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

THE responsible to its authority. Such officers had been found most valuable in miming out the bankruptcy Itw 'which h. , had pa,s-d, and he was satisfir d they be equally useful for the purpose he now contetc plated. As to another , point connected . with the practice of the C ourt of Chancery, be d id not see why the examination of wituesses before that Court s hould not be vied voce , as in tha other Courts. The present system of written examinations was full of ab surdity and mischief, and pregnant with expense and elelay. A set of questions were drawn up for every witness, without the possibility of knowing what the 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 , und-so; but the written examination, after the witriess had said " Nit , I don't know Mr. So-and se," would go on. cone the less gravely, with a series of questions touchi:tg 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 hud many other points on which he might observe in connexion with this . subject; but he would not, on the present oc casual, press them upon their Lordships' 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 imm plored their Lord.hips to give most serious considera tion to the subject which he had thus breulht before them. Toe present were not times in which Govern• ments c , eild safely refuse compliance with the just ee mandS of the people they governed. On all sides we witnessed the progress ot convulsion: in France, a dy nasty demolished in one brief hour; is Germany, throne after throne menaced; in Au.tria, the supposed peren nial empire of the Caesars tottering to its tall. South ward, the janitor of the Alps opening the gates of Italy to the Gsu'; still more south, the Eternal City shake n to its foundation, and the successor of the Borgia., rs ambitious as they, but unsustained by their gt nius or their courage, taking refuge in the form ss of St. Angelo from the tury of the faithful —(liesr.) These, be would repeat, were times and these were circum stances which should warn the ruling powers in Englau d to amend the institetions of the country, in every 1.. a lure susceptible of impriert meet, and to amend in time. lie had every confidence in the innate forceot our insti tot .. end in Lie to)shy 01 our ple ; but rely u e on it that the better our law, and the cheaper, and the mote nearly it sirs breue.ht to the doors ot the people, and the plainer it was 11:14de for them to read, ant the easier to comprehend a d to di.est, and, consequently, to ehev, the more secure you made property. and the inor.- facility you gave for its transh - r, so as to render it inure available tor the purposes of eiv 1 life. The more Y"" took away those shoals and quicksands ot which Locke speaks, rely upon it, tl-e purer and heartier would be the love, and the mere vigorous and unsw.rvmgthe support which you would secure to tte I nsti ns vontio from your virtuous and hone - t and gallant jeets. It was these views that in lb2B he had urge(l t , it another place, the law reforms which he had then in ro d duced and it was with u ndiminished, nay wit h increase earnestness, that he now urged turther reform of th . e n tha t august assembly, the judges by v . /hom, law upo n the last and hignest, resort, that law w as administered. He implored their Lord-hips to aid him th the . task he had thus undertaken, for the purpose of g ivi ng . mereased 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 adjou rned at Thirty five Minutes after Seven. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 12. The SPEAKER. took the Chair shortly before Four o'clock. Mr. WILSON PATTEN presented petitions from places in Lancashire against the sale of spirituous liquws on Sunday. Mr. WILSON presented four petitions from places in Yorkshire sgaln.t any alt. ration in the navigation-laws. Mr. SPOONER presented petition , : from places in Sty herlandshire against the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. Viscount CASTLEREAGFI presented petitions from places in Down aninst the Bill for the amendment 01 the law of imprisonment for debt. FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL. _ . Mr. 'F. O'CONNOR brunght on the Friendly Socie ties Bill, which was read a first, and ordered to be read a second time on Wednesday, 14rh ot June. GREAT NORTHERN RAILWAY. Mr. STUART moved. pursuant to notice, that it be an instruction to the Committee on the Great Northern Railway (Isle of Axholme Extension) Bill, to hear the Comp a ny of Proprietors of the Swinforth and lieadlq Canal Navigation on the matter ot their petition against the a 'id Hill, which was presented upon the Ist day ui this instant May. Sir W. HEATHCOTE objected to the motion, and after a few observations trotn Mr. STU AR r in reply, The House divided, when there appmred— Fur the moi.ion Against it Majority against it —sB DU ... 69 Mr. REYNOLDS mt,vud that the evidence taken be fore the surve)ine; ..fficers upo,t the local inquiries held in Dublin, upon the subject of the applications to Par liament for the Dub in Improvement Bill ,rl.l the Datilin Consolidation Improvements and Water.orks Bill, ID,- aid ott the tAI.• in'•rt u. The SPEAKER said the evidence was already on the t4ble, and the motion was withdrawn. Mr. EW Ala presented a petition in favour of fret sites beinp; grunted (or Scotus') churchcs. Mr HUME presented a petiti froth s congregation in Newcastle El. the same effect. Mr. COI3i)EN presented a petition fr,m Nottingham, praying tor a reduction in the taxation and expenditut , of the state. Ihe petition was si:oied by the mayor and upwards of 2.000 it.hahitants of the town. Mr. HILDYARD presented a petition from White haven az,alitst the -ale of intox . cativg drinks on Sutid ty. Mr. P. HOW ARD presented a petioun from Carlisle against the central clause of the Health of Towns Bill. Mr. COW AN presented several petitions from Scot land in fay.ur of the Fr.e Sites for Church..s B i ll, Mr. FORBES presented a petition 'Against the Diplo inlOc R. httons w I h the C..urt of home 8.11. Sir R. H. INGLIS present, d a petition against diplo matic relations vs itn the Court of R-me. THE RF.PRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE. Mr. 'HUME said he had already given notice that he untended. on the 23d instant, to submit a. mo Lion, and to call the attentiAl 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 T ues d a y week were to the tollowing'etfect :—That this House, as constitut,d, does not fairly represent the property, iatrllig,nce and industry of the ctuntry, 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 foll,wing purposes : —First, that the elective feancnise be extended to all householders; that votes be trig n by billot ; that the dera:ion of Par liaments do not exec-el three years ; and that a more equitable apportionment of the population to the number of :ilembers to be elected Le adopted—(Cheers)—or, in other words, (qua) electoral districts.—(Hear.) LONGFORD. Mr. BOUVERIE read the rep. , rt of this Committee, which was to the effect that Mr. Fox had been duly elected. The report complained of the deirctive state of the registration in Ireland, and recommended the House to devise a remedy. NOVA SCOTIA. Mr. B. COCHRANE inquired whether information had been received at the Colonial office to the effect that the secretary of the colony (a very valuable officer) had been induced to retire upon an allowance of only 400/. a year ; whether the judges of the courts were liable to be displaced simply by a petition to the Colonial-office from the assemblies, and without any specific allegations being assigned against them; also, whether the salary of the Governor bad been reduced from 3,500/., within allowance of 4001. for his eecretary, to 3.0001., with 2501. for his secretary ? Mr. H AW 1 S (w wds very indistinctly heard in the galler)) was understood to 51 that the secretary had resigned urn the allowance mentioned att. r a servi c e 0 , five yews, but he held another office which yielded censid.- ruble ette Liraetie The salary of the Goveruer, which was vot.-d with the civil list, would b. reduced as stated. lie should feel happy to lay any papers on the matter before the Hauge. THE NATIONAL LAND COMPANY. Sir 13 HALL wished to a'k the Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Notaitiahatn, a qaesti• 41 with respect to a Bid wnich he had introduced. He found that a great number ot pvra..ne had joined it as aubseribera. • • • Whst he way 4trxiatis to know sees,. wh..n the Hon. anti Le a n- d Member intend• d that the company should be pin in stem a pteition that 11 , ', as 'mete the prorate.• rs of the company, should be able to take out a certificate of registration? Mr. F. O'CONNOR would answer the questions of the Hon. Baronet wish great pleasure. As soon as this company was establehed application was made to Mr. ' Till Pratt to-reeister it, and it was then discovet.td that, in cons- qttence of several jwigteents of alr. Just:ce Wigh man,. Mr. 'nu Pratt could not c .mpletely register the cenaptit y. He then had the company provi registered, and having proceeded to a certain extent, it was found th tit th e expenses of complete teiti;eration weultt be so enormous teat he had con • si d''r'd it to be his duty to s. e if he could not mate'rially - after, if te.t do away with, those in that diyexia. 'lis' 4 4attog : re ther to render it. unnecessary to hove ei, m9l gistration. That Bill he had • broti4ht i 1 ; it hid been read a first and ord.