The Sun. — London, England, 1828-03-22 00:00:00

would not discharge the duties of that office in persod,aas far as they could be so discharged. Sir J. NEWPORT was understood to say, that the entire duties of the office had been heretofore discharged by deputy. Mr. DAWSON laid noon the aahlo accounts of the era sums grentod to Nara; atei 7 , :.i - sary Pensions for past year. . . AST IIETFOiIs) DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. 'fr. TENNYet;ON panned. the Ordest of the Day for the to to tesolve itaelf into a Coneolitrea on the East Ret lord Disfrinehetanatnent : - Mr. lae sse a se eie CAL 117.1.72 rose together, lint the fatter resu-ne• -ttmt. Mr. TEM4rYiK' kriser,. to wave the re-committal of thht BM, anet his' duly to poiht out the way in which Itos etotaisl' , Luso ought to proceed. There were, Icel./hal-ell , branchea to :his question; Erste 'whether sr ea' luce had beer tsrought before the House to Ailiatnentary nrocceding. This joint name toe Aed of. The seccroi was as to the =seams of ti „ afereace; and as this MI a point which ought to he peed in the COmenittee, he 'could beg to andrest the yarei upon it. As he tinderatood his Ron. (xiill. caa eeet ) int e nded to nuke this point the stibjto-t of klase ,propsition to -the Committee, he (Mr. ennywm ) felt E tu de c a ned upon to state more distinctly than i e should otherwise halos the-pos;tion in which the borough of East Retford had been placed by the evi dence heard at the bar of the House; and his object would be to show that no measure, sheet of utter dis franchisement, would answer the ends of justice. The ebarge against East Bettor(' was, that in that borough ':here L e a b eers a long-continu e d practice, that voters for .he successful c andidate, should receive each 20 guineas, so .hat those who voted for the two successful candidates soodal receive each 40 guineas. It was now eleven months e.nce the report of the Committee had been made to the Islouse, and during the period that hail since .elapsed no woad et denial had been heard fruits the burgesses of that lmrough. Many petitions had been gent from East Retford, nut no one of them had contained a word of denial that cur rept practices universally existed there. Even from Alder man Parker himself no such declaration had yet appeared. None of it; bargesses, none of its inhabitants, had at tempted to state that they were not guilty of the charges peeferred against them—no such evidence had been offered at the bar—although the most ample opportunity had been afforded of disproving the charges if they could have been sheproved. On the other hand, the charges of corruption against the borough had been proved in the most distinct ananner. The eloquent barrister who had bon heard at the bar, did not deny the charges made again suite borough— slid not pretend to doubt them—it was tote he deprecated the proceedings then goin g on, but tl.e truth of the charg e s fee did not attempt to conf ute. The charges had been sup_ ported by a chain of evidence, which it wa.s quite impossible en controvert—the House had had the testimony of Mr. tA'arosiek, the steward to the Duke of Newcastle, who in 1807, went round to the voters and administered bribes. '.the House had also the evidence of Mr. llannan, who 'had appeared at the Bar, ana stated, that he, in conjunct.- ssiou with the agent of Alr. Osbaldestone, in 1812, paid at the Inn at Iletihrd, a large body of voters for that gentle roan ; and it bad also the to of that very agent (Mr. Picard), as to the actual payment of those people._ The es idence of Arr. Fox was also before the House. In fBIB, he being clerk to Mr. Foljambe, the banker, pro- Jutted his books, in which an entry of 2,840/. appeared as sonelry payments, and on the other side a sum of 2,640!. paid into the bank by Mr. Crompton, to balance these oundry payments—and Which he (Mr. Fox), believed had aesen paid over to Mr. Lelbitter, to recompence the elec ;ors for their votes. Mr. Fox had given his evidence so reluctantly, as to oblige due House to inflict punishment upon hint ; but his extorted evidence was sufficient to leave no rational doubt that this sum of 2,8401. was at-- tualiy paid to the East Retford electors. The next proof etas, the hooks produced by Airs. Thornton, widow or olohn Thornton, the agent to Mr. Evans, in which there appeared entries of all the material transactions that had occurred in 1818 and 1820. These books indicated wh o had received 211. for his vote, and also that Mr. Alderman (:large—perhaps because lie was an Alderman—had re eteirel 121. for his; by those entries, and by other au thentic records, it was ascertained that all the burgesses, with thee exception of the Reverence' Mr. Booth—to is honour be it mentioned—had received bribes.— • "1 he Town-Clerk had stated that only the lower classes of freemen would take money, meaning, of course, coblers, shoemakers, and men of that description ; yet the admit, sioa of the parties themselves at the Bar of the House -showed that the corruption was more extensive, and that .Earcebeee, (the Town-Clerk) himself, and the Aldermen of Borouolo received money for their votes equally with the lowest tradesmen ; even those persons who at the elec tions its 1816, .ft 1820, and in 1827, had actually filled the esiporcant eituatkraaof Returning 011icers ; nay, that among them was to be itoand, and be felt ashametl to state the fact, a Minister of the' Chterch of Enalensl. It had been contended by Hon. Gentle:loco, and one in particular (Mr. Bankes), that the evidence prudaeed before the Commit tee and at the Bar of the House did tot touch the leoo election, and that therefore this was not a ft case in which to apply so severe a measure as disfranchisement. Browne, the Town Clerk, had stated, that there were an eTspectahle burgesses in East Retford, who would not, and evhe never did receive election money. That statement he (Mr. Tennyson) perceived had made a great impression on the House. It became his 'duty, therefore, to counteract, it: He had, 't - or that purpose, put into Browne's hands three lilts, contatuing the names of the electors of 1818, 1820, and 1826, aro/ bad desired that witness to indicate, by a mark opposite to their respective names, who those incorruptible individuals were. The result was, that in the list for 1818, out of 200 voters and upwards, he WAS enable to point out forty; indeed, oet snore than twenty eeven ; and of these 27, he (Mr. Teratfeon) should now proceed to give an account. The first name ;narked was that of Booth, of whom the House knew eekangh.