Court of Chancery, he did not see why the examination of witnesses before that Court should not be viva voce, as in the other Courts. The present system of written examinations was full of ab - eurditv and mischief, and pregnant with expense and delay. A set of questions were drawn up for every witness, without the possibility of knowing what this answers would be, when perhaps the very first answer would render the next ten questions wholly unnecessary. In oral examination, if a witness, on being asked " Do you know Mr. So and-so," replied, " No, I don't," there would be an end of the matter as regarded Mr. So-and-so; but the written examination, after the witness had said " No, I don't know Mr. So-and. so," would go on, tone the less gravely, with a series of questions touchi,ig Mr. So-and-so, and the witness who does not know him, as: " When did you see him last?" and so on. The Noble Lord said he had many other points on which ,he might observe in connexion with %his subject; but he would not, on the present oc casion, press them upon their L^,relships' attention. Among them was the subject of appeals before their Lordships' House—a resource at present attended with such enormous expense as to render it, for all but the :rich, a mere mock -ry. In conclusion, he earnestly im piored their Lordships to give roost serious consider-Et tion to the subject which he b,d thud bron.;ht before them. The present we: e not times in which Govern ments e nil safely refuse compliance with the just die !bands of the people they governed. On all sides we witni.s+ed ;he ;m.o.:ryas ot convulsion: in France, a dy nasty dew , dished in one brief h. ur; it G..rmany, throne after throes menaced; in Au- tri4, the supposed peren tial erntire of the Cm , ars totierine. to its tall. Sou. h. ward, the janitor of the Alps opening the ,gates of Italy to the G.O ; sttll more south. the Eternal City shaken to its foundation, and th , succesex of the Borgiv, es ambitious as they. but unsusiaineci by their g. nius or their courage, taking refuge in the f qtr., ss of A ng elo from the fury of the faithful-(Elect.) These, be would rep -at, were times and these were circurri etancas which should warn the ruling powers in England to amend the itistitetirins of the country, in every fi.a sure suseeptihre of improvement, and to amend in time. He had every confidence in the innate force of our insti tutions. and in the loyalty ot our lee ple ; but rely upon it that the better our law, and the cheaper, and the more nearly it ws broueht to the doors ot the people, and the plainer it was made for them to read, sac, the easier to comprehend and to di4est, and, consequently, to obey, the more secure you made property, and the more facility you gave for its transfer, so as to render it more available for the purpest sof civil life. The more you took away those shoals and quicksands ot which Locke . creaks, rely upon it, ae purer and heartier would be the love, and the more vigorous and unswerving the support which you would secure to the instititutions from your virtuous and honest and gallant fellow-sub jects. It was these views that in 1828 he had urged, in another place, the law reforms which he had then intro diced, and it was with undiminished, nay with incre ase d_ earnestness, that he now urged further reform of t he law upon that august assembly, the judges by wh om, in the last and highest resort, that . law w as admin istered . He implored their Lordships to aid him in the task he had thus undertaken, for the purpose of giving increased strength to the noble constitution under which we lived. The Noble Lord then laid his Bill upon the table, which was read a first time. The House adjourned at Thirty. five Minutes after . Seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 12. The SPEAKER took the Chair shortly belore Four Mr. WILSON BATTEN presented petitions from places in Izlncashire against the sale of spirituous liquors on Sundsy. _ _ Mr. WILSON presented four petitions from places in Yorkshire against any alteration in the navigation•laws. Mr. SPOONER presented petitions from places in Sutherlandahire against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. Viscount CASTLEREAGH presented petitions from places in Down against the Bill for the amendment of the law of imprisonment for debt. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. Mr. F. O'CONNOR brought on the Friendly Socie ties Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on WPdnevlay, 14th of June. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY. 111. SIUMiT aliivetCPutti:niOll.)tice,that it be aninstruction to the Committee on the Great Northern Railway (Isle of Axholme Extension) Bill, to hear the Company of Proprietors of the StAinforth and Keadley CAnal Navigation on th- matter of their petition against the skid Bib. which nas presrnted upon the Ist clay tn this instant May. Sir W. BEATHCOTE objected to the motion, and after a few ebservations from Mr. &UTAH. r in reply, The Hull.Ye di.itted, when there app•ared— For the noailet Against It. ......... ..... 69 Majurity hganist it DU .IN. Mr. REYNOLDS no.vtd that the evidence taken be fore the- ourve)inir ..fficera upo i the local inviriea held in Dublin, u t on the subject ot the aptlicationi lo Par liament fan. the Dub in Impruveihent 8i114.n.i the Dahill* Consolidation Itnproveweuts and Water.orks Bill, be aid on thM tut)l.- 1.., in .lin. -53 The SPEAKER said the evidence wee alreuly on the table, and the motion was withdrawn. M. E WART preseuttA a petition in favour of free sites being granted for Scottish churches. Mr. HUME presented a petiti,n from a congregation in Newcastle to the same effect. Mr. COBDEN presented a petition from Nottingham, praying for a reduction in the taxation and expenditure of the state. The petition was signed by the mayor and upwards of 2,000 inhabitants of the town. Mr. HILDYARD presented a petition from White haven against the sale of intoxicating drinks on Sunday. Mr. P. HOWARD presented a petition from Carlisle against the central clause of the Health of Towns Bill. Mr. COW AN presented several petitions from Scot land in favour of the Free Sites for Churches Bill. Mr. FORBES presented a petition against the Diplo matic Relations with the Court of Rome MIL Sir R. H. INGLIS presented a petition against diplo matic relations with the Court of Rome. THE REEHESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. Mr. HUME said he had already given notice that he intended, on the 23d instant, to submit a mo tion, and to call the attention of the House to the state of the representation of the people.—(Hear, hear.) The terms of the motion which he intended to submit on Tuesday week were to the following effect :—That this Rouse, as constituted, does not fairly represent the property, intelligence and industry of the ccuntry, in consequence of which great discontent had arisen in the minds of a great portion of the people, and with a view to amend the national representation leave be given to bring in Bills for the following purposes :—First, that the elective franchise be extended to all householders; that votes be taken by ballot ; that the daration of Par liaments do not exceed three years ; and that a more equitable apportionment of the population to the number of Members to be elected be adopted—(Cheers) —or, in other words, equal electoral districts.—(Hear.) LONGFORD. Mr. BOUVERIE read the report of this Committee, which was to the effect that Mr. Fox had been duly elected. The report complained of the defective state of the registration in Ireland, and recommended the House to devise a remedy. NOVA SCOTIA. Mr. B. COCHRANE inquired whether information had been rcceivad at the Colonial-office to the effect that the secretary of the c,ilony (a very va!aable officer) had teen induced to retire upon an allowance of only 4001. a year ; whether the judges of the courts were hada to be displaced simply by a petition to the Colonial-office from the assemblies, and without any spezific allegations being assigned against them; also, whoher the salary of the Governor bad been reduced troin 3 .5001.. with an allowance or 4001. for his ~ecretary, to 3,0001., with 2501. for his secretary? Mr. LI AWES (~ 1 1.9 was very indistinctly heard in the gallery) was understood to a y that the secret ar y h a d reeigned upun the al.owance mentioned all. r a service Co; five Yeats, but he held another office whica potted o , nsnl,rable eon Ljt et.t. Tne salty') of the Goveritor, wbich was vot.-d with the civil list, tv , uld b • r-duced as atittal. U.. should tee! happy to lay any p.iprs on the Matter l , efore the ll,msr. THE NATIoNAL LAND COMPANY. Sir B. HALL wished to a'k the Ilan. Gentleman, the Member tor Nottinv,haur, a cile,ti-ti with respect to a Bid which bb had introduced. He found that a great number of peraosis had j..irad it as subscribers. What he was anxious to know was, wh..n the Hon. and Le ti n d Member intend. ri that the company should be put in such a poAtton that he, 'us one ut the promoters of th. 3 company, should be able to take out a certificate of registration? Mr. F. O'CONNOR would answer the questions of the Hon. Baronet with great pleasure. As soon as this company was established application was made to Mr. Tidd Pratt to register it, and it was then discovered that, in cony, quence of several judgments of air. Justice Wightman, Mr. Tidd Pratt could not completely register the company. He then had the company provi sionally registered, and having proceeded to a certain extent, it was found th,a the expenses of complete reßistration would be so enormous that he had con sider,d it to be his duty to see if he could not materially alter, if not do away with, those expenses . altogether to render it unnecessary to have complete registration. That Bill he had brought in that day ; it had been read a first and ordered to be read a second time on the 14th of June ; and he could assure the Honourable Member that if the House refused to pass this Bill, it vas his determination to prosecute the matter to Com piete registration, and nothing, would give him greater satisfaction than to be discharged from the onerous duty that now devolved op , ,r, him.. (Hear, hear.) TREATY BETWEEN RUSSIA AND TURKEY. Mr. URQUHART said it had been rumoured that an offensive and defensive treaty had been concluded be tween Russia and Turkey during the absence of Sir Stratford Canning, and that her Majesty's Government had permitted that treaty to be entered into. He wished, therefore, if the rumour was untrue, that her 'Majesty's Government would contradict it. instruc tions an Lord PALMERSTON said , as far as the infor ma ti on of the Government extended, they had no knowledged of any treaty having been betweenmadegi ve no Russia Turkey, and certainly they had to Sir Stratford Canning on the subject. AMERICAN POSTAL REGUL: LIONS. ...,- u — v isspAYlVlnswer to a question from Mr. IV. BROWN, PALMEttSTON stated that negotiations were between her Maj,sty's G o vernment and the • between ts„ Government relative to the postal regula- er...