-TM t 14th of J une , to b l " read a second time on the could assure the Honourable Member that if the'tu se refused to pa3d tni. Bit, it. wa.., his clete , m nati on i)rteecute the matter to com plete regis;ratite, andnothing would give him great ‘r sari4actlon than to b e ditte.hsr that tut,/ dp,,,,hred P ,iro eriffrom the onerous duty —(llear, hear.) TREATY iiETW D.IURKEY. EEN RUSSIA AN r. QUH A RI said it h a d been runuet th had b een concluded tbaen offensive and (let-naive treaty •• Russia and Turkey during the absence of Sir Maje s ty' s G overnment SA.atford Canning;ant oat her had permitted that treaty to he etie-red in to. He wished , therefore, if the rumour was untrue, t h at her Majesty ' s Government would c ontradict it. Lord PALMERST ON said, as far as the i nformation of the Government ex tended, they had no k ilo wledge of anY' treaty having been made - between 14. - -ussia and Turkey, and certainly they had given no instruc tions to Sir Stratford Canning on the subject. AMERICAN POSTAL REGULA LIONS,' In answer toat question from Air. W. BROWN, Lord PALMERSTON stated that negotiations Wer e • - pandirli'betvieee- her • Ilsjestft ;Government and 'the American Government relative to the Pita. regult. tons with the United States, and when they were con cluded, the Right HAI. the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be prepared to explain the reasons for the course he was persuing. ME I ROPOLITAN IMPROVEMENTS. Sir R. INGLIS, pursuant 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 Blackfriars (to effect which a Bill was introduced) ; an embankment on the upper part of the river from Vauxhall to Chelsea ; an improved commu nicatiin between Pimlico and the west front 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 13,0001. towards eff.cting im• provements in a particular locality. One reason of his asking these questions was on account of tha injury which those who had property in these localities, which was stated would be required for the improvements, were suffering from the delay that had taken place, as they could nut let or dispose of it. Los d MORPETH said the improvements referred to bad been carried out to the utmost extent within the powers of the Commissioners, and they were only now retarded in cons , quence of the Couhnissioners not having sufficient funds at their disposal to proceed with them as ranidly as they could wi h A DJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE. The motion -that the House at its rising adjourn till Monday was then acre' d to. S I'ANIFORD ELECTION. Mr. WOOD then moved for the appointment of a Select Committee, to inquire into the alle g ations contained in the petition of certain electors and Inhabitants of the borough of Stamford. the late and of fof MarchL t r h d sw.l:tic.hoiwchapsilair,:ishegatedof upon thientelr4fethrendcaey e. the sa w E4N , t r e' ro urcil e"enj'aenilt.'e of e f ottnheestecroo'f"anMtYP'eleCNer°:trf t t ta t h i ne3l : t e r: r:e l ma f t: or borough. He expressed his regret that the grievant, he petitioners complained of involved charges a gainstp urpose p e rson who was necessarily absent; but it would b. b i c e e . in as and thatiincliin the his tours motion of t h w i a s s ssa f t o drai r edt e t f n imoa q : u htt i hat r e y eh , pe c 4 h , e ) u t i r d a b t he byo any wa of the a t h rg e ucwhearir‘ges only, m p e t it io n it ,Landing the conclusion that if the case for inquir y should be established and borne out by the evidence it would be necessary for the I p l e t i tu it s i e , to apply a remedy. t c h i e mld inet.s that if the Com- He had been assured by establish petition emanated their eman s a t t a e t d e ni fromt t undoubtedb , u , 3 t i f . e tt - '' t e hi rteif g th ra e "n w i l e o ln i te e het: le T et h o e ral body of Scam.ord, and was signed besides by 183 non-electors. The petitioners dated the interference wi th now it was on h iy the freedom of election in Stamford ,o f ar b ac k as 18 t 30 The number of voters in 1831 was 750 ; 595. Of these 190 were tenants of the Marquis of Exeter, 194 who had signed he original petition; leaving 211 out of 525 who prayed that_ they should either b e protected or disfranchisd, declaring that this petition was not founded on party politics, and thtt they had no wish whatever to interfere with the rights of landlords. The iron. 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 his 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 el, ctors who are his tenants that they shall be discharged from such to nancy if they do not so vote; and by fulfilling the promises and threats so made in his name. That the said Mar- quis, by such his interference, infltugices 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 return*d Are the representatives of the alarquis, and not of the electors of the said borough. That such interference vio!ation 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 the meaning an intent of the laws in force against theta. That the said :Marquis, by so interfering and concerning himself in the said elections, elm) contravened the re-o• laden of your Honoureble !louse on that subject, anti use th-reby infringed the liberties of the Comm-ins of the United Kingdom. In verification of the feregoing state inent the petitioners then state several facts as having , *ecorred at various elections in addition to which the) foubt not that they will net able to adduce other facts and circumstances tending to the sane conclusion, .nquiry b.. granted. That none of your petitioners desirt in any manner to interfere with the rights of a land lord over his tenaros, i.r to disturb what the said Mtr quis has thought to do with his tenants. That the) hi no. complain of the ordinary influence which pro spry giv• s to its owners, arid that it the election ha , iner , •ly determnied by the tenants of the sail Mar pis voting it their oan free will, in accordance witl ne supposed epititoes of their landlord, your petitioner: .sould not hare complained of the result, but insist th ai electors ought to be subjected to seen itifbience anc a lercion as is practised in the borough of Stamford b) tie Marquis of Exeter. That the elective franchise it the borough of Stamford is by reason of such interfe ence a burden upon a large number to the electors, whe aelieve themselves under an obligation to vote according their own views and (Onions, and seriously prejudt ;1 61 t.i their L•cal and pecuniary interests; and the pre judice and loss so individually sustained by many of th. teeters is net compensated by any public ad vantage, but, on . the contrary, there results -rom 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 nes 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 artist: in the last sessien 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 successtully opp ose d by the said Marquis, after he had tailed in obtainin g from the railway company a large price demanded b) 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 -uccessfully exercised by the said Marquis in the return of the Members serving for the said boroueh vas to place them (the inhabitants) in a worse position !ft Rirliainent 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 preventing the said Marquis from euntrolling the return of Mttrnbers for the borough, or for disfranchising the borough altogether. That your petitioners, therefore, while they desire to leave the vine ;fieation of the freedom of election and of the liberty of the Commons of England to your Honourable House, ny the ad-ption of such measures as to the House in its greet wisdom shall seem fit, submit that it the grievances el which they complain cannot be otaerwise redressed, the borough ought to be disfranchised, and the elector, d from th-• burden and loss to which many of their number are subjected by possession of the franchise. Your petitioners, therefore, humbly pray your Honour ante House to inquire into the truth of the statement• of this tneir petition, and if the said statements shall la , - established, then that your Honourable H--use will adopt such resolutions, measures, and proceedings as shalt in your judgment be necessary and ex pedient for maiataining the freedom and purity to election in the said borough, and for vindicating the liber ties of the Comm ,, ns of England ; or if the right freel) to elect their representatives cannot be secured to the electors of the sand borough, then that your Honourable Reuse 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 been an invasion of that treed-ma of election which weak render it impossible, if not corrected, to suffer that borough to send a representative to that House. If they could not fi n d a reme d y one way, t h ey ought ai,other. The intimid a ti on cum *Med of could be prevented by Lty they o,u ch ld cheers) But r oßt eit their t t htr e sii r • • lectors—and ethat was to disfr.nehise them —(Cries of -• Hear, hear.") The light of election in the torougti was at present only a mockery. a delu-ion, and a snare—(H.m% hear)—and if left .in that condition the e etitionera claimed, tie far preferable, to be whet'Y dis• franchised. He conceived V*e present t o b e a most • favourable moment for entering upon the inquiry sought. Certainly the present was not a time to muse inquiry into the purity and independence of the return s of Melm-' ers of