— The next eight names were those of non-residenta, r — The three next had promised to vote,—but, indeed, it was l eite safe for the witness to speak of non-residents, there s.:)eiug no check on bins. Another wae.ieed—another had no vote—three were residents, it was true, but had not promised—ether three residents, but who were r t ow dead --and three who were actually Paid, was proved jo evrtience before the House. Thus had he (Mr. Tennyson) cat down the 27 to 2, and he was quite willieg tt admit that there were two resident burgesses of Retford, to impeach whoth no evidence had been brought forward. In the same way the witness had, jA the list of 1820, been able to show 0n1y;23 names of perenres whom he deemed incorruptible, - and these he (Mr. T.) it , that, taking the dead and non-residents into account, mig lie dimi nished to s—out of 155: He next came to filepleat :important list—that of MK in which the witness, vii : all his anxiety, had been only utile to mark the names of 19, Whiefi nithatber, in a similar way, be (Mr. Tennyson) reduced again to 5, He had obtained a list, which he when held in his hand, wad which he was willieg to fry on the table of the House, of evary man qualified to eats for East Retfbrd, in which, opposite the name of each, wee .stated the nature of the eeldenc.e that had been adduced re- , pecting him before a Committee of that Moose, by which At would he found that a great rriajority were impeached .ad proved corrupt. fie would 1144 after that, whether t , aas not absurd to say that the proof adduced at the .did not apply to the present state of Retfoed, Bon. anet Learned Friend bad contended that no precedent could be A - 48:d of an Act for ..iit.franchising a Borough, ex eept for r e c e nt corruption. But og Junking at the Act re ,#ecting Shorehitm, he found that twit had not been a ::ass, of corruption proved to have been coni,zitted at the 2ag preceding election--h.ut a case founded on ti: exist core of a society called the Christian Society, which 14.4. procured a false return—throngbi the agency of the Re- La ming Officer. Another case wag, that of Grampound, ;')nt neither had the corruption there proved been com mitted at the last election; on the .contraw, it had oc . ‘ •urred at preceding elections. (Here the 11(o . gp.,171 be r referred to ,the evidence taken before the ,C o l l, lnlit.tee , it 9 prove that «. .onsiderable;;lorit;Of thaeiectom of EaSt Retford had been proved corrupt.) F or those reopens, and convinced that a number of respectable burgessc; e iEast R e tford to form thsnuld not be prove d to ex:s t nucleus of and:Learned Friend's proposed new body of electors, he felt it unnecerd wy further to trespass on the time of the house idrecommen44c-, the disfranchise ment of that borough.----(Hear, hear.) Mr. GEORGE BANKES was of opinion tlaat,iift pre sent was not the proper time at which to establi s h !jaw precedent, and contended that the questions of Shoreham and Grampound did not apply. In the debate- respecting the former it was that Mr. Fox had first evinced emu p os _ session of that splendid eloquence which be snbsequewds, Zieplayed in that House. The case of Grampound was n o .grit, dent for the present. In the former case there were , tir p,, t ,..„,.four convicti ons f or b r ib e ry in courts of justice— ;ll the pres,:'at none. In that case too it was prona that :.‘t a meeting f the electors (of Grampound), at was re solved to ask 8,1 s7 O /. for the borough, and the proposition was made by no les% a Personage than the mayor of the borough, and in the p:esence of the Aldermen. In no former ease did the House proceed on evidence taken as that on the pre=ent case. The' Hon. Member proceeded to cothment on the evidence of tjle ,several witnesses, And An 'PAC out discrepancies itettveen-4eir allegations.---' The, list - ofseetcrs iilleged to be booked not anthen ,,ated, and. ttiß not therefore constitnte evir!e . ni!. clie ent t o support a Bill of Pains and Penalties, such as this dis i franchisement Bill really was. If the corruption of the borotigh was so notorious, was it possible that such a re ispectable nobleman as Lord Fitzwilliam would endeavour to obtain a seat in the borough for his relation (Sir H. Dundas)? The Hon. Member concluded by declaring his determination to oppose the Bill. Lord HOWICK could not bring himself; in the present state of things, to consider bribery at Borough Elections shameful or blameable. No, nor could the Noble Earl (Fitzwilliam), the most respectable character in the coon tryehe considered to look on that practice as disgraceful, when he wished that his relative should become the Repre sentative of a corrupt Borough. It was well known that the electors of every small borough were influenced in voting by selfish interest; and that their Representatives owed their seats to that corrupt motive. Now, for himself, he could see no difference whether the electors were influenced directly by money, or indirectly by East India or Government pa tronage, or by receiving for a house or a horse much more than their value.—(Cheering.)—This state of things was the fault of the House—(Cheering)—and ought to be corrected by some general measure of reform.—(Cheering.) —As to Fast Retford he considered the charge clearly proved against it ; and considering the public advantage that must flow from tranefening the franchise to a populous City, on that ground chiefly he would support the Bill, and to the intended proposition of extending the franchise to the Hundred he should give his decided opposition. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN was sure every Member would concur in the opinions so ably expressed by the Noble Lord (Howick.) The proof of corruption, in the case of this borough, was so complete, that the only matter of astonishment was, that the Hun. Member (Mr. Bankes) could still persist in such inveterate prejudices. As to the eights of which the lion. Gentleman (Mr. Bankes) had talked so much, he contended that no set of men in this country could retain any rights but on condition of exer cising them in a way not to prejudice the public, from whom they held th em in trust.--(Cheers.)—All such rights, if abused, it was within the po'wer of Parliament to rescind. The Hon. and Worthy Alderman then quoted a passage from Lord Chatham, and another from Lord Camden —the first, in order to illustrate the position he had just advanced ; the second, as authority for the position, that taxation without representation is tyranny. In short, (the Honourable Gentleman said) he did not dare go the length of repeating all that these great men and Mr. Locke had said on this subject, inasmuch as tke language would be too strong for that House, even at this time of day. As to the disfranchise ment of the Borough, now under the consideration of the l i House, he presumed there could be no question upon that score. The only question for the present determination was, where this Bormigh was to go ?---(A laugh) Gen tlemen might laugh ; but it was clear that the Borough could not continue to stand where it was.