-7 — " — '‘ r fet•-_:* ~~~ ~'l~i' s"'"t 3 9 THE _STJN I LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, MAY 13, 1848. tions with the United States, and when they were con cluded, the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to explain the reasons for the course he was pursuing. METROPOLITAN INIPROVEMENTS. Ileman nodded assent, from which he (Mr. D'Eyn court) inferred that the Right Honourable Gentleman meant to contend that the Noble Marquis had not done anything which the law condemned, and that the Noble Marquis had only exercised his right as a landlord, and that by law he had a right to turn out his tenants, pro vided they did not vote according to his wishes. This question, however, he was happy to say was now brought torward neither as a matter of privilege nor as a com plaint in reference to the last return, but it was sub mitted to the House as a great constitutional question which ought to be determined on that ground alone.— (Hear, hear.) If the House refused to accede to the motion of his Honourable and Learned Friend, they would become parties to the transactions at Stamford, would mix themselves up with the conduct of the Noble Marquis, and give their assent to that which he believed to be one of the grossest violations of the constitution that could possibly be exhibited to the Legislature.— , (Hear.) Ile (Mr. D'Eyncourt) felt it his duty to come turward as a witness in support of the case suumitted by his Hon. and Learned Friend. He (Mr. D'Eyneourt) had been a candidate for the representation of Stamford in 1830, and, after a severe contest, be that year had lost his election by a minority of 20 votes. After that election the Noble Marquis in question gave notice to quit to no less than 37 tenants, who had gone against n r as n l3o e ( :u d ) trre t. e no t Br sa d3e streets. somesnsh. less e i d This a sh t ga e t ansui. m t sod h eut e nost s tft e 3 n presented proceeding o : the , hie 3 twei O tmoshei s: eni sfi e gr r , e had u u ar l d t n i t m tbu a ere t e el y nirreei into the a 1 .--- to (Hr' the e enhecatre'ir)s In f Stamford, when that noble-reitided constituency returned aim, though they knew he was favourable to the Reform Bill, which, us it then stood, would have annihilated their franchise. They, however returned him by a majority, and yet the petition now under consideration, ify some extraordinary omission, was silent as to the proceedings which f ol l owe d t h at e l ect i on i n 1831, when a 1 those wino had voted for him (Mr. IYE)ncourt), or who hid abstained from voting, or who hait voted against Lord Thomas Cecil—in tact, all who did not vote for both the nominees of the Noble Mat quis had neon evicted or si-rved with notice to quit. '1 his was repeated in 1832, and again, he learned, in 1848. If the present motion was rejected, it would efford a good argument for the Hon. Member for Montrose, when he wrought lot w,,rd his motion for the general amendment lit the law relating to the representation of the people. After the election of 1831, and when the reform Bill was under discussion, a large district, of which nineteen twentieths was the property or the Marquis of Exeter, was added to the berongh, the Ministry being bound by certain str;gent rules to increase the constituency, and by adding this district in conformity with those rules the borough had been wholly handed over to the Noble dieted that the time wo u ld come when it would be necessary to add twenty or thirty more bo rou g hs to Marquis. At that ti me he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had pre schedule A. But before this he (Mr. D'Eyecou rt ) held that the constituencies were entitled to protec tion in the exercise of their elective franchise; and a s the Noble Lord now at the head of the Government had been a party to carry out the stringent rules to which he (Mr. the Ref D'Eyncourt) bad alluded ia referenc e to in urn: Bill, he appealed to the Noble Lord to acquiesce the right to which they had a inquiry now prayed, as a means of atlordiee the electors of Stamford that protection demand at his hands. At all events he trusted the House would not hesitate to accede to the motion. The Marquis of GRANBY Said, he was anxious to take the earliest opportunity in his power of answe.ing the allegations contained in the petition, in order that the House might be enabled to come to a fair and proper conclusion upon the whole question. He did not com plain of the tone in which the motion had been opened, but he must complain that the Hon. and Learned Mem ber had not so tar assieted him (the Marquis of Granby) in his task as to have separated the wheat from the chaff comprised in this very lengthy petition, which contained so much matter of no importance that it was difficult to select its really important portions. The petition mentioned that the freedom of election in the borough of Stamford had been ob structed and interfered with by the Marquis of Exeter, who was the owner of a large property in the borough, a; considerable portion of which property was occu pied by persons who by reason of their tenancy were electors. The petition then added that the Marquis of Exeter intertered at el, ctions by authorising and sanc tioning promises to many of the electors that they shall occupy as his tenants eligible property belonging to him, provided they will vote for the candidates nominated and selected by him; and by authorising and sanctioning thr, ats to his tenants if they did not vote for such candi dates, and that he discharged from their tenancy thiese who voted in opposition to his views and wishes. With regard to the allegaiion that the Marquis of Exeter, as a Peer of Parliament, had intertered at tne late election, it sad been given up by the Hon. and Learned Member tor i oxford as a ground for moving for this Select Com eittee. In this respect the Honourable and Learned .Member had taken a correct view of the question becauee the resolution of the House against the inter erenee of a Peer at an election had never been put in :One, and never would be so utile! it was mede the few of the land.—(Hear, hear.) But he (the Marquis ,t Granby) rested the defence of the Marquis of Exeter en a different basis, and he contended that even if that iesolution was now law the Noble Marquis had nut vies aced it. He a emitted the allegation of the letition which stated that the Noble Marquis poss.'ssed extri .ale property in the borough of Siututord, arid he con i.ended that that property gave the Noble Mai quits a proper and a constitutional influence in the borough—mu todoence derived from a high power and noble source. he denied the next allegation, that the Marquis of Ex • i!ter had nominated or selected the candidates at the last election; and he also denied, on the best information, .hat the Noble Marquis had let his houses with the un derstanding or agreement that the tenants should vote in lecordence with his views and wishes. He also gave the 110 St positive contradiction to the assertion that promises had been made and threats used previous to the last elec tion.—(Hear.) The petition further alleged, that without ference to the Marquis of Exeter's opposition as aPeer, Sir ii:lNGLig, — puisuant to notice, wished to ask the First Commissioner of Woods and Forests in what state are the several improvements recom menled by her Majesty's Commissioners of Metropo litan Improvements in their successive reports. The improvements that had been recommended were these—an embankment from Westminster•bridge to Blacktriars (to effect which a Bill was introduced) ; an embankment on the upper part of the river from Vauxhall to Chelsea ; an improved commu nication between Pimlico and the west faint of Westminster Abbey, which would have led to the im provement of a part of the metropolis, that was ill drained and unhealthy; next the improvement of a portion of the metropolis immediately adjacent to the Eastern Counties Railway ; then the proposed park at Battersea. He wished to take this occasion to mention that the Duke of Bed ford had offered to give, 13,000/. towards eff-cting ins - pro . veasents in a particular lucidity. One rea-on of his asking these questions was on account of the injury which those who had property in these localities, which was stated would be required for the improvements, were stuttering from the delay that had taken place, as they could not let or dispose of it. ha l ;be d en A c i a () r i r t ied PE o l l ' i r t i stoaidththee u fu.st improvements extent powers of the Commissioners, and they were only now retarded in cons• quence of the Ceme sissto referred wiih in the to ners not having sufficient funds at their disposal to proceed with them as reniaiy as they could wi h adjourn till ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. The motion that the House at it rising Monday was then acre d to. , Mr. WOOD then moved tor the appointment of a the allegations .selectmmittee, to inquire into S l'A NI FORD EL ECTION. of .!ontainiid in the petitio n of certain elector; and Inhabitants which was pr. sente(34. up t r t in_ Le the interference of th f: 14t borough h day of Stamford. ch Mar iast, complaining of Ntsrquie of Exeter, e, Peer of the realm, and Lord. Lieutenant of the county of Northampton, at the late an d his regret that the earner eleerionti of Members to serve for the sale borough. He expressed • I d grievant, he petitioners complairied of my() ve charges against a person who was necessarily absent; but it would be borne in mind that his motion was for inquiry, and that alone, and it' in the course of his statement he assumed t he truth of any of the charges mad e i n t h e petition it mou ld be by way o: argument only, and for the purpose of founding the conclusion that if the case for inquiry • should be established and borne out by the evidetice it e c essary assured forby the the petitioners ou set that o apply ar e emd o xl in y : ra ittee were granted th e y cou ld establish their statement wouldHehu Lad been n by undoubted evidence. The petition emanated from one-third of the whole electoral body of Stamford, and was signed besides. by 183 non-electors. The petitioners dated the interference with the freedom of election in Stamford so far back as 1830. The number of voters in 1831 was 750; now it was only 595. Of these 190 were tenants of the Marquis of Exeter, 194 who had signed the original petition; leaving 211 out of 525 whoprayed that Alley should either be protected or disfranchised, declaring that this petition was not founded on party politics, and that they had no wish whatever to interfere with the rights of landlords. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman then read the petition, commenting on it as he. proceeded. It contained, amongst others, these statements:—That petitioners are all either on the register of voters for the borough of Stamford, or inha bitants of the said borough, and have a direct interest in the due influence of the elective franchise by those in whom it is vested. The freedom of election in the borough is obstructed and prevented by the interference of the Marquis of Exeter, who interferes by nominating and selecting candidates to be submitted to the electors; by authorising and sanctioning promises in. bis .name to many of the electors that they shall occupy, as tenants. property belonging to him in eligible situations in or near the said borough, provided they will vote for the candi- dates nominated and selected by him; by authorising and sanctioning threats in his name to many of the electors who are his tenants that they shall be discharged from such te. ) name • • if they do not so vote; and by fulfilling the promisee and threats so made in his name.. That the said Mar quis, by such his interference, influences votes, and pro cures them to be given contrary to the intentions and opinions of voters sufficient in number to control and decide the election, so that in fact the Members returned are the representatives of the atarquis, and not of the electors of the said berough. That such interference a violation of the undoubted right of the electors freels to elect Members to serve for them in Parliament, and amounts to systematic bribery and intimidation within ihe meaning an intent of the laws in force against them. That the said Marquis, by so interfering and concerning himself in the said elections; also contravened the re,o tutien of your Honourable House on that subj- ct, unit 'iss th- rehy infringed the liberties of the Commen t : of t h e United Kingdom. In verification of the fisregoing state tie et :he petitioners then state several facts as having iceurred at variiius elections in addition to which the', inubt not that they wilt tie able to adduce other facts circumstances tending to the sane conclusion, ti tiquiry bi- granted. That none of your petitioners trait. ut any mann, r to intertere with the rights of a land lord over his tenants, or to disturb what [tie said ILty gins has thought fit to do with his tenants. That they do no: complain of the ordinary influence which pro party givt a to its owners, and that if the election hats neen merely determined by the tenants of the said Mar quis voting of their own free will, in aecordance with !ne supposed opinions of their landlord, your petitioner: would not have complained of the result, but insist thst no electors ought to be subjected to such influence and coercion as is practised in the borough of Stamford by the Marquis of Exeter. That the elective franchise in the borough of Stamford is by reason of such interfe rence a burden upon a large number of the electors, who believe themselves under an obligation to vote according to their own views and opinions, and seriously prejudi• cial to their local and pecuniary interests; and the pre judice and loss so individually sustained by many of the electors is nct compensated by any public ad vantage, but, on the contrary, there results from the same interference the corruption of the public morals of the borough, as well as the entire defeat of the objects for which the said franchise has been conferred on the electors. That local questions requiring the assistance of Parliament sometimes arise in which the interests of the Marquis of Exeter and of the inhabitants of the said borough are opposed to each other, and in particular a question of that nature arose in the last session of Parliament in reference to a Bill prosecuted in Parliament for a railway to Stamford, which Bill was unanimously supported by the ,inhabi tants of the said borough, but was successfully opposed by the said Marquis, after he had failed in obtaining from the railway company a large price demanded Ii)- him for land required for the said railway•, and your petitioners and the inhabitants of the said borough be , lieved, and still believe, that the effect of the influence successfully exercised by the said Marquis in the return of the Members serving for the said borough was to place them (the inhabitants) in a worse position in Parliament than they would have been in if there had not been any Members serving in Parliament for the said borough ; and petitioners submit that this is an additional reason for preventina the said Marquis from controlling the return of Members for the borough, or for disfranchising the. borough altogether. That your petitioners, therefore, while they desire to leave the vin dication of the freedom of election and of the liberty of the Comnions of England to your Honourable House, by the adoption of such measures as to the House in its great wisdom shall seem fit, submit that it the grievances of which they complain cannot be otherwise redressed, the borough ought to be diefranchiied, and the elector., reliev.-d from the burden and lo:s to which many of their number are subjected by possession of the franchise. Your 'petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Honour isle House . to inquire into the truth of the statement• of this'tneir petition, and if the said statements shall b established, then that your Honourable House wilt adopt such resolutions, measures, and proceedings as shall in your judgment be necessary and ex pedient for maintaining the freedom and purity of election in the said borough, and for vindicating the liber ties of the Ciitrita'ins of England ; or if the right freely to elect thsir representatives cannot be secured to the -teeters of the said borough, then that your Honourable House will be pleased to relieve the electors from the burden of the elective franchise." Now, it these allega tions were true, they clearly showed that there had ei.en an invasion of that treedam of election whica would render it• impossible, if nut corrected, to suffer that borough to send a representative to that House. If they could' not find a remedy one way, they ought another. The intimidation complained of could be prevented by the ballot !"tally applied.—(Loud cheers) But tile re was another alternative—if they could not protect their electors —and that was to disfranchise them —(Cries of •• (dear, hear.") The right of slection in the borough was at present only a mockery, a delu-ion, and a ar, hear)—and if left in that condition the petitioners claimed, as far preferable, to be wholly dis franchised. H e conceived the present to be a most favourable moment for entering upon the inquiry sought. Certainly the present was not a time to refuse inquiry into the purity and independence of the returns of Mem bers of Parliament. Oa public grounds he felt the deepest interest in the success of his motion, for his con scientious belief was, that the true Conservative view of this matter was to institute an inquiry with a view to remedy the „grievance of which the petitioners c oal s Plained, and, by preventing a recurrence of this formid able.system of corruption and intimidation, add further to the felicity and prosperity of the empire. The Hon. and :Learned Gentleman concluded by moving that a Select Committee be appointed, to inquire into the alle gations contained in the petition of certain electors and inhabitants of the borough of Stamford, complaining of the interference of the Marquis of Exeter, a Peer of the realm and Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Northamp ton, at the late and former elections of Members to serve for the said borough. his interterence was a violation of thi; undoubted right of the electors freely to elect Members to serve them in Parliament, and amounted to the systematic bribery and intimidation of the electors by him, within the meaning And intent of the laws in force against bribery and iriti • inidation. If this were so, why aid not the petitioners adopt the constitutional, manly, and straightforward course of petitioning against the return of the sitting Members? No doubt there had been wise and prudent considerations which had prevented the adoption of that course; no doubt they remembered that recognizances . to answer costs must be entered into, and no doubt they had before their eyes the words " frivolous and vela tions."—(Elear, hear.) It had been said that the e leated candidate, Mr. Rolt, was either unable or unwil ling to bear the costs of an election petition; but wi4e tiler that was or was not the case, the electors, under the Act' of 1842, carried by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, might have come by petition against the return. He would not refer to the previous elections, but proceed at once ;to that which he conceived to be the principal charge made against Lord Exeter. That charge was, that at the hist election 27 tenants of the Noble Marquis, ar.d the son lof another tenant, promoted the election of Mr. Rolt, either by voting for him alone, or for him and one of the other candidates, or by abstaining from voting at all; and that since the election, and previous to the tOilowing quarter day, discharges or notices to quit had been served the authority of the Noble Marquis on 22 out of the 27 tenants in question, while no other general change liad been made on the tenancy of the Noble MarquiS'a property.