Parliament. Oa public grounds he felt the deepest interest in the success of his 'notion, for'hia con scientiou* belief was, that the true Conservative view of tt.is matter was to institute an inquiry with a view to remedy the . grievance of which the petitioners corn !ined and, by preventing a recurrence of this formid- P•l - ' Lion and intimidation, add further able system of co r rup to the felicity arid prosperity of the empire. The Hon and Learned Gentleman concluded by moving that a Select Committee be app in ted, to inquire into the alb-- cetain el . s and ng of ga (ens contained in the petition of ector inhabitants of tt.e tli cumtat borough of Stamford, p the interference of the Marquis of Exeti r, a Peer of the realm and L)rd Lieutenant ut the county of Northamp ton, at the late and former elections of Members to serve for the said boreugh. Mr. I)'EYNCOURT 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; for 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 nut as the choice of those highminded individuals of Stamford who had sent him here in 1831. Would the Right Hon. Gentleman deny the.. facts as stated, for upon them rested the whole ,ease? Did he mean to defend the course taken by , the Noble Marquis ? .11110 sight , Hononpible Gen- tleman nodded assent. from which he (Mr. D'Eyn court) inferred that the Right Honourable Gentleman meant to contend that the Noble Marquis hr.d not done anything which the law condenni , and that the Noble Marquis had only ex ercised his right as a landlord, and that ny 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 constitution a l que s tion w hi c h 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, ould mix themselves up with the cond uc t o f th e N o bl e m a rquis, and give their assent to that which he believed co be one ut the grossest violations of the c ons tit ut i on t h a t could possibly be exhibited to the Legislature.— (Hear.) He (Mr. D'Eyncourt) felt it nis duty to come forward us a witness in support of the case suumitted by his Hon. and Learned Friend. He (Mr. D'Eyucourt) had been a candidate for the representation of Stamford in 1830, and, after a severe contest, h e th a t y ear h a d lust his election by a minority of 20 votes. After that election the Noble Marquis in qaestion give no:ice to quit to no lees than 37 tenants, who had gone against tits candidates. Of these 37, 30 Here ultimately evicted, and some turned out with their furniture into the e t ll t oB r 3e s s l h . se t This ahgaani nstymosputrerese distinctno presented proceeding c himselfee time s .d n been repeated he enatro.)rs In nf — t (aidi t Stamford, when that noble-n.inded constituency returned him, though they knew he was favourable to the Reform Bill, abide as it then stood, would have annihilated their franchise. They, however returned him by a majority, and yet the petition now under consideration, isy some extraordinary omission, was silent as to the proceedings which followed that election in 1831, when a 1 those who had voted for him (Mr. D'E) neourt), or who had abstained from voting, or who had voted against Lord Thomas Cecil—in tact, all who did not vote fur both the nominees of the Noble Marquis had oeen evicted or staved with notice to quit. 'lbis was repeated in 1832, and again, he learned, in 1848. If the present motion was rejected, it would afford a good argument for the Hon. Member for Montrose, when he wrought turw srd his matiou for the general amendment et the law relating to the representation of the people. After the election of 1831, and when the Peforrn Bill was under discussion, a large district, of which nineteen twentieths was the property of the Marquis of Exeter, was added to the barough, the Ministry being bound by certain sir gent rules to increase the constituency, and oy adding this amulet in confUrrnity with those rules . he borough had been wholly handed over to the Noble Acted that the time would com e when it would be Marquis. At that time he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had pre necessary to add twenty or thirty snore boreughs t l o schedule A. But before this he ( Mr. D'E ) ccourt) he d that the constitueucies were e ntith d to p rotection in the exercise of their elective fra nchise ; and as the Noble Lord now at the head of the Government had been a arty to carry out the stringent rules to which he (Mr. D'Eyncourt) had alluded in reference to the Retorin 13.11, he appealed to the Noble Lord to acquiesce in the inquiry now prayed , a s a means of affordsot Stamford that protection which the y had a ri g ht to ng the electors 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 auswe in; 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, out he must complain that the Hon. and Learned Mem ber had not so far assisted 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 bad been ob structed and interfered with by the Marquis of Exeter, ho 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 ot Exeter intertered at elections . by authorising and sane- Eloping promises to many of the electors that they shall occupy us his tenants, eligible property belouging to him, provided they will vote fur 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 those who voted in opposition to his views and wiatiese regard to the allegicien that the Marquis ot Exeter, as a Peer of Parliament, had interfered at ttie late election, it :tad been given up by the Hon. and Learned Member tor Oxford as a ground for moving for this Select Corn duittee. In this respect the Honourable and Learned Member had taken a correct view of the question because the resolution of the House against the inter erence of a Peer at an election bud never been put in *terce, and never would be so until it was made the taw of the land.—(Bear, hear.) But he (the Margins .if Granby) rests d tne defence of the Marquis of Exeter on a different basis, and he contended that even if that revolution was now law the Noble Marquis had not vio• ated it. He a twitted the allegation of the eetition which stated that the Noble Marquis possessed exten sive property in the borough of Statutord, and he can -ended that that property gave the Noble Maiquis a proper and a conentutiouel influence in the borough—au ollaetice derived twin a high power and noble source. He denied the next allegation, that the Marquis of Ex .ter had noteineted or selected the candidate. at the last ell (lion; anti he also denied, on the best information, oat the Noble M aqui* had let his houses with the un lerstanding or a„:reement that the tenants should vote in ,ceordsnce with his views and wishes. Ile also gave the eost positive cuntrad,ctien to the assertion that promises lad been made and threats used previous to the last elec t tote—(lean) The petition further alleged, that without r. ference to the Mar quis of Exeter's opposition as a Peer, nip iutererence was a violation of the ut.doubted right bi the elecees freed) to elect Members to serve them in rartiaeteut. and amounted to the systematic bribery anti intimidation ot the electors by him, withir. the meaning old intent of the laws in force against bribery and hat ,uidation. If this were so, why did not the petitioners. ,dopt the constitutional, manly, and streightferward eourse of nefititiniti4 against the return of the sitting Members? No doubt tnere had been wise and prudent eensieurations which had prevented the a4option of that course; no doubt they remembered that recogniznnces to answer costs must be entered into, and no doubt they nad before their ryes the words " frivolous and vexa tious."—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that the de seated candidate, Mr. Bolt, was either unable or unwil ing to bear the costs of an election petition; but whe ther that was or was not the case, the electors, under the Act of 1842, carried by the Noble Lord et 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 lewd Exeter. That charge was, that at the last election 27 tenants of the Noble Marquis, ar.d the son of another tenant, promoted the election of Mr. Rolt, either oy 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 fmlowing quarter day, discharges or notices to quit had been served by the authority of the Noble Marquis on 22 out of the 27 tenants in question, while no other general change tied been wade on the tenancy of the Noble Marquis's property.—(Elear, hear.) It was further stated that one of the 22 tenants waited personally on the Marquis and explained that he had voted for Mr. Holt by mis take, in consequence of the contusion which prevailed in the polling booth, and that the Noble Marquis replied that he did not believe in the mistake, and that he should not allow the notice to be withdrawn. Now, for the sake of argument, he would suppose this allegation to be strictly and entirely well-founded, and he would ask the House if it was in their power to in ,ertere if he showed that there had beets no threats, promises, agreements, or intimidation, previous to the election. The petitioners themselves negatived such a notion, for they declared they had no desire in any way to interfere with the rights of a landlord over his tenants. But the facts set forth were greatly exaggerated. In stead of 28 electors who voted for Mr. Rule the number was 29 ; and instead of 22 having received notice to quit, the number was mils 14.