—(Much laugh ter.) lie was never an advocate for Universal Suffrage; but lie really thought that the Franchise ought to be much more extended than it at present was, so as to give some portion of the great mass of the community, at present un represented, a chance of exercising something like a voice upon the way in which the parties nominally representing them should discharge their ti ust. The Mon. Gent!; man had to-night talked of giving the franchise, if taken from the Borough of East Retford, to the neighbouring Hun dred : hut what sort of right could that neighbouring Hundred assert to two votes, when so very large a portion of the community 100 l no vote at all ?—(Hear, hear.)-- What sort of right could the Hundred assert, unimportant as it was, while a town of the importance of 9 , irmingham, with 120,000 inhabitants, was altogether unrepresented ? The whole syetem of the Commons' representation, though re-modelled to a certain extent in 1688 was still greatly de fective. Let the House look at the vast ditli!rence between the amount of our population and annual expenditure at that period, and their amount at the present day, and then judge whether or no we had any thing like an adequate representation ? In 1688, we had no national debt, a population of only 5,000,000, and an annual expenditure of no more than 2,000,1001. At present we had a national debt above 800,000,0001., and a population in Great Britain alone, exclusive of Ireland, of nearly 15,000,000, and an annual expenditure of about 60,000,000/. In the same way, while the county of Cornwall, including the Knights of the Shire, returned about 40 Members—that is, while for its lea or 18 boroughs, and 250,000 in habitants, it sent 40 Members to that House—the im portant towns of Hull, Manchester, Leeds, and Halifax, containing 400,000 inhabitants, were unrepresented— totally unrepresented. Now let any man come forward and laugh at that.--(A laugh.)—He himself had received 5,045 votes without the expense of a single chilling ; and, therefore, he had an interest in asserting that the elective franchise might he extended, without necessarily subjecting its exercise to corrupt abuses. fie would rather vote fur continuing the franchise to East Retford, than transferring I it to the Hundred. Mr. Secretary PEEL—I think, Sir, that the question which the House is now called upon to decide, involves considerations very similar to those involved in the matter ofthe borough of Penryn. These considerations are, first, justice towards the borough now brought under our con sideration, on a grave charge of delinquency; and next (whatever the Worthy Alderman may say), policy and ex pediency, supposing it to he determined that the borough is guilty of that degree of delinquency which shall appear justly to subject it to the forfeiture of its existing franchise. Now, Sir, I propose to discuss these considerations in that natural order suggested by the Hon. Gentleman opposite. I shall advert first to the consideration of justice, with the view of entering upon the argument as to whether or no the evidence adduced at the bar, coupled with what has Imellkadduced before the Committee up stairs, will justify this House in adopting any final measure in respect of this borough of East Retford ? I must, in the first place, re peat the distinction 1 have already taken in the Penryn case, between a trust confided in Parliament for public reasons, and to be exercised for the public good, and those rights of any other kind which are individual property. It is useless, I conceive, to enter into any argument by way of enforcing a distinction so obvious. In the case of an imiiwid oars right over a private property, no one can doubt that the fact of his parting with such property, for a pecu niary consideration may be an innocent and even laud . able exercise of such undoubted right. Here the Right Hon. Gentleman, after observing on the general effect and authority of such evidence as it was within the power of the House to take in questions of this sort, declared his opinion to be, that on time present occasion they had bad ail the evidence, which, under the existing law of evidence as applieab;e to Parliament, this branch of the Legislature could expect to deriwe ; namely, the evidence of witnesses examined upon oath before the Committee up-stairs, and that which had been taken at their own bar. He had lis tened with great attention to this evidence; and speaking as a Judge, without having consulted any one else upon the 4.;i'iik.Tt, hut acting on the impression of his own mind, he muss. !hat it had exhibited such proofs of the existence of an invetiv:.:el!abit of corruption in this borough, as did justify the adoptior. the House of some measure or pro ceeding against the botouf - s - Wa privilege. If he were to come to the conclusion that there wa; go sufficient evidence ;u this case, he must adopt the painful alternative of de • ternti4if . fg, that neither could there be any evidence suffi ciently crit...atory in any other case. He was not ashamed to admit, while hz; ;teed this, that his impression of the effect of the evidence had varied at diffi-rent periods of its c!elivetr. When he first heard that it was only the lowest class of w.itnesses who admitted that they had been in the habit of i-eveiyint• election money, he did hope that it might turn out that the hi h the; class had exerted themselves to re press these malpractices. But when, in the further progress of the examination, it did appear that persons holding higher situations in the borough—Aldermen, even, and others of consideration in that part of the world—had Fse..i.4 in the habit of accepting similar bribes, his view of the szubjet .l k .l undergone a very considerable change. If he could have 1.64 iii.tit , ,fied that freemen had really refused to vote for Sir Llenry r "count, as was pretended by some of the witnesses, of fir il.4,;:y's favour to the ' 12atholic Question, he (Mr. Peel) did not hesiLap. ;u say, that lip should have considered such a motive on the part of tbe fl:e.eto.co;, t,t. perfectly honest and fair one, fur the conduct they adopted it respect to that Gentleman. (Hear, hear.) lie vva bout d 1 9 eaFtri 2 ss, however, that Mr. fircisqii.'s evidence had given a . 