—(Elear, hear.) It was further stated that neof the 22 tenants waited personally on the Marquis and explained that he had voted for Mr. It by mis take, in consequence of the contusion which prevailed in the polline: booth, and that the Noble Marquis replied that he did not believe iu the mistake, and that he should not allow the notice to be withdrawn. Now, for the sake of argument, he would suppoie this a lle g ation to be strictly and entirely well-founded, and he would ask the [louse if it was in their power to in eriere if he showed that there had been no threats, promises, agreements, or intimidation, previous to the election. Ihe petitioners themselves negatived such a notion, ler they dechred they had no desire in any way to intertere with the rights of a Landlord over his tenants. But the facts set forth were greatly exaggerated. In_ Lead of 28 etectors who voted tor Mr. Holt, the number ,va4 29 ; and instead of 22 having received notice to quit, the number was only 14.—(t -- liar, and a laugh.) tie wirhed to state the facts as they really existed. ['here we re two tenants who had received notices though they had voted for him (the Marquis of Granby) and his Right Hun. Friend (air kl• rries), and there were 13 who had voted for Mr. Bolt, who had not been served with anynotice whetever.—(Hear.) Other tenants who had co votes had received novice to quit, and of the 14 already alluded to, two had been allowed to remain, so that only 12 who voted fur Mr. Rolt had been disturbed in their holdings. It had been stated that the Marquis of Exeter was making Stamford one mass of political corruption. Now, if the Noble Marquis wist‘ed to make votes in the borough, he could easily do so, for there were no less than twenty-seven houses which would give the qualification in the borough occupied by females, who could not vote, and who might, if desired by the Noble Marquis, be removed to make way for tenants who could exercise the elective franchise.— (Hear, hear.) But there was, it had been said, one case of great hardship, that of the tenant who obtained the personal interview with the Noble Marquis, and who stated that he had voted by mistake for Mr. Bolt. That man had, for a great number of years, been employed by the Noble Marquis as an artificer at Burleigh, at, th e wages of ss. per day. He had received innumerable f ß av u o: e r i s o fr e o o m mng t i he Noble Marquis, and, among others, had received, in common with the other artificers, a hand some money present on the occasion of the present Lard of age. This man voted against him (the Marquis of Granby) and his Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Herries), and it was true the Marquis of Exeter tAt the ingratitude of the man's conduct.—(Hear, hear.) But it was not true that the Noble Marquis had deprived the man of his residence; on the contrary, he remained a tenant, though his rent had been increased from 30s. to 40s. a year ; and all that the Noble Marquis said to him at the interview was, " You had a right, of course, to vote as you pleased, but I do not believe that you voted in a mistake as you state." Such was the case of grievous hardship which was put forth in this peti tion. He regretted that the Hon. and Learned Member should have allied himself to this petition, the object of which was to prevent property having its due influence, and virtual receiving its just reward.—(Hear, and laughter.) He believed the Hon. and Learned Member had merely taken up this foundling petition in order to hang the ballot-box about its neck; but he was sure the people ijnati ofon against this count r y the b a ll ot, tli were withinand d by habit, wtohueldig iit na t ure,preferin f votingan dth their ininr e the face 01 day a fell.iw-coun!rywen. —(11 a r, hear .) l.:iit the wi . a I . pun the Honourable and Learned Member had ' taken up cut two ways, for the petitioners did not declaim for the ballot, but for a re 3 trietion of the Mr. D'EYNCOIi RT rose to second the motion, the constitutional grounds for which had his full and entire concurrence. The petitioners sought to vindicate . their right to select their own representatives, which, time out of mind, had been interfered with, until he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had been elected in the year 1831. He had been the only real representative for that borough; fur the Noble Lord (the Marquis of Granby) and the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herries) must excuse him if he said that they held their seats as the represen- tatives of the Noble Marquis, whose interference was im pugned and called into question by the allegations con tained in this petition, and not as the choice of those high.ninded individuals of Stamford who had , ient him here in 1831. Would rte Right Hun. G , ntleman deny the facts as statvd, fur upon them rested the whole case? Did he mean to defend the course taken by the Noble Marquis? The Right Honourable Gen- , franchise, inasmuch as they wished to be relieved from - fectly true; but what a slur would it not be on the cha- 1 its burthen. But it might be asked how this petition ratter of the Marquis of Exeter if he had not influence I had originated. He thought he could answer that in- in the borough.—(Hear, hear.) He recollected a por quiry. The last election had been a severe combat, and tion of the speech which the Noble Lord opposite made by some means or other these oppressed, landlord-ridden on the question of the Reform Bill which he had heard electors placed Mr. Rdt nn the poll within 48 ef his with pleasure, and he begged to read it to the House. (the Marquis of Granby's) Right Hon. Friend (Mr. The Noble Lord used the following language :—" It Herries). They had nearly reached the pinnacle of may be said that one great and injurious effect of the their ambition; the prize seemed within their grasp; measure which I propose will be, that it will destroy and it must have been a severe mortification and trial the power and privileges of the aristocracy. This I of their philosophy and temper to have been defeated at deny. I utterly deny that thie plan can have any the last moment. Hence, the temptation to revenge such effect wherever the aristocraey reside, receive was strong. Another allegation of the petition threw large incomes, perform the important duty of reliev further light on their motives—he alluded to that re- ing the poor by charity, and evince public worth lating to the railway Bill. Lord Exeter had withdrawn and private virtue. It was not in human nature his opposition to the London and York line, on their that they should not have great influence on public undertaking to make a branch to Stamford ; in the opinion, and have at least equal weight with tethers next year, 1846, the Syston and Peterborough line in electing persons to serve the country in Parliament. proposed a branch to Stamford, which the inhabi- Though such may not have the direct nomination of tants approved, and which had since been constructed. persons under this Bill, I contend they will have etieh and opened. There was next proposed an ainalga- influence as they ought to have."—(Near, hear.) That mati"n between the Syston and Peterborough, and the was the nature of the influence exercised by the Mar- London and York, which bad been defeated, on public quis of Exeter, and it would be little to the credit of his grounds, by Lord Exeter and other landowners con- character if he did not possess it.—(Hear, hear.) The cerned. Hence another ground of hostility against the Right. Hon. Baronet the Member for Taenworth, in Marquis. A great majority of the inhabitants acknow- 1846, declared also that Peers ought to exercise a legi ledged the benefits he had conferred on the borough ; timate influence in the return of members to Parliament, hut a ' discontenttd minority had chosen this mode of and that it could not be extinguished in fact.—(Hear, expressing their feelings. The shafts aimed at Lord hear.) He also said that the less Peers attempted to Exeter would fall harmless; but if the House eneeuraetel exercise their direct influence the more anxious would such petitions as these, no Hon. Member, however un- theil tenants be to consult their wishes. Such was the tarnished his character, would be safe ; and it might secret of the Marquis of Exeter's influence. Because a happen that not being so independent in position as particular party had been defeated at atansford it was Lord Exeter, he might suffer an irremediable wound.— not fair to attribute that defeat to undue iiefluence. Ile • (Loud cheer: from the Protectionists.) hoped the House, fur the reasons he had stated, would Mr. COCKBURN said that the Noble Lord had in not listen to unfair arid unfounded statements, and that effect admitted nearly all the charges made against Lord they would reject the motion of the Hon. and Learned Exeter ; the remark that Hon. Members less powerful Member.—(Cheers.) m ight be subjected to similar attacks, was wholly Mr. HUME rose amidst cries of " Divide, divide." irrelevant. How could the Noble Lord, admitting He would admit that the Right Hon. Gentleman who twelve charges out of the twenty-two to be true, de- had just sat down made the best apology he could by nour:ce the petition as false ?—(Cheers.) I t was per - b r i ng i ng forwar d matters w hi c h were not ca ll e d i n ques feetly idle to deny that the main allegations of the pets- tion. The Right Hon. Gentleman spoke if the large tion were made out; in fact, they all ought to be taken possessions of the Marquis of Exeter and his excellent Noble L or d wou ld d ou b t l ess state c h aracter . N o ex p ression h a d f a ll en f rom an y o f th e not beli e ve t o be true ' ; h ut w h ere G ent l emen on hi s si d e o f th e H ouse w h o h a d s p o ken on ?—(Hear, hear.) Th e N o bl e L or d t hi s su bj ec t aga i ns t t h e c h arac t er o f th a t N o bl e man. asserted nothing b se e r theid s established.that which authority he many did of e f the allegations were unimportant; They did not object to the legitimate influence which but this was not the case. He had read the very first belonged to great property and high station. What allegation, but had not ventured to deny it, though no they c mplained of was the exercise of illegitimate and man in the House could be more capable of doing so it improper interference.