--(Rear, and a laugh.) tie wished to state the facts as they really existed. ['here ws re two teoatits who had received notices though. they had voted for him (the Marquis of Granby) and his Right Hun. Friend (:der Hurries), and there were 13 who had voted for Mr. Holt, who had not been served with anynotice whatever.—(Hear.) Other tenants who had no votes had received notice us quit, and of the 14 already alluded to, two had been allowed to remain, 3.1 that only 12 who voted fur Mr. Ruh had been disturbed in their bid bogs. It had . beea stated that toe Marquis of Exeter was making Stamford one mass ot political e orruptitin. Now, if the Noble Marquis wissed 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 whe 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. Hit. Tttat man had, for a great number of years, been employed by the Noble Marquis as an artificer at Burleigh, at the wages of ss. per day. lie had received innumerable revisers from the Noble Marquis, and, among others, had received, in common with the other artificers, a hand some mon e y p resen t on th e o ccasion of the present L ird leurleigh coin i ng o f age . Thi s man v o t e d a gainst him (the Mar qu i s o f G ran b y ) and Ids Right lion. Friend (Mr. Berries), arid it was true the Marquis of Exeter felt the ingratitude of the man's conduct —(Hear, hear.) his uz; h a n r h i s s a i d ri e ei ntn that e a ht ; a t o dh n eb the no c bi o l ne n e t rm r e a ri r r e :l e du sf e r said a e mi m d3 a to i o n s .eh to But it was not true th a t t h e N o bl e M arqu i s h a d d e p r i ve d 4t t e h on e a a. m na a t y n tehar of o at the interview was, s• You had a right, of course, to vote as y ou 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 virtuo receiving its just reward —(Hear, and laughter.) Ilte 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 of this country were ,by habit, nature, and in clination against the ballot, and would prefer voting in the face of day and within the sight of their fellow-countrymen. (Hear, hear.) Bet the wea pon the Honourable and Learned Member had taken up cut two ways, for the petitioners did zot. declare for-the ballot, but • for a teetrictiva .of the franchise, inasmuch as they wished to be relieved from its burthen. But it might be asked how this petition had originated. He thought he c , itild answer that in quiry. The last election had been a severe combat, and by some naeani or other these oppr.ssi-d, electors placed Mr. R ilt on the poll within 48 cf his (the Marquis of Granby's) Right Hon. Friend (Mr. Herries). They had nearly reached the pinnacle of their ambition; the prize seemed within their grasp; and it must have been a severe mortification and trial of their philosophy and temper to have been defeated at the last moment. Hence, the temptation to revenge was strong. Another allegation of the petition threw further light on their motives—he alluded to that re lating to the railway Bill. Lord Exeter had withdrawn his opposition to the London and Y. irk line, on their un d e rtaking to make a br anc h t o S tam f or d ; in the ne xt year, 1846, the Syston end Peterborough line propose& a branch to Stamford, which the inhabi tants approved, and which had since been constructed. and opened. There was next proposed an atnalga• matinn between the Syston and Peterborough, and the London and York, which had been defeated, on public grounds, by Lord Exeter and other landowners con cerned. Hence another ground of hostility against the Marquis. A great majority of the inhabitauts ack now ledged the ben ei e r fit f s eein h l eh g a s. d c T o h n e fer s r h e a d fts on ai t m he ed bo a r t ou L g u h r but a discontented minority had chosen this mode of d ter expressingwouldtheir fall harmless; but if the House encouriezed such petitions as these, no lion. Member, however un tarnished his character, would be safe ; and it might happen that not being so independent in position as Lord Exeter, he might suffer an irremediable wound. — (Loud c heers from the Protectionists.) Mr. COCKBURN said that the Noble Lord had in eff-ct admitted nearly all the charges made against Lord -E xeter ; the remark that Hon. Members less powerful might be subjected to similar attacks, was wholly irrelevant. How could the Nub!e Lord, admitting twelve c harges out of the twenty-two to be true, de nounce the petition as false ?—(Cheers.) It was per fectly idle to deny that the main allegations of the peti tion were made out; in fact, they all ought to be taken to be established. The Noble Lord would doubtless state nothing which he did not believe to be true ; hut where was his authority ?--(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord asserted that many of the allegations were unimportant; but this was not the case. He had read the very first allegation, hut had not ventured to deny it, though no man in the House could be more capable of doing so if it were really untrue. As to the agreements with tenants, the stewards would of course not act so absurdly as to attempt to bind the electors by agreements which would be invalid on the face of them ; but who could doubt that the tenantry perfectly well understood that they must vote for Lord Exeter's nominee, whoever he might be ?—(Cheers.) All the petitioners asked was inquiry ; and the House would surety not refuse it be cause the trteeds of the parties charged denied some of the allegations. The gravamen of the defence was that this was not the proper course of proceeding ; but he denied that the petitioners could hate had recourse to en ordinary election petition for neither the sitting Mem hers nor their agents were etc_ cted by the matters charged, hut the Marquis of Exeter alone. Then it was said they might have proceeded under the Act 5 and 6 Victoria, against bribery and corruption ; but he much doubted whether the conduct of Lord Exeter comd have been brought under that Act, which had no reference at all to intimidation. It was most important that the con duct of the Marquis should be token into consideration ever since 1830, from which period the allegations of the petition dated. Nothing . could be more clearly estab lished than that the notices served on certain tenants had been given in consequence of their votes at the election; this was abundantly proved by the Marquis's own con versation with the man who alleged that he had given his vote in a hurry and by mistake. Then the case of the artificer, who had received 251. on Lord Burleigh coming of age, and had actually voted against the Marquis's nominee, was a strong proof of the real reason why he had been ej- cted. It was perfectly monstrous that such a person should be considered bound for ever to his Lordship's interest.—(Cheers.) If this petition were true, could it be doubted that in repeated instances the rights and privileges of this House had been violated; and it so, cauld inquiry be refused?—(Hear.) There was no wrong without a remedy, and the House would doubtless find °he in this case. It was incumbent on the House to institute a searching inquiry, and to see that justice was done in the matter.—(Cheers.) Mr. HER RIES thought the Hon. and Learned Gentle man who last spoke had lost sight of the real question before the House. It might be viewed under three as pects. The first was the position in which the petitioners stood, from which he contended that they bad nut esta blished any right to inquiry. Next he should maintain that the allegations were false; and this being so, that the House could not do otherwise than reject the prayer of the petitioners. Assuming for the moment that all the:allegations were true, he would consider the late election apart from all the preceding ones, which had been merely thrown in as a make weight; for it was ate surd to suppose that the House should inquire into the election proceedings of 1830, 31, and 32 —(Hear.) But it was distinctly alleged that at the very last election, the Noble Marquis had entered into engagements, and had afterwards tillfilled those engagements made in his name, and ha thue been guilty, as a Peer of Parliament, of interference with the election whereby the rights of the elebtoris had been violated, and the Noble Gird had 'rendered himself obnoxious to the p nalties attaching to bribery and intimidation. But if the 'petitioners supposed they cowl t sub stantiste this allegation, why had they not brought he matter before the House, under the laws recently passed, which it was perfectly competent for them to do? Where distinct acts of bribery were proveable, they might clearly be inquired into by an election Committee. B -sides, the Act of Lord John Russell of 1842. speci fically provided for cases where it might be difficult to prosecute an election petition, and allowed parties, with in a reasonable time, to prefer charges of bribery before a Committee appointed in the Act prescribed, with power to investigate the whole matter of complaint. But this Act required recognizences to be given by the petitioners, and exposed them to the punishment for per. pry, it it were coustnitted.—(liesr.) It might be sup posed that the parties in this case had not been ready to proceed in time under either of these methods, but it pared before the meeting ot Parliament. The principal a rel s ww before s i ap u s a actuallyl ) p t e h r r e e . a sod at p i meeting preparation, and s pt petitioner capable apta ipit Parliament, w eh n e e () t s f , t p t h h r aoe announced, topfsruotehphae that petitionot: r i ht s o days petition and that the allegations were such that the 'sew Parlia menttre.o) Thethe ordeal Marquis of Exeter themselves hhad could not refuse to inquire int o them. If so, why did they not demand such inquiry from the new Parlia went ?