0191 g 50, :end explanation of, the p l ata ," which °centre() so often (that Sir Henry would do every thing ,";/...it was just and right,) very dif ferent fr,,m the construction which he (Mr. Peel) had put upon it, the first time he heard i t . It was whimsical to observe how the repressions had been transposed, as the eia;lination procee4ed ; for at first it was "every thi n , that was ,oight and tst ;" this formula, by degrees, changed into "every thing,t4t , flas just and right ;" but it did turn out that in the borough of Retford tilesa words bore a very palpable construction ; and really t. - .2t,i:t and intended that the party who would do all that was Just should give t4. - en,try guineas to every individual who had the happiness to t•e4;4;. - i t : that assurance. Upon the whola of this transaction, he was iDdttced to think that Sufficimat ..i.;idence had been adduced to sasiz;f:/, hint that. for a considerable. period., there bad prevailed a tGlt:rably gonerally established, a r -ts' I te might say an inveterate habit ale freemen of the i borou4l; pf East Retford, of re ceiving. moug hr the exercise of their 4;,iive franchise. I will now, A. - 4;fitva.ed the Right lion. if the House will allow stsi ; i a few words —although as:, ;Ware this is not, correctly spealti4„, the proper stage to ;t—urn the policy of this itte7tion, and also with respect to the course which, nudes all the circumstances, it appears to me most advisable to pursue. Ido not intend to follow the Hon. Alderman, who spoke last, through his speech, as it appears to me that three-fourths of it more properly belongs to the question of Parliamentary Reform than that now be fore the House. If he can succeed in establishing his po sitions, he ought to be exceedingly dissatisfied with this proceeding, and proceed at once to give notice of his in tention to bring the subject before the House in a more solemn form. Although the question of Parliamentary Reform has been discussed a hundred times in this House, the Hon. Alderman's arguments have all the freshness of novelty. He has discovered that since the revolution our population has increased, and that our debt has bent aug mented.—(A laugh.)—l presume that he had some pro posal to submit to the House which would have the effect not only of proportioning of representatives exactly t o the present amount of the debt, but of utilising provision for their increase, or diminution in a g iven manner, as the debt was augmented or di m i n i s h e d. Upon what principle the Mon. Alderman proposes to do this I am not aware ; but it is, I dare say, a very tit subject for consideration, but which on this occasion I consider out of place. Tye Honourable Alderman spared us the pain of hearing some quotations, which he said if he had ventured to produce, would have had the effect of justifying en the part of Birmingham and some other towns, the same proceedings that overturned the authority of the Mother Country in the United States.—(Hear, and a laugh.)—l feel grateful to the Hon. Alderman for sparing us the quotations, if such would have been the consequences. Although, however, he would not venture to use the ardentia trrba them selves, he shadowed forth the principle of his quotation, and stated it to be that taxation without representation was absolute tyranny, and would justify resistance. Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN—I said no such thing. Mr. PEEL.—The Hon. Alderman will pardon me, but he said that his quotation would justify the same proceeding on the part of some of our towns as had been pursued by America. If his doctrine in the abstract be true, what becomes of that large class of persons under the age of twenty-one, or, as was said by one who was once Secretary of State, what becomes of the female sex ?—(A laugh.)— What, also I will ask the Hon. Alderman becomes of all those who were so unfortunate as riot to have freeholds worth 391. ? If his doctrine be true, on what principle is it that the Hon. Alderman is not an advocate for universal suffrage ?—(Hear.) He Says that he was never a speculator, or an Ultra Reformist, but if the propositions he had laid down lee true, he ought to advocate those principles. But I will put it to him whether there is no difference between the taxation of a whole country like the United States, and a few private individuals, or some particular towns. The doctrine laid down by Lord Camden, and quoted by the Hon. Alderman, however appropriate as applied to America, is nothing more nor less than absolute nonsense, applied to Birmingham.—(Hear,)—With respect to the speech of the Noble Lord opposite, I shall only allude to it to diets', that if the doctrine he advocated be true, we might as well abdicate our functions at once with regard to the punishment of offenders against the laws respecting the ad mission of Members to this House. He says it is an empty parade to take up this point—that it is unjust to attempt to impose punishment for bribery, when it is notorious that persons in that House censtantlyi obtain their seats by in fluencing votes by means inconsistent with the duties of good patriots. Does lie expect to see any system established which will exclude all sorts of influence ? It is impossible ; we do not live in .Republied Platonis, nor is it possible that these populi fasces should be obtained without in fluence of some kind. The Noble Lord says that the re presentation of counties is of the purest hind we have, and talk of its being an empty parade and mockery in us to ex claim against bribery in boroughs. But to prevent all influence being exerted, the Noble Lord must prevent any interchange of good offices between landlord -and tenant. When the Noble Lord proves to me that a great landowner, on the eve of a county election, calls his tenants together, and says to them, " you and I have lived together many years in habits of friendship and good feeling towards each other ; but in the approaching election yon must not permit that consideration to operate with you; there are several candidates, ypu must weigh well their merits and prin ciples, and if vou prefer those of another to my own, or those of my relative, you will of course give him the pre ference in your vote—when I say the Noble Lord proves to me that that is the practice, then 1 shall be ready to second him in saying that it is impossible to have a more perfect system than the present. lu this, as in all other cases, the law can only take cognizance of acts which are visibly bad, but it cannot of those which are doubtful. In the abstract there is no reason why a man should not prefer a stranger to his brother, and why the influence he exerts in favour of the hatter should not be equally reprehensible inn the eye of a theorist, with that exercised for an indif ferent person. But these feelings which a man has towards his brother will influence him, and miserable must that country be where they do not influence all men. --(Hear, hear.)—lt is well for the philosophers to say, that these feelings ought to have no influence; but they have influence, and it is impossible to eontroul them, or the thousand other indirect influences which will operate in spite of all the theories in the world. say further, that if they could be contronled, it is not desirable that they should.—(Hear.)