—(Hear.) He confessed he had it were really untrue. As to the agreements with never heard a clearer and more convincing statement tenants, the stewards would of course not act so absurdly than that of his Hon. Friend. It appeared to him that, as to attempt to bind the electors by agreements which if all the allegations of the petition were not proved to would be invalid on the face of them ; but who could be true, the statements made were such as required to doubt that the tenantry perfectly well understood that be investigated. The Right Hon. Gentleman had con they must vote for Lord Exeter's nominee, whoever he tented himself with reading letters which had little to do might be ?—(Cheers.) All the petitioners asked was with the question, whilst he eluded any response to the inquiry ; and the House would surely not refuse it be- charges which had been made. cause th e friends of the parties charged denied some of Mr. G. BERKELEY said that he would not shrink the allegations. The gravamen of the defence was that from doing his duty, which was, to inquire into what this was not the proper cour:,e of proceeding ; but he was dune by a Peer in respect to a county election denied that the petitioners could have had recourse to an before he looked at the conduct of a Peer in a borough ordinary election petition ; for neither the sitting Mem- election.—(A laugh.) He had presented two petitions to bers nor their agents were affected by the matters charged, the Crown, complaining of the Lord Lieutenant of a hut the Marquis of Exeter alone. Then it was said they county. In every such case the rule had been to insti might have proceeded under the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, tote an inquiry ; but in the case to which he alluded against bribery and corruption ; but he much doubted no notice was taken of his petitions. lie was instructed whether the conduct of Lord Exeter could have been to say, that had any magistrate done what the Lord brought ender that Act, which had no reference at all Lieutenant had done he would have been removed from to intimidation. It was must important that the con- the commission of the peace ; and if he hsd been an duet of the Marquis should be token into consideration officer in her Majesty's service he would have lost hi, ever since 1830, from which period the allegations o f t h e comm i ss i on. Al t h oug h h e s h ou ld vo t e f or th e i n q u i r y petition dated. Nothing could be more clearly estab- into the conduct of the Marquis of Exeter, he must say lished than that the notices served on certain tenants had that he thought the Government was not justified in • been given in consequence of their votes at the election; refusing to a county that which they were prepared to this was abundantly proved by the Marquis's own con- grant to 'a borough. versation with the man who alleged that he had given Sir R.INGt4IS reminded the House that they were nut his vote in a hurry and by mistake. Then the case of deciding upon the conduct of Lot d Fitzhardinge, but upon the artificer, who had received 251. on Lord Burleigh a very different question; and he hoped they were pre coming of age, and had actually voted against the pared to do justice to the Marquis of Exeter by their vote s. Marquis's nominee, was a strong proof of the real reason Let him ask any Member pi esent i f there had been one of ihe why he had been ej,cted. It was perfectly monstrous principal allegations of the petition sustained during that such a person should be considered bound for ever the debate of that, evening ? Was there the slightest to his Lordship's interest----(Cheers.) If this petition proof oils-red that the tenants of the Marquis of Exete r were true, could it be doubted that in repeated instances were compelled to enter into a stipulation to vote ac the rights and privileges of this House had been violated; cording to his wishes, or to lose their holdings ? He and if so, could inquiry be refused?—(Hear.) There hoped sincerely that the House was prepared to reject was no wrong without ii remedy, and the House would tee proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member for doubtless find one in this case. It was incumbent on the Oxford. House to institute a searching inquiry, and to see that Lord J. RUSSELL said he felt it right to state the justice was done in the matter.—(Uheers.) reasons which governed his vote on the present occasion. Mr. HERRIES thought the Hon. and Learned Gentle- He had made up his mind on the subject, not without man who last spoke had lost sight of' the real question considerable doubts. He should therefore vote in con before the House. It might be viewed under three as formity to the opinion which he had formed, af.d he by pects. The first was the position in which the petitioners no me ans wished to influence the vote ot any utter Lion. stood, from which he contended that they had not este- Member. The question had been brought before the hlished any right to inquiry. Next he should maintain House upon a petition very artfully drawn, and entering that the allegations were false; and this being so, that into minute details and reasonings, the petitioners stating the House could not do otherwise than reject the prayer that they had no wish to interfere with the just right, of the petitioners. Assuming for the moment that all or influence of property, and asking for the remedy the:allegations were true, he would consider the late which they sought in language of great moderation. election apart from all the preceding ones, which had The case had been ably stated and argued by the been merely thrown in as a make weight; for it was a b. HAI. and Learned Member fur Oxford. The question surel to suppose that the House should inquire into the was, whether any sufficient reasons had been stated to election proceedings of 1830, 31, and 32.—(Hear.) But induce the House to grant an inquiry. The Right Hon. it was distinctly alleged that at the very last election, Gentleman opposite (Mr. Herress) had in the most the Noble Marquis had entered into engagements, and Powerful manner met and rebutted the allegations con• had afterwards fulfilled those engagements made in his tained in the petition, and had stated very forcibly the name, and hasi thus been guilty, as a Peer of Parliament, reasons for not going into an inquiry. The Right Hon. ,sf interference with the election whereby the rights ot Gentleman bad met the allegations on two grounds— the electors had been violated, and the Noble first, as to their truth; and ; secondly, us to the main Lord had rendered himself obnoxious to the facts upon which they turned. The impression which penalties attaching to bribery and intimidation. he (Lord John Russell) had formed, as we'll from the Bat if the petitioners supposed they coul I sub statement of the case as from precedents which stantiate this allegation, why had they not brought he found in the books was, that supposing the :he matter before the Rouse, under the laws recently Marquis of Exeter's tenants in some instances under passed, which it was perfectly competent for them to do? stood they were to vote fur his nominee, and afterward', Where distinct acts of bribery were proveable, they were ejected for not having so voted—if these acts could might clearly be inquired into by an election Committee, not be clearly and indisputably shown to have affected Bee-ides, the Act of Lord John Russell. of 1842, speci- the majority of the voters, there was no remedy to be fically provided for cases where it might be difficult to had against the Marquis before the Elec.ion Committee. prosecute an election petition, and allowed parties, with• But the House was asked to institute an inquiry in a reasonable time, to prefer charges of bribery before into the allegations of the petition. The first of a Committee appointed in the Act prescribed, with those allegations was, that it was the practice to give power to investigate the whole matter of complaint, the tenants of the Marquis of Exeter advantageous But this Aet required recognizances to be given by the holdings, which they were deprived of unless they voted petitioners, and exposed them to the punishment for per. according to his wishes. Now, the Right Honourable jury, if it were committed.—(Hear.) It might be sup- Gentleman opposite had read a letter from the agent of posed that the parties in this case had not been ready to the Marquis of Exeter, denying that any such under proceed in time under either of these methods, but it standing or arrangement existed. And it' he (Lord J. was capable of proof that this petition was actually pre- Russell) were called upon to state his belief in the pared before the meeting of Parliament. The principal matter, it was that he did not think such a statement petitioner was the proprietor of a news p a p er , an d i n could have been made if it was not true. He, therefore, that paper he announced, eight day s b e f ore th e mee ting could not believe that any such restrictions were placed of Parliament, that such a petition was in preparation, upon the tenants of the Marquis of Exeter. At the and that the allegations were such that the sew Parlia- same time the petition stated such to be the fact, and the went could not refuse to inquire into them. If so, why allegations were respectably signed, so that he did come did they not demand such inquiry from the new Parlitt to the conclusion that there would result some advan wentxet ir ?—why shrink from th e o r d ea l which themselves cage from going into an inquiry, and from satisfying the public mind that this allegation was not true. An(; had proposed ?—(Hear.) l clearly a right to expect that this Marqu ishispe tition, o i l f . foundedEer had Cher allegation of the petition, which had not been su fact, as they alleged, should have been presented imme- satisfactorily rebutted as the first, was that certain diately on the assembling of the new House. The l aw tenants had been deprived of their holdings in conse• having made distinct provision for dealing with matt ers quence of the votes they had given. Certain it was that of this kind it was necessary that petitioners should notices t o q u it hal been served on some of the tenants avail themselves of such provision. Was it not evident of the Marquis of Exeter, and they had afterwards been that these petitioners had not dared to do so?