—why shrink ea in expect that this petition, if founded in tact, as they alleged, should have been presented imme diately on the assetnbliu g of the new House. The law having Made distinct provision for dealing with matters of this kind it was necessary that petitioners should avail toeinselves of such provision. Was it not evident that t h es e petitioners had not dared to do so?—(Hear, hear.) • Were the House now to grant an inquiry, they would open the door to a perpetual renewal of these irritating topics. Parties, either to cure their own lathes, or knowing the rotteness of' their cause, would continually be demanding inquiries of this kind. He held this argh rnent to be quite conclusive against the appointment of the Committee now asked for. Let the House stand by its own law, its own decision, its own character.— (Cheetrties.),foEnx(thteers.e grounds— th not s f a o k r e t o h t e . h s t a m k e e s o ty f a t a li d e Marquis truth—he vitt-tended that no inquiry could now take and to the maj orit y of t place. But justice bot h to the N: . b it t h e t L h o e r N d ac cused,owbhleomwaarsqisuhe lectors who w ere e n cl e u e a l l a ly re that this minority had c h h im ar s g e e l d f, w n i ci th oi c r o e r d ru h p im tio t n o destitute foundatiou.—(fiear, most prominent part of the charge • was, that the Noble no right whatever to make thesehecahra)rgeTs,hewhfiicrhstwaetirde engagements with his Marquis w u t s a o word of truth in this. lie d ente any understanding of the kind; and he denied i t on the to i vote n the a s habit i w t f h e n d them.kding that There was not a there was even very best authority, that of the p er s on who actually let of Stamford. The person employed by t ication from tnu most explicit re him, wrote a letter, which afforded the _ the Marquis's property to his 600 tenantsthine tmhearbrintritiisugoht Exeter to let the lands, without any communication That gee futation of the charge which bad b een made. tl.-man stated, that neither he himself, of Exeter to vote for the Marquis of Gran by and Air. I-terries at the late election. As a p roof of that, he re tenant t o a r t a h n e y m p a e r ro ci s under his direction, had asked any ui n s fused to interfere with a voter who was supposed_ t . o be wavering, although the father of the voter asked hi m Gut of threats against the voters, use his iefluetice and as the whole of the no such thing ever occurred, d with him. With he r s e a r d rd th to at t h h e e holiev i e g d through his hands. be V t l t . leas unposed upon the allegation that any condition property of -the Ntarqui vote for the favourite of the tenants, that they should s of able to l i n ve St a am de k nial P t s o s' t e he of the arquts of Exeter; and of Mr. Higgs, t h e agent Marquis of Exeter.- - ( hatic or distinct denial he did not think that a more emp could be given to allegations contained in the peti- Elear,heari) That was the letter the itehad the influence of the peti tion.—(Hear, hear.) to suppose that he won . the election. Now, it so were in his confidence during Marquis of Exeter to add ressed at his instance, happened that two letters wereL. t i l h d f e ehxarWentstaaltlengdedit, it wag w t a h s o n se at w ur h a o l one to the may committee, and the other to intended for the which was by mistake the letter chairman,and the letter t to his mayor, was teen was sent to the mayor— intended for his chairman as not the least allusion (Lsughter)—but there otrhoot ehSatiaremnfaourd,ufwhhios —(Hear, hear.) It ewes s he election were afterwards that were held out before t s insafitudenctehatin t t h h e at th le r t e t a e t r s . how did the fact stand? Persons dismissed. Of these, There were twenty. nine .st the candidates supported twelve only had voted v to isi t t h ed e Mon'rthcieuistetotafaiEtsx. e . te N wr' ow , remaining thirteen were not had not voted, and the by the Marquis of 'air, on the state of the facts, voters at all. It was not f s to the Marquis of Exeter. to draw an inference injurious that DO fair or candid man Exeter, two had voted for them, two —(Hear, hear.) He believed t.otn them that these persons of Exeter because they vw w oe o ter u ed l would at d sgm r a a it w n3sset t d h t h e bey inference te id rs Marquisti e was supposed to favour. when it appeared the charge could not were persons in whose regard What he had stated was .the apply at all.—(Hear.) t the inference Hof undue fact, and it would not support thatndSev3etenteen out of the twenty-nine what decision a from it. He should like to know _ upon these facts. He Select Committee come was the statement be found to be the believed that an a rrear of rent would influence and intimidation which was t 0 0 0ught tobedrawn roost of these instances. There cause of the discharge in inn . . was one truth, and only b po e ss h e a s d si gr on e g a ia t inau the that t h e - ushood of Stamford. and that one truth, the petition, and that Marquis of Exeter had, great bOTOUgh. That was per: anneasighibuo to SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING-, MA Y 13, 1848. feetly true; but what a Flur would it not be on the cha racter of the ,Marquis of Exeter he had not influence in the b3rough.—(Hear, hear.) He recolected a per- Lion of the speech which the Noble Lord opposite made on the question of the Reform Bill which he had heard with pleasure, and he begged to read it to the House. The Noble Lord used the following language :—" It may be said that one great and injurious effect of the measure which I propose will be, that it will destroy the power and privileges of the aristocracy. This I deny. I utterly deny that this plan can have any such effect wherever the aristocracy reside, rect-ive large incomes, perform the important duty of reliev ing the poor by charity, and evince public worth and private virtue. It was not in human nature that they should not have great influence on public opinion, and have at least equal weight with others in electing - persons to serve the country in Parliament. Though such may not have the direct nomination of persons under this Bill, I contend they will have -treh influence as they ought to have."—(Hear, hear.) That was the nature of the influence exereisAl by the Mur quis of Exeter, and it would be little to the credit of his character if he did not possess it.—(Hear, hear.) The Right. Hon. Baronet the Member for Tatuwerth, in 1846, declared also that Peers ought to exercise a legi timate influence in the return of members to Parliament, and iiiat it could not be extinguished in tact.—(Hear, hear.) lle also said that the less Peers attempted to exercise their direct influence the more anxious would their tenants be to cmnsult their wishes. Such was the secret of the Marquis of Exeter's influence. Because particular party had been defeated at Stamford It was not fair to attribute that defeat to undue it.fidence. He hoped the House, for the reasons he had stated, would not listen to unfair and unfounded statements, and that they would reject the motion of the lion. and Learncd Member.—(Cheers.) Mr. HUME rose amidst cries of " Divide, divide." He would admit that the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down made the best apology he could by bringing forward matters which were not called in ques tion. The Right lion. Gentleman spoke 0f the large•. possessions of the Marquis of Exeter and his ex:.3.llent character. No expression had fallen from any of the Gentlemen on his side of the House who had sp..ken on this subject against the character of that Nobleman. They did not object to the legitimate influence which belonged to great property and high station. What they c mplainecl of was the exercise of illegitimate and improper interference.--(Hear.) He confessed he had never heard a clearer and more convincing statement than that of his Hon. Friend. It appeared - to him that, if all the allegations of the petition were not proved to be true, the statements made were such us required to be investigated. The Right lion. Gentleman had con tented himself with reading letters which had lhtle to do with the question, whilst he eluded any response to the charges which had been made. Mr. G. BERKELEY said that he would not shrink from &Mg his duty, which was, to inquire into wha was done by a Peer in respect to a county election before he looked at the conduct of a Peer in a borough election.