-_I beg pardon for having, in imitation of those that have preceded me, gone from the subject more immediately before the House. I begged to postpone the declaration of my opinion with re spect to the case of Penryn, until I had an opportunity of considering that of East Retford, and of forming my own judgment of the circumstances upon which we ought to frame our decision in this case. I have examined the evi dence in this case, and after what I have stated, I need hardly say that my opinion is in favour of the establish ment of so much delinquency on the part of East Retford, as to call upon 1.19 to consider the subject of disfranchising it. Supposing my opinion should be consonant with that of the House, we shall have two places to dispose of, or at least that we shall be at liberty to think of disposing of. I have made up my mind with respect to the course proper to be pursued, and am ready to declare it. I am aware that this is not a proper opportunity to speak upon the subject of Penryn, but having examined the questions to gether, I cannot give my opinion upon one without refer ence to the other. Up to the case of Grampound, it had been the uniform practice to give the franchise to the neighbouring hundred. In the cases of Cricklade, Shore ham, and Aylesbury, that practice was followed with out objection, so almost to have been considered a matter of course. The agricultural interest had the entire benefit of the change. In the case of Gratnpound, however, a new principle was introduced, and, at least as far as this House was concerned, it was pro posed to transfer the franchise to Leeds. A Bill to that effect passed this House, and was sent up to the House of Lords, who rejected the proposal to transfer the franchise to Leeds, but proposed to give the two Members to Yorkshire ; and, ultimately, by that rather strong proceeding, Yorkshire had the franchise. Now, how shall we deal with the present case? In all cases where I consider the policy of a question apart front the considerations of justice, 1 ant disposed to pursue that course which will have the fewest partizans on one side or the other. I ant not disposed, therefore, to affirm that both these franchises should he transferred to manufactur ing towns, or that both should be transferred to the neigh bouring- Hundreds. lam inclined to compromise the con flicting claims, and instead of giving both to the manufac turing interest, to give that interest one ; and the opposite interest, I do not use the phrase in adverse sense—to the opposite or agricultural interest the other. In the next case it would be considered, that the second-rate towns having received a franchise, it was just that the third rate should receive one also. Were the principle once estab lished, that the franchise of an offending borough should be transferred to one of the large towns, there would be a keen look out, not for the sake of the public, but for private purposes, for all cases of bribery. —( Hear, hear.)--- Nay, it is not altogether impossible that some case of bribery might not be gut up if it were certain that the franchise of the borough against which it was proved would be transferred to the largest town that might be without a representative. It may be said that in the four instances which have already occurred, we have decided in favour of the agricultural interest, By departing from this hitherto invariable practice, by giving one of the present franchises to a large manufacturing town, a concession of principle is made to the extent that large towns are not excluded hereafter from the chance of having bestowed upon them any ftitule franchise that may become forfeited. At the same time, havin franchises to dispose of, the flintier rule is not absolutely broken. One I propose to give to the agricultural interest, and the other, under !wooer mo difications as to the right of voting, to a large manufac turing town. It is not necessary to de i c rm ide ing t h elitt whether that town shall be Manchester or Birmingham.— The question now is, to reconcile my principle of giving one of these places to a town, or the manufacturing inte rest, end the es lle:. to the Hundred, or agricultural inte rest. I decidedly- think, after bestowing all the modera ation and the time I could sPare which the subject allowed . one, there is a distinct principle on' which we may deeide the question. I will take the case orPenryn first. That burough had distinet warnings from this House, which East Retford had not. The first warning was in the Report of the Committee finding that eorruption pre vailef's ; yet, after that, at the very next . election the same cOrrnption was practised. After float a Bill peeled this Hens e 'to IFsfeanchiee it, which was threwn out in the Lords ; and notwithstanding this manifestation of the opinion of the HonFe, the same corruption still went on. This, I think, is a strong case against renryn. It is, besides, impossible to exclude alto gether from our inquiry the fact, that Cornwall, in which Penrvn 'is situated, returns forty Meinbers to Parliament. If we look to the county in which Retford is situate, we shall find it returns only eight Members to Parliament. Again, the Hundred in which Peeryn is situate contains the Borough of Elston, whilst that in which East Ret ford is placed contains several large towns misrepi e sented. With respect to the addition in point of number that would be made to the voters by extending the franchise to the Hundred, that is certainly a matter of importance to the town, but of none to Parliament. It has been thought in s all the previous cases, the natural course to transfer the right to the vicinage of the dis franchised town, witheut considering whether the number of voters that would thus be added would overpower the influence of those belonging to the town. I would then de part from tke rule hitherto followed as regards Penrvn, and adhere to it as regards East Retford. It has been said that there are some individuals who hold great quantities of land in this Hundred of East Retford, who will possess, by the adoption of my proposition, an overwhelming in fluence in the elections. I can assure the House, upon my honour, that I never heard of the idea, except in this House, nor am I influenced by its consideration. • I have read the evidence, and as far as I can form a judgment upon ic, I do not think any one individual will possess that overwhelming influence that is talked of. With respect to the reasons urged for transferring the franchise of Retford to Birmingham, I have heard several stated. Among others, the intention of the Hon. Gentleman, who has con ducted this inquiry, to offer himself as a candidate for that town.