—(Hear, carried into eflnt. The Noble Marquis opposite hear.) Were the House now to grant an inquiry, they (Granby) had not satisfied him (Lord J. Russell) that. would open the door to a perpetual renewal of thes e this proceeding had not been adopted towards the irritating topics. Parties, either to cure their own ladies, tenantry. But the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite (Ate or knowing the rotteness of their cause, would continually Herries), had explained that the results of' the sever-el be demanding inquiries of this kind. He held this argte years past would show that removals of tenants had moult to be quite conclusive against the appointment of taken place, and the removals of 1847 had not exceeded the Committee now asked for. Let the House stand by in number those of former years. So that if it could be its own law, its own decision, its own character.— shown that no greater number of removals had taken (Cheers.) On these grounds—not for the sake of the Place than formerly, and that those removals differed in Marquis of Exeter, but for the sake of honesty and uo respect from the character of former removals, the truth—he contended that no inquiry could now take proceeding could not be blamed, nor could the right to place. But justice both to the Noble Lord who was ac- act thus be contested. If the resolution of the House cused, and to the majority of the electors who were to nominate a Committee of inquiry was to be construed charged with corruption equally with the Noble Marquis into ahem paesed upon tne Marquis of Exeter, himself, required him to declare that this minority had then wouid not vote for it, for the explana. no right whatever to make these charges, which were Lion theot Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had con destitute of foundatiou.—(licar, hear.) The first and vinced him that the allegations of the petition could not most prominent part of the charge was, that the Noble be ared to havesustained as against x ga e in e st r dne Marquis of E xeter , f or h e Marquis was in the habit of making engagements with aPee which he was fairly ..ed n It this allegati on wag other influence than that his tenants to vote as he wished them. There was not a toentitled. proved on inquiry to be false, the pulefic mind would also word of truth in this. He denied that there was even be lr, satisfied. t, on the contrary, it was sustained, then very understanding of the kind; and he denied it on the the House would be justified in having gone ' . very best authority, that of the person who actually let quiry. On. the whole, he had come to the intoeithe cien usion, the Marquis ' s property to his 600 tenants in the borough that as the allegations containedthe of Stamford. The person employed by the Marquis of respectably vouched for by the signatures of the parties, Exeter to let the lands, without any communication from it was right to institute an inquiry into them, rather him, wrote a letter, which afforded the most explicit re of the charge which had been made. That g e n by a vote of that House to decide th a t no furth than • ceedings should be taken in the matter, The further pro • Marquis of tleman stated, that neither he himself, nor any person hi t Exeer himself would derive much more advantage • . rho House were from to return a ver di ct under his direction, had asked any tenant of the Marqu is l b. the inquiry , than of Exeter to vote for the Marquis of Granby and / , without havie made any examination ' g . into the facts ilerries at the late election. As a proof of that, he re alleged, Such being the impression which he enter wavering. fused to interfere with a voter who was supposed to be. though notwithout • • el ' tamed, he should , wavering. although the father of the voter asked him to vote in favour of the inquiry. doubts, use his influence with him. With regard to the_ holding ee Mr. BANKES had heard witn deep regret the speech out of threats against the vote . rshesa n t e d t t h h e a w t hh(e)leb ofli believed Mr. and the declaration of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord no such thing ever occur Tell• and had stated the doubt and difficulty which he entertained Exeter in Stamford passed property of the Marquis orespecting the allegations contained in the petition, and s able to give a denial to the through his hands, be was was imposed upon the Yet he had determined upon proceeding into an inquiry, allegation that any condition for the favourite of the there not being a single precedent to justify him in tenants, that they should taking such a step. The question which the Committee hear.) That was the letter Marquis of Exeter.—(fleet , the Marquis of Exeter; and would have to determine was relative_ to a railway Bill of Mr. Higgs, the agent of and an election petition. The village Hampden who emphatic or distinct enial he did not think that a more had brought the question forward, having been defeated contained in the peti could be given to the allegations the influence the in his railway schemes and in his electioneering attempts Marquis had tion.—(Elear, bear.) If —ehad resorted to the present mode of attacking his sue toit extent alleged, was natural Marquis of Exeter to the cessful opponent. There was only one previous • it to those have stated suppose that he would the Now, it of such a course having been attempted, a d then during p election. so a the were in his confidence addressed at his instance, op one to the Mayor of Stamford, of the House was clearly against it ; th at was the happened that two letters were;o rd who was a Liberal, case of the Newark petition. If they combined with 'of his committee, but their new Bill for inquiry by a roving co • mmission into and the other to the chairm an wasintended for the all cases of alleged corruption, an inquiry su c h as was by mistake the letter whi ch and the letter now proposed, they would be taking his chairman,__ a course unpre mayor, was sent tocd tdandendwhich was sent to the mayor— een e , the of could not be predicted, intended for his chairman not the least allusion Sir R. PEEL concurred with the Noble . Lord that this (Laughter)—but there was • fluence in that letter , question involved judicial aswell to the Marquis of Exeter's influence that the threats t •and in - approaching • as political considera. ions, -(Elear, hear.) It was 9 • ection were afterwards elude all bias which might in • that were held out before the el any way interfere with a ow did the fact stand? judicial determination (Hear.) But it was because visited on the tenants. Now, .11. sed. of these, the question did • '— There were twenty nine persons dismis sup tried becauseh was involve jndicial considerations—that was twelve only had voted against candidatestheenut blind to the passing events to which voted for them, two the Noble Lord by the Marquis of Exeter, two bad had alluded, end to the temper of the thirteen were not public mind, had not voted, and the remainingthought the wisest and the state of the facts, the safest voters at all. It was not fair, on course would be not to permit themselves to be Marquis of ' to draw an inference injurious to the fair or candid Exeter.man involved in these temporary and transitory considers —(Hear, hear.) He believed that no thesepersons [ions; but that they should rather adhere to that prin would draw the inference from them that ciple which whit applicable to all times and all circum were- of Exeter because they stances, dismissed by the Marquis lt was of the utmost importance that the e was supposed to favour. House should decide the mode b y which• voted against the candidates h • of the twenty-nine • when it appeared that seventeen out th at House In was to be regulated. They had had charge cou:d not ample ex eri , • p et.ce in the history of the past—he were persons in whose regard theh d stated was the apply at alt —( Hear .) What he h • might say of the corru p t i on w hi c h re s ult e d from fact, and it would not support the inference [of undue permitting these matters to be decided by majorities influence and intimidation whic h was sought to be drawn of th e H o use in each case.—(Hear.) It was more than decision from it. He should like to know to what a 100 years since the administration of Sir R. Walpole, • facts. He Select Committee could come upon these found to bethe whose fall was produced by the constant conflicts which believed that an arrear of rent would be ,____ , arose on the right to sit in Parliament; the decisions cause of the disobey.. in most of these ins t t i a t 7 . e p s. ,,nd fhere.- upon disputed returns being then . taken, .not on the se as one truth, ut:i only tot' 'T . " l '' c " . '" h ''l l . 7 ier Lend that ri! ,, r;: s (.f tii,V;.l;:cii , )11, but mild, ,übjc?t.ti ()I pa- ty coo- A 213 the statement that the ,:i.tiquis ui O:, great fist ire 1' , 41 li awelit, ill Whkil coeh par - , , y' w:Ls r,,,i1,;,;:l au- of Stamford, and that Icording to his party feelings. The vote which at length : possessions in the neighbourho od h. That Was he had great in fl uence in the boron per- determined the fall of that Mi n i ster was ini , the question of the right to sit for a small borough—he believed Lich field. The House at length became convinced of the danger of allowing these questions to be determined by mere party considerations ; and Mr. Gtenville, some twenty or thirty years afterwards, brought in a Bill to rut an end to the system; and since that time the con stant object had been to adopt precautions to prevent the judgment of the House being influenced by party and political considerations on such questions; and no o ne had laboured more earnestly or more successfully to elevate the character of Parliament in this respect than the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) The question then was, whe ther the tribunal appointed by Act of Parliament, and which they had invested with powers which, without an Act of Parliament, would be unconstitutional, sheuld be superseded by a vote of the House. Aeribenal had peen appointed to adjudicate on all such matters, with full judicial powers to examine into alleged abuses, aid in order to take precautions against groundl ss c mplaints the partii s complaining wi re required te give a guaran tee of their sincerity. He could conceive nothing of more importance than that Members of Parliament should be allowed to exercise their functions free from the threats of molestation on the ground of aueh accu• sations ; and surely if there were any party to whom the exercise of those functions free from such molesta tion was more impbrtant, it was to the ininurity.