—(A laugh.) He had presented two petitions to the Crown, complaining of the Lord Lieutenant of a county. In every such case the rule had been to insti tate an inquiry ; but in the case to which he alluded no notice was taen of his petitions. He was instructed to say, that had any magistrate done what the Lord Lieutenant had done he would have been removed trom the commission of the peace ; and if he had been an officer in her Majesty's; service he would have lost hie commission. Although he should vote for the inquiry into the conduct of the Marquis ot Exeter, he must say that he thought the Government was not justified in refusing to a county that which they were prepared to grant to a borough. Sir RING Ida reminded the House that they were not deciding upon the conduct of Lord Fitzhardinge, but upon a very different question; and he hoped they were pre pared to do justice to the Marquis of Exeter by their Yoe s. Let him ask any Member pi esentil there had been one of the principal allegations of the petition sustained during . the debate of that. evening ? Was there the slightest proof offered that the tenants of the Marquis of Exeter were compsfled to enter into a stipulation to vote ac cording to his wishes, or to lose their holding, ? hoped sincerely that the Howe was prepared to reject tae proposal of the Hon. and Learned Member for Oxford. Lard J. RUSSELL said he felt it right to state the reasons which governed his vote on the present occasion. He had made up his mind on the subject, riot without considerable doubts. He should theretore vote in con formity to the opinion which he had formed, alai he by no nia ans wished to influence the vote ot any °Leer Hon. Member. The question had been brought before the Eluuse upon a petition very artfully drawn, and entering into minute details and reasonings, the petitioners stating that they had no wish to interfere with the just rights or influence of property, and asking fur the remedy which they sought in language of great moderation. The case had been ably stated and argued by the Han. and Learned Member for Oiterd. The question was, whether any sufficient reasons had ben stated to induce the House to grant an inquiry. The Right H an. Gentlem an opposite (Mr. ferries) had in the most powerful manner met and rebutted the allegations con tained in the petition, and had stated very forcibly the r. asons for not going into an inquiry. Tne Right Hon. Gentleman had met the allegations on two grounds— first, as to their truth; and ; secondly, as to the mein facts upon which they turned. The impression which he (Lord John Russell) had .formed, as well from the statement of the case as from precedents which he found in the books was, that supposing the Marquis of Exeter's tenants in some instances usder stood they were to vote for his nominee, and afterwards were ejected for not having so von tl—if these acts could not be clearly and iedisputably shown to have affected the majority of the veters, there was no remedy to be ' , ad against the Marquis before the Elec.ion Committee. But the House was asked to institute an inquiry into the allegations of the petition. The first of those allegations was, that it was the practice to give the tenants of the Marquis et Exeter advantageous holdings, which they were deprived of un ess they voted according to his wishes. Now, the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite had read a letter from the agent of the Marquis of Exeter, denying that any such under standing ur arrangement existed. And if he (Lord J. Ulu-sell) were called upon to state his ballet in the matter, it was that he did not think such a staternt nt could have been made if it was not true. He, therefore, could riot believe that any such restrictions were placer upon the tenants of the Marquis of Exeter. At the same time the petition stated such to be the fact, and the allegations were rwpectably signed, so that he did come te the conclusion that there would result some advan tage from going into an inquiry, and from satisfyine the public mind that this allegation was not true. Ann ther allegation of the petition, which had not been so satisfactorily rebutted as the first, was that certain tenants had been deprived of their holdings in coese quence of the votes they had given. Certain it was that notices to quit hal been served on some of the tenants of the Marquis of Exeter, and they had afterwards been carried into effcct. The Noble Marquis opposite (Granby) had not satisfied him (Lord J. Russell) that this proceeding had not been adopted towards the tenantry. But the Right lion. Gentleman opposite (sale. ferries), had explained that the results of the seversl years past would show that removals of tenants had taken place, and the removals of 1847 had not exceeded in number those of former years. So that if it could be shown that no greater number of removals had taken place than formerly, and that those removals differed in no respect from the character of former removals, the proceeding could not be blamed, nor could the rights to act thus be contested. If the resolution of the louse to nominate a Committee of inquiry was to be construed into. a censure passed upon the Marquis of Exeter, then he wouid not vote for it, for the explana tion of the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite had con vinced him that the allegations at the petition could not be sustained as against the Marquis of Exeter, for he apseared to have exercised no other influence than that to which he was fairly entitled. It this allegation was proved on inquiry to he false, the public mind would also be satisfied. It, on the contrary, it was sustained, then the House would be justified in having gone into the in quiry. On the w h o l e , h e had come to the . conclusion, that as the allegation s conta i ned in the petition had been respectably vouched for by. the signatures of the parties, it was right to institute an inquiry Into them, rather than by a vote of that House to decide that no further pro ceedings should be taken in.ihe matter. The Marquis of Exeter hitnsel would derive much more advantage from the inquiry, than if the House were to return a verdict without havi g made any examination into the facts alleged, Such being the impression which he enter tained, he should, though nut without entertaining some doubts, vote in favour oldie inquiry. Mr. BANKES had heard with deep regret the speech and the declaration of the Noble Lord. The Noble Lord had stated the doubt and difficulty which he entertained respecting the allegations contained in the petition, and yet he had determined upon proceeding into an inquiry, there not being a single precedent to justify him in taking such a step. The question which the Committee would have to determine was relative to a railway Bill and an election petition. The village Hampden who had brought the question forward, having been defeated in his railway schemes and in his electioneering attempts had resorted to the present mode. of attacking his suc cessful opponent. There was only one previous instance of such a course having been attempted, and then the opinion of the House was clearly against it; that was the case of the Newark petition: If they combined with their new .Bill for inquiry by a roving commission into all cases of alleged corruption, an inquiry suc h as was now proposed, they would be taking a course unpre cedented, and the end of which could not be predicted. Sir R.. PEEL concurred with the Noble Lord that this question involved judicial as well as political considera tions; and in approaching it he would endeavour to ex clude all bias which might in any way interfere with a judicial determination.—(Hear.) But it was because the question did involve jndicial considerations—that was because he was not blind to the passing events to which the Noble Lord bad alluded, and to the temper of the public mind, that on the whole he thought the wisest and the safest course would be not to permit them elves to be involved in these temporary reed transitory considers Lions; bui, that they should rather adhere to that prin ciple which was applicable to all times and all circum stances. It was of the utmost importance that the House should decide the mode by which the right to sit in that House was to be regulated. They had had ample experiel:ce in the history of the past—he might say .of the corruption which resulted from permitting these matters to be decided by majorities of the. House in each case.—(Hear.) It was mere than 100 years since the administration of Sir R. Walpole, whose fall wits produced by . the constant ciattfl.cts which arose on the right to sit in Parliament; the decisions upon disputed returns being then taken, riot on the merits of the election, but made subjects of . party con flict in. Parliament, in which each party was ranged ac cording to his party feelings. The vote which at length determined .the tall.of that M o j e t a who the question to of the right to sit for a small borough—he believed Lich- I had been broken up in a manner neither satisfactorT field. 'the House at length bicame convinced of the themselves nor to the H owe. dangt rof allown g these questions to be determined cry Ato r a short deeieltory con versation the matt er mere party censideratiers ; and Mr. G enville, eeme dropped. twenty or thirty yrars ato rwards, brought in a Bill to Lord G. BENTIN.CK i nqu ired whether .the Right eut an end to the system; and since that time the con- Hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of T i de stant object had been to adopt precautions to prevent the would have any objec•tion to permit the resoluti.ot. tab: judgment of the House being influenced by party and intended to move on Monday to be printed n political considerations on such queetionse and no one votes? Such a course would give Hon. had laboured more earnestly or more succe s sfully to notice of the matters they would on Monday ba elevate the character of Parliament in this respect than discuss. resent the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) The question then was, wile- Mr. LABOUCHERE said he would consider .the tiler the tribunal appointed by Act of Parliament, and proposal of the Noble Lord, but could not at er e the which they had invested with powers which, with an pledge himself to its adoption. 