—(Laughter. )—That however is nothing to me in the consideration of this question any more than what :nay be the number of voters added, by extending it to the Hun dred. If I know the fict, and I acknowledge that I be lieve it, and shall do so till the Hon. Member denies it, it would not in the slightest degree influence myjudgtnent in deciding between Birmingham and East Retford. Let us examine the nature of the proposition for transferring the franchise from that borough to some other county. The county of Cornwall, as I have already stated, returns 42 Members, whilst Nottingham returns only eight. The pro posal then is nothing less than to reduce ntose eight Members to six. To set the injustice of this in a clearer point, I will state to the House the result of some calculations I have made. All the counties return 489 Members, and there are 40 counties in England. Now, if we divide 480 by 40, giving my opponents the odd nine, it makes an average of twelve for each county. The average number for Nottingham then is twelve, its actual number is eight, and the proposition is to reduce these eight to six, for a population of 18,600. It is for these reasons that I pro pose to transfer the rights of Penryn to a large manufac turing town, and those of East 'lcahn' to the county. This is not only not unjust as regards the places concerned, but is an equitable compromise between adverse opinions. Sir J. MACKINTOSH said, that the corruption of East Retford had been so clearly demonstrated by the evi dence, that he would not waste a single observation upon that part of the subject. And, with respect to the next question, viz. what they should do with the elective fran chise when they had deprived this Borough of it, he would, with the concurrence of the House, defer his observations until he knew what course the House meant to take, so as to open it for discussion. The question, that the House resolve itself into a Com mittee, was then put from the Chair, and agreed to. On the question that the Speaker leave the Chair, Mr. N. CALVERT rose to move, pursuant to notice, " that it be an instruction to the Committee, to make pro vision for preventing bribery and corruption in the borough of East Retford, by extending the tight of rotinr , to all freeholders of the hundred of Bassetlaw." The Hon. Member observed that the Right Hon. Gentleman oppo site (Mr. Secretary Peel) had admitted that the elective right of one of the Boroughs should be transferred to the agricultural interest. In that case, one of the adjoining Hundreds would be the best selection for the purpose. The Hundred of Bassetlaw had a population of 2,000 free holders, and an annual rental of 191,000/. of real property. As the greater part of this was in the hands of the Yeo manry, there was little to he feared from the influence of the Noble Duke (the Duke of Dorset) whose property ad joined. It was not here as in Ireland, where whole agri cultural districts were under the influence of one individual. It was his wish to assimilate the present Bill to the Bill in the case of Aylesbury, in which provision was made for the pure voters. He recommended to the House not to go to the extreme course upon this occasion, but to be content to give the elective franchise to the Hundred, as that course would be the most likely to meet the least opposition in another place. The motion having been seconded, and put from the I Chair, Sir J. MACKINTOSH then addressed the House to the following effect :—Sir, I rise to oppose the Hon. Gen tleman's amendment; and in stating the reasons which in duce me to do so, I will be as brief as possible, not only for my own convenience, but also that I may not trespass upon the patience of the House. It has been justly said by the Right Hon. Secretary fur the Home Department, that how ever intricate the subject may be in other respects, and how ever various the opinions which may be entertained on other points, the decision to which the House has already come, releases any Hon. Member from the necessity of en tering into an examination of the evidence by which the corruption of the borough has been established. That fact is no longer disputed. lam entitled to consider that the House of Commons has determined-1 will not say that the borough of East Retferd shall he punished, for that would be an incorrect expression—bt.t that it is unfit to discharge the public trust reposed in it by the Constitution ; and that the corruption practised in it has ken so distinctly proved, that it is the duty of the Legislature to deprive it of the privilege originally granted it fur important public ob jects, and to bestow that privilege in some other quarter more worthy to enjoy it. Sir, in what lam about to state on this subject, I shall lay out of wy argument all considerations grounded on the expediency of Parliamen tary Reform. My opinions on that question remain unaltered ; but the introduction of them on the present occasion would be uunecessaq and impertinent. In the support of the Bill under our consideration, as all the friends of the general question of Parliamentary Reform will heartily concur; so, on the other hand, it will exhibit no inconsistency in those who are opposed to that question to join with them in support of thepresent motion. It hasbeen justly observed by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that where evidence has been given of gross, long-continued, and wide extended corruption, the elective franchise may safely be taken from the place in which that corruption has been practised, even by those who would more than hesitate to adopt any general plan of reform in the Representation. By agreeing to the present Bill, the opponents of general Parliamentary Reform will strengthen their case against any measure, which they may deem sweeping, rash, and dangerous. Whether in future any more extensive plan of Reform may be adopted, I leave to the wisdom of Parlia- went to determine. It is sufficient for me, on the present occasion, to say that whatever opinion any Hon. Member may entertain as to the more general question; he may, with perfect consistency, vote in favour of the present Bill. Although the Hon. Member's Motion be in form to pre serve the elective franchise to the burgesses of East Retford, though not to the Borough, that proposition is not founded on tenderness to those of the burgesses who may be sup posed to be pure. His object is to create another body of constituents ; to give to two thousand Freeholders the right now possessed !ay two hundred Corporators. Here it is clear that the House is called upon to deliberate on the creation of a new elective body. We have determined to take away the privilege from East Retford. We are now to look about rim the best substitute for that corrupt body. It is as new a question, as it the Borough of East Retford had been swallowed up by an earthquake ; and as if not a single voter were left alive. The question is divested of all reference to the supposed rights of supposed pure electors in the Borough —of all the considerations which influenced the House in the early cases of Crampoons], Aylesbury, and Cricklade. It is a question of establishing a new body of constituents; and it ought to he considered simply as a great questi on o f c i v i l po li cy, un i ncum b ered by t h e s li g ht e st vestige of any claim ou the part of the Corporators of East Retford. Thi s b e i ng t h e case, t h e Ri g h t H on . G en tleman exhibited mu c h a d ro i tness i n i ntro d uc i ng t h at as an under stood