— (Hear, hear.) At the same time he admitted that it any special or peculiar case was shown they were not to be precluded by the existing law from perfiiimieg those functions which the House, as a great tribunal of the country, had a right to exercise. —(Hear.) But what did the petitioners allege in this case ? The allegations of bribery in distinct terms. And, further, it was al let ed that the interference of the Marquis of Exeter with the undoubted right of the borough to elect Members to serve in Parliament was such as to amount to systematic bribery anti intimidation of the electors within the meaning and intent of ihe laws against bri bery.—(Hear, hear.) This was not a mere general alle gation, for the petitioners stated that the Marquis gave promises to certain electors that they should occupy certain eligible holdings provided that they voted fur his candidates. These were the material allegations, and, according to the decision of the Committee in Mr. Att v.teod's case, this amounted to bribery.—(Hear, hear.) But why did not the petitioners observe the law them selves, and resort to the tribunals to prosecute their cases. And as they had not done so, was there no danger, if they were now permitted to bring on the case in the way proposed, and escape from the guaramees which were required in all other cases, that the Acts of Lord Grenville and the Noble Lord (J. Russell) would be superseded ; and that instead of a judicial tribunal they would again have these questions decided by majorities of the House, with the accompanying evils orparty confltct and injustice? He might be told that the parties were pour; and that having laboured under this grievance foe a long time, MA having the means of appealing to the ordinary tribunals, they now came to Parliament to relieve them. But Par liament had even provided for that in the Noble Luru's Bill itr 1542. A clause in that Bill provided that if a petition alleging general bribery at any election was presented within three months atter the alleged acts of bribery had taken place, the House might entertain the petition, and appoint a Committee to investigate with all the powers of an ordinary Election Committee; and that if the Committees should report that there was rea soneble and probable ground for the allegations of the petition, they might order the Costs to be borne, as in the case of a Committee appointed on any public matter, by the House. The House then had taken every pre caution to ensure a full investigation. Why then had not these petitioners who alleged systematic briber) taken advantage of the Act of Parliament, and prose cuted it under the clause he had referred to? lie dis carded all considerations but those of a judicial charac ter ; but feeling strongly the danger of great public inconvenience resulting from a d, parture iron, the principle they had in all such eases of late years adhered to, and teaching parties to believe that they were free from the stringent conditions Parliament had laid down on persons rnakiug charges of this nature—feel ing that the House, if it agreed to this motion, would hi at ones undertaking, not in its judicial, but in its politi cal capacity, the teak of deciding upon the election of its own lealbere—he should vote against setting an ex ample which might be attended with dangerous comae queoces.—(Hear.) Mt. W. P. WOOD regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet, without entering into the allegations, except as to one point, should have th.ternained to vote against the motion. Ttie question was not as to the right of any Member to sit se that House, but whether the Marquis of Exeter or the inhabitants of Stamford were to return tee two Members for that borou g h. With regard to what the Bight Hon. Baronet had said as to the peti toning on the ground of , bribery, there was no case for such a petition here, for the parties complained against were neither the candidates nor their agents. Again, with regard to the right oi petition, within three mouths, in those instances where persons had been placed in possession of eligible holdings, on the understanding that they were to vote for the Marquis of Exeter's candidates, it was well known they must have occupied the holding twelve months beture the election, or tney could not have voted. Where, then, was the remedy ? A petition on the ground of bribery was out of tee question. Again, in no ease did the Act provide for the ease of a landlord who said to his tenant, "If you don't vote for my candidate you shall be expelled from your occupation." That was not bribery—it was a species of intimidation for which the 1 At , provided no remedy. Yet that was the allega tion on which almost the whole of the petition turned. The admission made by the Right Baronet the Member ior Stamford and the Noble Marquis proved his (Mr. Wood's) case. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Stamford a witted that fourteen electors had been ejected. but by a sort of inferential circumlocution insinuated , that, having been ejected with others, they might have been ejected for different reasons. It would have been much more satisfactory if the Right Hon. Baronet had been able to declare positively that they had not been ejected on account of their having voted for particular candidates.—(Cheers.) Upon that broad fact alone he con• sidered that the petitioners had made out a case fur inquiry. —(Hear, hear.) It had also been insinuated that the mover and seconder of this motion had been concerned in the drawing or the petition. It was just possible it had been drawn under legal advice, but if so, it did not say much fur the legal ability of those charged with that duty. Ho could only say for himself that he had never heard of the petition until a day or two before it was placed in his hands, and he believed the,. the Hun. Seconder had never known of it until shown tt.. him by him (Mr. Wood). nighty as he might think of a Nobleman against whom, he admitted, no case had been established in proof, he must nevertheless chain, more for the petitioners than what, the Noble Marquis seemed willing to accord to them, whets he stated that they did not themselv,s believe what they stated. He conceived that the petitioners were as fully entitled to credit as the Noble Marquis.—(Hear, hear.) The only way to decide the question was by having it investigated, and he con fesaeti be should have thought that every friend of tin Noble marquis would have been the foremost to support a motion fur inquiry, that be might, it in his power, dis prove the allegations made against him.—(Ch.:ers). The house — dtvided, when there appeared— Fur the motion ••• ••• ..• 178 Againit it ... ••• ••• ... 177 ••• ••• ... —1 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. Lord MORPE ru said he would go ou with the Public Health Bill ou Monday. alter the stateteuut of hi. Rigiti lion. Friend upon the Navigation Laws. Lord J. RUSSELL said it was only intended to sub mit the resolutions on the Navigation La,ws on Aliadal, and postpone their further consideration till Friday. Mr. LABOLICHERE said that the resolutions would be framed so generally as hot to commit any 1.1.t..n. Mein ber beyond this—that it was fitting to amend the Navi gatiim Laws; but a Bill would be subsequently' propo,ed and circulat.•d, that the country might understand the nature of the measure. Mr. HENLEY ci,nsidered that in submitting his reso • lutions the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite should at li wit give an outiine of what he proposed to do. It would not he fair for the Right Hon. Gentleman to make a s peech, and then to leave his speech, unanswered at the time, to produce an ex parte effect upon the country. Sir R. H. INGLIS suggested that the Right Hon. Gentleman could lay his resolution on the table without any speech. Lord J. RUSSELL could not assent to so unusual a course. Alderman TUOMPSON quite concurred in the pro priety of the suggestion thrown out by the lion. Baronet oppotitte. Mr. WAWN thought that further inquiry was neces sary, the inquiry betore the former Committee having been prematurely closed. Mr. HUME denied that the labours of that Committee had been abruptly concluded. Their investigation had been of the most complete and searching nature. Mr. M. GIBSON fully corroborated the statement that the inquiries of the Navigation Committee had been of the fullest character. Mr. NEWDEGATE was of opinion that this impor tant subject should not be unduly hurried forward. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that he was ready to make the arrangement that, after stating his resolutions on Monday, the further consideration of them should be postponed until the following Monday. Mr. S MARTI said he believed that the Govern ment did not themselves know what the measure was to be, or why did they not give an outline of it? Sir G. GREY asked, did the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman want to have a discussion on the subject forth with? Captain HARRIS said that there had not been suffi cient inquiry by the, House of Commons into the ques tion how far the navy was manned from our commercial marine. He had reasons to know that two-fifths were derived from this source. He called upon the Govern ment not to proceed with this subject till they had before them the report of the Lords' Committee on the subject. Mr. BIUGHT sail that the Navigation Committee of that House had most laboriously examined into the subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER urged the House to adopt the mode proposEd 0y his Right Hon. Friend, and to abandon the altogether irregular and most desultory discussion in which they were then engaged. Alter a few words from Mr. WAWN, which did not reach us, Mr. RICARDO defended the proceedings of the Com mittee, which he contended had been conducted with perfect fairness on the part of Hon. Members on the c.ppo site side of the Ilonse. The Committee had most assidu ously prosecuted a laborious inquiry, and on no day un til the last of their meeting had they been unable to make a (1 . 1.9 . 1 111 . 1k delt!i.d t thu C• e had brtailiht .• •• , •1,.1t booed to do t. 141i lsi4ll4li . L.l. 114, CiAle aliilol to mislead the House. Mr. HUDSON was still of opinion that the Committee had been broken Up in a manner neither satisfactoil themselves nor to the House. Att.'