1 Act of Parliament, would be unconstitutional, sheted be On the motion of Mr. LABOUCHERE, the r_ superseded by a vote of the House. A triberial had teen re-o'utien that the House would, on Monday nele,. Menewbeirsrefu,eo appointed to adjudicate on all such matters, with full solve itself into a Committee of the whole lioasa judicial powers to exatrette into alleged abuse s, din the purp.ee of taking into consideration the nievig ne t i r es order to.talte pet cautions against groundl as c.anplaints laws, was "then agreed to. and the House adjonr a " the parties complaining were required to give a guarein a Quarter past Teelve o'clock. tee of their sincerity. lie 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 such acme sations ; and surely if there were any parte to whom the exercise of those functions tree from such molesta tion was more important, it was to the minority. — (Hear, hear.) At the same time he admitted that if any special or peculiar Case was shown they were it t to be precluded by the existing law from pellet ming those functions which the House, as a great tribunal of the country, had a right to exercise —(Hea".) But what did the petitioners allege in this case ? The allegations of bribery in distinct terms. And, further, it was al leged 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 and intimidation of the electors within the meaning and intent of the laws against bri bery.—(Hear, bear.) 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 far his candidates. These were the material allegations, and, according to the decision of the Committee in Mr. Ate weod's case, this amounted to bribery.—(llear, 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 guarantees 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 of party confl.ct and injustice? He might be told that the parties were pour; and that having laboured under this grievance for a long time, nut 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 Lent'. Bill of 1842. A clause in that Bill provided that if a petition. alleging general bribery at any election was presented within three months after 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 sonable 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 bribery taken advantage of the Act of Parliament, and prose cuted it under the clause he had referred to? He dis-. carded all considerations but those of a judicial charac ter ; but feeling strongly the danger of great public inconvenience resulting from a departure lime . the principle they had in all such cases of late years adhered to, and teaching parties to believe that they were free from the stringent conditions Parliament had laic down on persons making charges of this nature—feel• tug that the house, if it agreed to this motion, would be at once undertaking, not in its iudicial, but in its politi cal•capacity, the task of deciding upon the election of its van Members —he should vote against setting an ex ample which might be attended with dangerous cou?e quences.—(Hear.) Mi. W. P. WOOD regretted that the Right Hon. Baronet, without enter in g into the allegations, exce p t i a to one point, should have determined to vote against the motion. The question was not as to the right of any Member to sit in that House, but whether the Marquis o f Exeter or the inhabitants of Stamford were to return the two Members for that boroueh. With regard to what the It+glit Hon. Baronet bad said as to the peti ioning on the ground of bribery, there was no case foi such a petition here, for the parties complained against were neither the candidates nor their agents. Again, with regard to the right of petition," within three mouths, in those instances e here persons had been placed in possession of eligible holdings, on the unde.rsianding that they were to vote tor the Marquis of Exeter's candidates, it was well known they must have occupied the holding twelve months before the e.ection, or they could not have voted. Where, then, was the remedy ? A petition on the ground of bribery was out of the question. Again, in no caw did the Act provide ior the ease of a landlord who said to his tenant, " If you don't vote fur wy candidate eou shall be expelled from your occupation: That was nut bribery—it was a species of intimidation for which the 1 w provided no remedy. Yet that .as the alloga don on which almost the whole of the petition turned. the admission made by the Right Baronet the Meinbei ior Stamford and the Noble Marquis proved his (Mr. Wood's) case. The Right Hon. Baronet the Member ter Stamford a-mitted that fourteen electors had been ejected. but by a sort of inferential circumlocution ineine that, having been ejected with others, they might have been ejected for different reasons. It would have been much wore satisfactory it' the Right Hon. Baronet had been able to declare positively that they had not been ejected on account of their having voted for particular caeuidates.—(Cheers.) Upon that broad fact alone he con sidered that the petitioners had made out a case for inquiry. —(Hear, hear.) It had also been insinuated that the mover and seconder of this mutiun bad been concerned in the drawing of the petition. It was just possible it had been drawn under legal advice, but if su, it did not say much fur the legal ability of those charged' with that duty. He could only say for himself that he had never heard of the petition until a day or two before it Was pieced in his hands, and he believed iha' the - Hod. Seconder had never known of it until shown te him by him (Mr. Wood). Highly as he might think of a Nobleman against whom, he admitted, no case had beet. established in proof, he must nevertheless claim more for the petitioners than what the Noble Marquis seemed willing to accord to teem, whets he stated that they did not themselves believe what they stated. He conceived that the petitioners were as fully entitled to credit as the Noble Marquis.—(Hear, hear.) The ore) , way to decide the question was by having it. investigated, and he con leased he should have thought that every friend of the Noble elarquie would have been the foremost to support a motion for inquiry, that he might, if it. his power, dis prove the allegations wade against him.—(Cheers). The House divided, when there appeared — For the motion ••• ••• • 178 Against it .•• ••• ... 177 Mejerity ••• ••• ... —1 BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE. • Lord NtORPE I H said he would goon with the Public Health Bill on Monday. after the statement of his Right lion. Friend upon the Navigation Laws. Lord J 'RUSSELL said it was only intended to 'sub mit the resolutions on the Navigation Laws on Monday, and postpone their further consideration till Friday. Mr. LABOUCHERE said that the resolutions would be framed so generally as not to commit any Hen. Mew bee beyond this—that it was fitting to amend the Navi gation Laws; but a Bill would be subsequently proposed and circulated, that the country might understand the nature of the measure. Mr. HENLEY considered that in submitting his reso • lutions the Right lion. Gentleman opposite should at least give an outline of what he proposed to do. It would not be fair for the Right Hot. Gentleman to make a speech, 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 THOMPSON quite concurred in the p r o- priety of the suggestion thrown out by the Hon.Barone opposite. sar M y, r. th W e WAWN inquiry t t h b a e t f f o u r r m th e e in rr Committeequiry was havingneces- N n i r. pr e maturelyilusiEaeocse denied been t ' ith cL at the labours of that Committee had been abruptly concluded. Their investigation had been of the most complete and searching nature. Mr. M. GIBSON f u lly c orroborated the statement that the inquiri es o f the Nav igation 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 rwutr i said he believed that the Govern. went 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 weie 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. BRIGHT said that the Navigation Committee of that House had most laboriously examiued into the subject. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER urged the House to adopt the mode prepoeed by his Right Hon. Friend, and to abandon the altogether irregular and most desultory discussion in which they were then engaged. After a few words from Mr. WAWN, which did not reach us, ARDO defended the proceedings of the Mr. Re pa r r h t ,, of Ho, M e mbers Committee Com mittee, which he contended hal b e en conducted with s p i e t r : e si c d t e fa o i t r t n h e e s H on on t Hoa re. ously prosecuted a laborious in qui ry , m and o ho ) t d u a 0 5 . .. y p i tu o u p i tl : n nu tie the , ls t. s o t of t heir deniedtiheirm that the eetinghadthey been unable to make a gotr o their labours to an abrup t rt-e.ernmitti e had brought vunclusion, ai.d felt bound to do so, becau se i t was an unfair statement, calculated to mislead the House. 7 1:6 9 . 