proposition, which there was no pretence for so con sidering. Ev en suppos i ng I were to agree t o the Right Iron. Gentleman's proposition (on which I will speak pre sently), that the elective franchise should be val a gricul' ri given to the interest, it does not follow that the Right Ilon. Gentleman is silently to assume that that agricultu ral interest must be in the neighbourhood of East Retford. Where is the link between the Right Hon. Gentleman's premises and Isis conclusion ? Why is the vicinage of that Borough full of corruption, the very atmosphere of which is foul and tainted, to be preferred to the districts likely to return better Members to the House of Commons? All :he three cases which.have been alluded to occurred in the infancy of legislation on those subjects; they were timiditi their character—uni the motives bywhich they were dic tated were mingled with a certain 6gree of tenderness fur the individuals who were supposed to be innocent of the corruption proved against the great body 0: the eiegtors. Those rases must, in fact, be considered extensions of old rights, not as creations of new. But here, Where it hat been shown, not.yithstandin7 the artifice which nit turally seeks to conceal the fact, that the number of pure electors in the whole borough is not so great as that of the innocent persons whose existence would have obtained mercy for the condemned cities of nld, the analogy which it is attempted to establish to the three infant attempts at legislation on theses subjects, completely fails. We are now free to choose, front the whole body of the inhabit ants of England and Wales, that body likely to send to this House such Members as will be best qualified to pro mote good government and the adoption of wise laws.— We are not hound to pay the least regard to the Ylundred in the neighbourhood of the Borough. This is a point over which the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to think that it was much easier and more convenient to slide, than to dwell upon it. Ile appeared to he driven to the situa tion of him, who quaa Desperat tractata niteoeere passe relinquit." The Right Hon. Gentleman talked a great deal of the aye' rage of the Representatives of the various counties of Eng land. Sir, I well remember baring, in former Parlia ments, heard this duct/rate of symmetry, and proportion, and average, assailed by that powerful reasoning and bril liant wit which, alas ! will never he again heard within these walls.(hear.)—l have heard almost all the oppo nents of Parliamentary reform speak against this doctrine of proportion. I have heard eulogium heaped upon eulo :gium, and panegyric upon panegyric, with reference to the irregularities of oar system of Representation. I am, my self, old-fashioned enough, even as a Parliamentary reformer not to wish altogether to depart from those irregularities. Ido really wish that the Right Non. Gentleman would deliver this question from the nonsense of averages; as I do hope that the Right Hon. Gentleman, who is soon to bring forward another great question—the question of the Corn Laws—will deliver that question from similar non sense--(llear.)--The view of Cornwall on the one Laud, and of Wiltshire on tkeother, must have a tendency very much to disturb those who are friends to the system of averages. If, however, we must have averages, at least let them not hr nu oierical ; let them be founded on a comparison of property and interests. Then, indeed, the difference between forty two Members for Cornwall and four for Rutland would appear extreme. Sir, I repeat, that in arguing this ques tion, the Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to me to offer no reason whatever for preferring this hundred of Bassetlaw, to any other district. He assigned reasons for preferring making the transfer of the elective franchise to the agri cultural, to making it to the manufacturing and commercial interest ; but he ;wiped no reasons whatever for making it to this particular Hundred. If any place in Lancashire or Yorkshire, had been preferred by the Right Hon. Gen tleman, I could have understood the proposition. The Right Hon. Gentleman seemed to , think that his whole ar. gumeut was complete when he had compared a Hundred in Cornwall with a Hundred in Nottinghamshire. Now, really, it by no means follows, that because the one place is unfit to enjoy the elective franchise, the other is fit to enjoy it. lam very ready to allow, that nothing can he more abominable than the first ; but does it follow that the last, even if it be expedient to transfer the franchise to an agricultural district, is precisely the district to which it is desirable to transfer it? And now, Sir, for a few words on the preference which the Right Hon. Gentleman shows to the agricultural interest. The Right Hon. Gentleman talks of innovation on the Constitution. I contend, that to choose a great manufacturing 'town, for the purpose of conferring upon it the elective franchise, would be a much less innovation on the Constitution, than to vest the right of returning Representatives in any county, or part of a county. My reason is this—it may indeed be anticipated by every one who duly considers the history of this coun try—it is perfectly well known that until the union with Scotland it was the practice of the Crown to grant the right of returning representatives to Parliament to towns as they gradually rose to consideration and magnitude. lam aware that this practice was not founded on any regular principle, or on any uniform public motive. But, al though it is true that many insignificant towns were en franchised, there was no instance, down to the time of Charles 1., of any great and important town being left unrepresented in Parliament. If we look at the Act giv ing the right of being represented to the freeholders of the County of Durham, we shall see that it was also given to the freemen of the City of Durham. This ancient practice of the English Constitution fell into disuse in consequence of the Union with Scotland. To give the right of repre sentation to places not adequately represented, would be to act in conformity with the ancient usage ; hut to give an additional right of representation to places already ade qnately represented would he an innovation not justified by example or precedent. It is not on the ground of innova tion that I myself object to it ; but surely it behoves those who are the opponents of general reform to be watch ful, and to give their support to that of the two proposi tion; which is the less innovation. Now, to place burgesses in the room of burgesses—to give to towns what other towns have enjoyed, is a much less innovation than to give freeholders what has been taken from freemen, and to place knights of the shire, or individuals of a similar character, in places which the Constitution intended should be filled by manufacturing and commercial members. Not only in the form and the letter, but in the spirit, the one was evidently a much greater innovation than the other. It was much more being natural that burgesses should succeed burgesses, than that those who were the guardians of the landed interest should succeed burgesses. The Right Hon. Gentleman has stated that he entertains sonic notion that the success of the mea sure i el t se iot w ateh h re e e r sa e tg. e r , Whatii(l,luldtipael is the n depend upon d pt hree o se thenonetth.oerf stateo tothe transfersmanufac turing fthee as Three boroughs have been diefeanclused, and their rights have been transferred to the hundreds; that is to say s to the lands around them. A fourth borough has been disfranchised, and its rights have been transferred to the county of York. lam aware it will be said, that although nominally to the county, a portion of that representation may be considered as belonging to the town of Leeds.