. a short deeultory conversation 038 mat ter chopped. Lord G. BENTINCK inquired whether the Riiht Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would have any objection to permit the resolutions .10 intended to move on Monday to be printed with the votes? Such a course would give Hon. Members ft l . notice of the matters they would on Monday discuss. Mr. LABOUCHERE said he would consider the proposal of the Noble Lord, but could not at preseni pledge himself to its adoption., sl On the motion of Mr..LABOUCHERE. the forto ba . re 'w resnution that the House would. on Monday neat' re. solve itself into Committee of the whole House,. , or the P"P",e of taking into consideration th e navigatTill laws. was then agreed to, and the House adjourned a Quarter past T., (Ave. o'clo,:k. RAILWAY COMMITTEES• GIWUI SOUTH YORKSiiIHE, DONCASTER, AO GOOLE. Mr. Blackstone in the chair. The object of this Bill is to amend the origiasitioctit. and emponer the company to extend their line rand wood, and make alterations in the aidavvortii 13rsnaclo The Committee passed the preamble, and agr ee the clauses. MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LINC SHIRE. t h e across iill6 This Bill is to enable the company to carry Le across Sheffield-street, iu Manchester. Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. A'ND MANCHESTER SOUTH JUNCTIO N' ALTRINCHAM. Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. GROUP IV. VALE OF NEATIL Sir Edmund Hayes in the chair. rs le This Bill is to enable the South Wales C 011 3 . 1, gae• contribute towards the capital of the Vale of Nes"' and to amend the original Act. Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND, WOLVESO''""' TON (No. 1). The object of this Bill is to enable the comp- , crease their capital. Preamble proved; clauses deferred. OXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOLVE S TON (No. 2). vi a• ti c° This Bill is to enable the company to wake %% Or in the line, and empower the Shrewsbury An d I " . , i n - Ole% ham, and the Birmingham, Wolverhampton, o°lol. R9Alway Companies to contribute towards the car Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. GROUP V. Sir Robert Peel in the chair. 6. 0 SOUTH-WESTERN (POWER, TO PUR-- - STEAM-BOATS). Preamble proved, and clauses "agreed to. olko UNDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTa - 40 0 O opened the ease tor the promoter 6 -coo; Bill, to eneile the London, Brighton, and 5 011di j 4 Company to become the proprietors of the boats rig between Brighton and Dieppe in their own 60' ti Ito LI I" Xll. Captain Fitzroy in the chair. EDINBUItGEI AND GLASGOW' nt e Mr. AUSTIN opened the case for the proo3—ffr the Bill, to enable the above company 300,0001. to it off their debts, and to invest tb754 4 poweis Blake a line from North Mains t o Port bit" and South Qieen Ferry, with two branches to tbfe ',our of S.iuth Q ieensferry and to the pie r ,l3o o.l n E igar. The Bill was opposed by the Scottiw P" mpany, but the Conn - nat. e decided that they be locus standi. and declined to hear them. "lswo witnesses prov, , d the case , after wb-1 t'eb bee° Committee decidtd that the preamble bad so proved. e Mr. AUSTIN inquired upon what gro und tbf turived at that ronclu,itin ? r Or a t e ; The CHAIRMAN stated that the Bill bad bee" -eraeoP; a,r,aii:st by the Board of Trade, because it dill," re ,ise for what purpose the new capital was to 7,0,a mre tlesitiee, it was said, that the m oney go od quired to enable the company to 1 0 " e „,,arib 411 ' w .degil contracts they had entered into for cowards new shares. a 0111/ Mr. AUSTIN protested against the decision C ot tool upon the Committee to reconsider it, but the C declined to do so. GiiOUP XIV. GREAT WESTERN. li f e ° : o o The object of this Bill was to enable the Great Company to extend the Bei ks and Hants Rrolo Elungerford to Westbury, and to make De vizt.s. Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. 0 BRISTOL AND EXETER. 00 This Bill was to enable the above company ° to l line from Taunton to Castle Cary. It was opposed by Mr. Hors , o n behalf of 5101$ petitioners, on the ground that the subscription e° ll were detective. IMPERIAL BRAZILIAN M.- ASSOCIATION. oil ro l' OIL The half-yearly genet al meeting of this es e- welv o l was held yesterday, at the L on d on T avern , a t tele'" o je git Thomas litbson, Esq., in the chair, for the Ptr o o,l" electing three directors i n sh e p l ace o f M r . Gi`P - tliP" ° Lyon Goldstnid, and Mr. John W ra y, w ho offer 1 ,01 1- 0 0$ selves fur re-election, and were re-appoint ed dfreci ° opposition. Mr. A. J. Valpy, who, like the went out by rotation, was also re-appointed. a 7.1 The report was then read by the secretary , egg . ° (1° substance of it was that the directors deeply 1. e l 01: that they were unable to give a more satisfe et( Vos meet, in consequence of the delay of certaie., but they had every reason to speak favourah,uroe;§ prospects of the undertaking, from their ee ta d iree s 'o dons from Brazil. In the last report th e , c 4O O O O declared that they had forfeited 234 sharesin de.,o of the non payment of the call of 21. per sh bad 50 the Bth of July of last year. Eleven of these old , sof subsequently restored, and 223 have bee t ! 6 0 ,000 receipts from the Gongo mine during the 199dociave0 have been something more than 911b5., Pr° boo 4 1 4 sum of 6,1011. Is. 6d., while the expenditurt 9B, l:o 11,8341. is. 5d , leaving a deficiency of 5,7 32 tir petst. hich has been partially met for this and oth er P pe e vo l e the sale of •2.2351.85. 3d. Three• and- a-Qua rte f r il od. ll Stock, which constituted part of the reserve - 0 ,1 Ave, v h remainder of the amount was to be met by II „, r the directors recommended of ten shillings r - re pay Alta on the 14th of June next. 10, 1 ° 1 1 1 One of the SHAREHOLDERS complaine d °to pot t had not been printed and placed in the P - e ffrel a be -.hareholders, and a motion was made to t h i led o , s :o/ on all future occa:ions it should be at letsvttr;or fr ,ore any g,ncral meeting, but on being put' '‘ o te , a large tn,jority. A the, -i t tb ei Another SHAREHOLDER then suggested Igo o- d of the call ot ten shillings a share, the ti awe P*oo ll d. adopted in the United Mexican AssociatilAo g ° o ol o lollowed, viz., the allowing certain shareh"'" to e ! l f iolt vance money on the security of the propertio g i ed the works to be proceeded with, the dire their. ' Lich shareholders equivalent advantages for 10 1 vances. . e lse hi° Mr. GIBB ES s t a t e d i n re ply th a t only W 1 t frhe por bee, week the din-ctors had received advises of ' - ef er, i s ll , of gold towards this country which had, hetibiell t 9 pe ur.expectedly d e l a y e d at Ri o J ane iro, but ,w era tore'sbe arrive at any moment , an d it would 14 0 1,0 thought, be unwis e t o d ev i a t e f ro m the Woe' 10 0 1 ' present occasion. oh° The report was then put and adopte d , - 13 lug was dissolved. fri is° A a SALE OF AN Anv owsoN —Yesterdol O t ori Fare brother submitt e d to • public curonett" lit h - e relc ri . O t and way's, the advowson next presentatio-n Wh a t, I St. Michael Cussago, situate in Dar s ';:d 7 - 0 0 Witnborne, and seven miles trom 1 . 0 1 ; ; 3 8° ' arbonage-bouse and sixty six acres of g' ebe 'ott cv" a grubs annual income of 496/. The p"P ulstl 041 tl a J and the age of the preseat incumbent fifty. it P 2,7001 n e d A /XI 1 ,0 11,1fr' DVERTISEMENT.] -THE EARL 0 1 ' t o; - ( 40,145' AND 11OLLOWAY'd VILLS.—An astounding care bY — jot 1. 0 4 medicine, after every other means had tailed. So' e3' Feb. :1; too Lordship's letter, dated " Villa 3lessina, Legho rn ; our Pioo r Professor Holloway—Sir : I beg to acquaint you th n " ah - 1 3 . 1 1 ° ' effected a cure 01 a disorder in my liver and s tonle a C to t e n-% o f VI eminent of the facolty, at home and all over the c0 , ,00 0 0 .0 been able to effect; nay, not ever the waters of C rt il P 0 0154 rienbad. (Signed) " Ar.naoliouon." These 'WI— 0C cure any disease or the liver or stomach. —gold ( 44 7f3tre n Ointinant) at Professor Holloway's Establishme nt, 2 l a, o r 4.11 medicine vendors throughout the civilise,' w —......•--------------.----."".......----- . ir e L 1 ° 1 R 1 14T I 7S. two oto On the 10th inst., at Watford Court, Nor l, o o' the Lady Henley, of a daughter. 0 , 8 1 013. A On the 10th inst., in Berkeley-square, &--- ill , ' I „nd' l James Stuart Wortley, of a daughter. therl — ofi On the 6th inst., Mrs. W. R. Crow, of Su - r ot - Hanley-road, Hornsey-road, of a son and heir. ~r e. 13 On the 9th inst., at Dlicklelield House, „,/ DY Day, of a son. i Af Of On the luth inst., at Eaton-place, the ' 2 " ell" a of Milner, Esq., of a son and heir On the 11th inst., the wife of G. H. Lewes , ' s.l ' sington, of a son. f t isp On tne Bth inst., Mrs. Hugh Berner of a sou' eo ifs ° O , r On the 9th inst., at Surrey -street, Norwich, g 0 be of a s'; ‘ ,o l Rev. S. F. Bignold, Rector of Tivetahall, NorteliGtbe ON Herts, 0, On the nth inst., at West-hill, Waudswortl3, 4 „ r ef' Henry !Zucker, Esq, of a daughter. T o se - ü b g i b lit te ' r . li i t re he oh l,( l ),t h h of i li i a s s t., Lo a u t , S h e b l o w r( o a od vm L , E od sg g . e: of a cla vet the lD N ' v i , 11 0" t ° On the 9th inst., at St. Mary's .a,4,4 tilt' , no tle, A l te the Rev. Henry Samuel Fov,ter. A.M. , in-the-• , ottio , to M . a d r c r,', 9 o. , 010` 1 the late G. D. ilarvev, Esq., of St annfore, Alf p ,sq. , of 'l,-,4 ,, 011 the 27th ult., Laugher, .I,,shua llffilY,ly . itod" , bourne-terrace, to Eliza, daughter of Charles +, i v , LefO lj i of Langley Furze, Bucks. . chapel' i . o On the 6th inst.. at St. Peter's Catholic ...,,bte Guruly, Esq ,to Signore Angelo LI ienaistue, I.' ton Pri.rs, Sarah Cccilia A,4:,elina, eldest of ,70 fe at, 017; ,. : ac lo 1 ' Ll, O m n tet ti a le nt l e f , i t ),o l.l i l ie t 7 pat, EngHlefield. Toronto, Ciri A' Rauprt,lE'e. 4 NI. ,-. . , ,A, )ert k,berts Loring. _g e CA k Georgis roif qB.l,hatti.,saBt. Horsham, Catharine, the wv 0 ., On the Bth inst., at Shoreham Vicarage, Ne„o".bendtlsl. eldest daughter of the Rev. Edward Kepton , icf - sg7OC Westminster, and widow of James Kerr Ewart.rli'ef "• On the 9tii inst., Sophia Emily, youngest chi Husltisson, Esq., of Haw ley-road, -K.cntishown. ti 0 • DeKlon Viinted 411 , 1 LI nb • •.1 i I'd liftlX ) 112, :if and, l'f;utta ,-; Sea 402h6e'00 004 Strand, in he Precinct of t Savo'' , in • raiddle Saturday,sex, May 13, 1848.