14 WISS Still Of opinion that the Committer ..o; :.t eseeente . itaoe'd, seliee „ RAILWAY COMMITTEES• GROUP 11. A VD SOUTH YORKSD IRE, DONCASTER, GOOLE. Mr. Blackstone in the chair. • I Act , The object or this Bill is to amend the origins., .. and empower the company to extend their line to ren' word, and make alterations in the aidsworth 13rancb... The Committee passed the preamble, and agreed w the clauses. COLN" MANCHESTER, SHEFFIELD, AND LIN i SHIRE. • lin• This Bill is to enable the company to carry their acriis* Slietlield•stteet, in Manchester. Preamble proved, and clauses aereed to. M A NCHESTER SOUTH JUNCTION AI4ID ALTRINCHAM. ~ Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. , GROUP IV. VALE OF NEATH. . • Sir Edmund Hayes in the chair. til° This Bill is to enable the Wales COW' go , contribute towards the capital of the Vale of NeltS b and to amend the original Act. • Preamble proved, and clauses ag reed to. „ f or. OXFOIW, %VW-WESTER, AND, WOLV". • TON (No. I) ~., to ir The object of this Bill is to enable the corapup4 p crease their capital. Preamble proved; clauses deferred. rtAgr' oXFORD, WORCESTER, AND WOL VER-- TON (No. 2). • 10 This Bill is to enable the company to Make dell . ll or d 51 031 1 f in the line , and empower the Shrewsbury sn-..A.Ddasf, ham, and the Birmingham, Wolverhampton! s'titl• 1 ttfulway Companies to contribute towards the esP l- , Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. ', • GROUP V. Sir Robert Peel in the chair. vfRCITO SOUTH-WESTERN (POWER TO - ST EA M-BOATS). Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. LONDON, BRIGHTON, AND SOUTH Mr. TALBOT opened the case for the promotTh c,O O Bill, to enable the London, Brighton, sac!. S° 11 !:;a0Pf Company to become the proprietors of the boatV7 between Brighton and Dieppe in their own rigis` biltOUt i XIL Captain Fitzroy in the chair. , EDINBUftG El AND GLASGOV!...• „ t . Mr. AUSTIN opened the case for the Pr—.for the Bill.. to enable the above conapaut 300,0001. to pay off their debts, and to invest tbed powers to make a line from North Mains to Fort 11 0 7, and South Queen Ferry, with two branches F ort 11f :w Q, :,our of South ~eensferry and to the pier ° coif' E tgar. The Bill was opposed by the Scottish b Company, but the Committee decided that theY • til l locus standi, arid declined to hear them. "Iwo wi prov.d the case, after li II"' Committeetnesses decided that the preamble had bO ti proved. Mr. AUSTIN inquired upon what g round ,t--• .trrived at that conclusion ? The CHAIRMAN t ted that the Bill had beenresPAO: against by the Board of Trade, because It d i d r oe:, for what purpose the new capital to was Besides, it was said, that the kgi °l :l god ("aired to enable the company Into oll—",iitri°ha tlegal contracts they had entered f or los towards new shares. i o n na Mr. AUSTIN protested against the dec is- ,." alw upon the Coaimittee to reconsider it, but C u - - declined to do so. GiiOUP XIV. GREAT WESTERN. , 034 The object of this Bill was to enable the Grer,, Company to extend the Beiks and Hants Rs by- ri p ":i2r) 44 2 , Hungertord to Westbury, and to make - Devizes. Preamble proved, and clauses agreed to. „. BRISTOL AND EXETER . li e. This Bill was to enable the above compaol 7 A l s ,,fe. - line trom Taunton to Castle Cary. 1...11 Of .' " It was opposed by Mr. HOPS, on bent.. o p petitioners, on the groun d that the subscription - were detective. . 0 ;1 IMPERIAL BRAZILIAN - ASSOCIATION. The half-yearly general meeting. of tbis -e o f ~..4 2 00 F0 1 c14 w ieEcot.i helda ng Thomas Gi b son, yesterday,h rthree directorsE s a c t . the nn tthhee Lond on ephlaaie T t : o vi r r m a tilr e e. n } . "::15 , 50 0; Lyon Goldsmid, and Mr. John Wray, who rgs re o lsl lo selves fur re-election, and were re-appointehavect° opposition. Mr. A. J. Valpy, who, like th e 0! went out by rotation, was also re-appointe d. 00 The report was then read by the secrettsrPregrese substance of it was that the• directors deepli tor y % o p, that they were unable to give a more satisisfo Al s o went, in consequence of the delay of cert ei bly ° o lo l e but they had every reason to speak favotirtoelAorl prospects of the undertaking, from their the OP, tions from Brazil. In the last report ct 04,400 declared that they had forfeited 234 sharesie c o re (1 ; 0 0 of the nun payment of the call of 2/. bell!! the Bth of July of last year. Elev en of I" - 0 014•Kir subsequently restored, and 223 have beet!ssoisl 010 receipts from the Gongo mine during the l o ofa, have been - something more than 9 'lbs., r oe 10 9 IV: sum of 6,1'011. Is. 6d., while the expel" 2 /,1 9°. 0 0 14 11,834/. 5d , leaving a deficiency of 5,7 3 _. n 0rp0 hich has been partially met for this and °the w ' y r pe t ,110 the ssle of 2,235/. Bs. 3d. Three and-a-Q uar . Stock, which constituted part of the rese b r % 0 0, sb remainder of the amount was to be met Y pee the directors recommended of ten shilling t het r 0 0 payable on the 14th of June nest. the d• of lo t Oae of the SHAREROLDERS couip/01-,..1100g,c1/",,e port had not been printed and placed in tP ;hO eP .- 3 .y. ' P h ( shareholders, and a motion was made te b ibrtlott" . OD all future occasions it should be at lea.. oft. ut it tore any general meeting, but on being PO 10 1 1 1° tO ° a large mnjority. ed i b6 0 .1 V Another IiARCHOLDER then suggest_ t _ t 3 1,, j„. of the call of ten shillings a share, the sa u : oo 1 113 ° Otto adopted in the United Mexican Associlitolde",,eoorg lollowed, viz., the allowing certain sber e ner ty tv g io l o i p Vance money on the security of the Pr_PY'ololl,,lt the works to be proceeded with, the ol re f t such shareholders equivalent advant s b -'4 the. vances. • only At Mr. GIBBEs stated in reply th at 0 111 Y th° rot week the directors had .received advises Bowecell'toilio of gold towards this country which h eci L l it wbt ur.expectedly delayed at Rio Janeiro. s bete 0 0 arrive at any moment, and it woul" i pion t , s so thought, be unwise to deviate from the 11 us sb 0 0 present occasion. "ter' d The report was then put and suop— ing was dissolved. it i Alde r,, . , T....—.-.....------.........."'" .4 O'' rl SALE Or AN ADVOWSON.....-YeSteraLlo, 0 rt eCt ° ,/ Farebrother submitted to public color i- to 113 e: v e, P k e i way's, the advowson and next presentatl'inob,,it,"J of St. Michael Cussage, situate in 1) , ° n r c iforc l i 'oris; - 0. ‘Vitnbortp - , and seven miles trotri . 13 : 11 ;i e be . 0 I,d arsonage-house and sixty six acres `. r flu isti °- , a gross annual iricotne ot 4961. The rr .1; r 00 and the age of the present incumbent til l Y" "Id 2,7001 00 c o " 14 0 r l ' 9 , 0 1 00) (ADVERTISEMENT -41— TIM EAR L ° b y th i ,,,t, , i - ,4 4 AND H OLLO WA Y'S I ILLS.L An antnunding careo.tr:-D,,,1 0"of medicine, alter every other means had failed• se a rii , Y e ar iffP, 0 1 ,ii Lordslap's letter, dated " Villa Messina, Leg h t ° o - st Pot Flee Professor Holloway-Sir i I beg to acquaint Y° ll ,oaC S e itt• ' s r r i ti effected a cure ot a disorder in my liver and r c0 „0 4 ,,t1,4 jf eminent ot the faculty, at home and all over 0 0 , carl r .,, p' is ijf wters:oderntol'ip r been able to effect; nay. bot ever at+ rienbad• t signed) ..‘ ,AILDBOROUG11•" T he 's a al 0 13 , 1° O f° cure any diecase a the liver or tomach.— ~ 47: Oititin.dit) ..t. Professor Holloway's Lstablishrfle!: walla, h.• sit medicine vendors throughout the, civilised * -----------------: ilv,-,5' On the 9th .i 1.4 . Nita , Cotles .„,rii. inst., at St. Mary's-in-the:, f clOv° Al' the Rev. Henry Samuel Fo;"Ster, . x.M., V) Mair,i(e6Cs'4s.,dr,, the o late Harvey. Esq:, of St anmore, bli""t;s4.,';',:hk,r the 27th ult., at Langley, Joshua Nil - 1 6 1 9A% Itoo ~d‘ bourn , L-terrace, to Eliza, daughter of Cherie ,' irrefr of Langley 1 lie of Fuize Bucks. ~, ape l, et On the 6th inst.. at St. Peter's Catholic t , ", 6 v et t ton Priors, t_larth C-e . 1 .• A lino eldest cli ii ,ioP ila 01... e ~ ~ e u ty , Gur - ' C. cilia 1.. --" , 1 ,to Signoie Angelo Oenaisnt , it re) act ii ntEF. , On l' On the Ist ult., at Englefield, Toronto, ... i Vi , Lieutenant Colonel Robert Ruberts Loring. ~,e wife v ,0, On the Bth init., at Horsham, Catharine, LP re , 6e 0 ,,,,ri 4 Raper, E q., aged 58.5,,rit, ~,,,,, jg,' On the Bth inst., at Shoreham vicarage,_, "r r ol) '',,gt ', eldest daughter of the Rev. Edward 1iq..,. f,gr o f i' .........................,7/ We •tniinst,r, and widow ot James Kerr k-,,ies'i't diild On the 9th inst., Sophia Emily, yolot , w ri. ti -to , ~,,,,o, I , Huski.son Esq. of Hawley-road Ificutisti !.........:L t _ __.---;0111, ifr, ----- --. --- 0 I t a , ? MVO London: Printed and Published ILy -,, 0004000-• No. 112, Strand, Printer, at The ' — ' i jo 0 0 Strand, in the Precinct ot the Savoy', Blitidletax, Saturday, May 11848- 0111tii, 1 1;) At i itmeseur ima,,,,-,. I.- •xli medicine et:tuors througljiou'lthe clYtiinw-- 131 i. ,AO O RIRTII.S. ,Thrt,bl3o3r le On the 10th inst., at Watford Court , "" 1 4 IP 4 the Lady Henley, of a daughter. . b 6l ..-° eill b ' On the 10th inst., in .Berkeley-scluar t (I ' . James Stuart Wortley, of a daughter. s tbe ll° 0 0° On the 6th inst., Mrs. , W. R.Crow, of -f i r ' Or- Hanley-road, Hornsey-road, of a son and_hei..lllfll' On the 9th inst., at Mickletield Rouse , lieri." of Day, of a son. ,,,, lacli ,' On the loth inst., at Eaton-place, U'' of Milner, Esq., of a son and heir Es q.,. On the t h -it- inst., the wife of G. IL Leyt e ' ft sington, of a son. On the Bth inst , Mrs. Hugh Berner!, O f A g 1 hel i x , e° 15 ' °l' On the 9th inst . ., at .Surrey-street, NorvlicllollC. Is6l Rev. S. F. Bignold, Rector;f Tivetshah, Nor 4h, ttio et On the 13th inst., at NVest-bill, wap .., door., dr h ol, Henry Rucker, E-q of d• hter. - ~ On the 10th • - ' a ' "g L dEe , 1.°15e g hte + In.A., at belwood " of a cisu tiPP;I the wife et. Thomas Lough borom4h , L'q .. o ° h of