— Even es its that allowance, let us see how the matter stands. Six Members have been at once transferred to the landed interest; and at least one of the other two added to the representation of Yorkshire. So, there fore, there is only one, and he not directly, but indi rectly, who can be justly considered as the representative and guardian of the great commercial interest,. Thus, Sir, it appears that under the head of Reform there is an im mense arrear due to the manufacturing and co mmercial in terests. The proportion between the grants to the agricul tural and the grants to the raanufacturing and commercial interests is at present as seven to one. Having allowed that preponderance to be established, are we to leave the inequality undisturbed, and to go on increasing the two in terests equally? Sucia, however, is the Right Hon. Gen tleman's proposition. But that is not all. The great and ss of persons that interest i m ruling- classes in this country consist of the landed interests. I have no desire that it should be otherwise. I have no wish to disturb the station which that interest holds. But at the same time I am perfectly justified in saying, that if i there t beth the 1 interest r i sEt. If Englandunprotected, env class kingdom is weaker than it ought to be, it cannot be said that it is the class of landed proprietor!. I should be very sorry if it were otherwise. But certainly, under such cir cumstances, it is a very moderate claim on toy part if I confine myself to declaring that we ought to make a full payment of the arrear due to the commercial and manufac turing interests, before we dream of goi ng on equally in our grants. As to what the Right Hop. G ent l eman has said of the probability of insuring success to these measures in the other House of Parliament if the course recommended by him be adopted, I can only say that I always feel a very great uncertainty as to the det erm i nat i ons of that noble and august body. It is probably owing to the superiority of their wisdom, and to the humility of my understanding ' • but I confess that 1 can nev er pretend to' calculate upon their decisions. I can no t even conjecture them. How, then, can I allow the sup pos i t i on of the Right 800. (.gentle man to influence my vote on this ' question? As a burgess, 118 a goo. . divan burges s ( to use the name given by our ances tors), sitting Perlia tnent f or a borough in Yorkshire, 1 must proceed on th e p l a i n pr i nciples of common sense. I must proceed in every case on what appears to me to be the awnt(eet choice.(sitigninedcourseSir, for t do not know liouse top what pursue e u H e o is u , se to of ,:e L n u a rd lo s may think prop er to d o. .But I know that the only safe that House the r esu l t o f our own mature and uninfluenced deliberation, seconded—as Iti l • believe in I •it rm y • t case 5%-ill be seconded—by the almost unanimous voice of the people of England ; in the well-founded hope and expecta tion, that the House of Louie, in a matter affecting the other House of Parliament, connected with the equitable representation of the people, and tending to the return ofe Alembers of a character to support the good government coet the kingdom, the equal administration of justice, and . h p t enactment of wise laws, will at least pay some et", the to the opinions of the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses Ottt , Commons' House, as to what is due to the i, true eofth represen tation of the people, and in conformity to the reuse to great body of the people. —(bear, hear. )- , s hould meleiy . de part from this sound principle, involve myself in d colnectut ee myself in labyrinths, and lose and in all probability should,. as the reward of coo hopes tele would cessions, be induced to cheris,e. even tually prove delusive. No, Sir, I never consent to put the dignity and independence. of this Hou se into the hands of persons of whoseafiectione and inclina tions I can know nothing. It may be said that we ought non wantonly to iuenr the risk cf a breach between the two fleuaes of rarliament, Sir, I deprecate am InUeb ae ant man ran deprecate any serious difference bettleau the Houses ; but it is impossible for me to suppose, that in a case like this, the difference could be either very serious or very durable, If the sense of this House be deliberate', and decidedly, and, if need he, repeatedly pronounced.... (Hear, hear, from Mr. Wynn)—it' under such circum stances we should he loudly seconded (which at the present moment would be a superfluity) by the voice of a numeruoi• and powerful people, I cannot pay the House of Lords so bad a compliment as to think, that they would not daly weigh all the circumstances of the case, and consider it only reasonable that the motives which had influenced us, and the motives which had influenced the people of Eng land, should be allowed to influence them,—( ll ean )_— Let us at least adhere to the ancient maxim, " So to act that if we fail we shall not be disgraced." I hope, Sir, that in what I have said I may not be supposed to have insinuated any thing against the other House. Insinua tion I would have disdained, had I been disposed to ad vance any charge ; but I felt bound to declare that which I have declared, in maintenance of the independence and dignity of the assembly to which I have the honour to belong.—(Hear, hear.)-4t has been said by the Right Hon. Gentleman, that if the Elective Franchise were trans ferred to Birmingham, my Hon. Friend would imme diately be returned for that place. Unquestionably—Yu -1y Hos. Friend should succeed in this measure, he will have well earned ;telt a distinction. He will have impaxteel new motives of attachment to the Constitution to a numerous and enlightened body of men. But I leave it to my Hop. Friend to state the reasons which induce him to recom mend that the elective franchise of this Borough should be transferred to Birmingham. I have nothing to do with the question as it respects Birmingham, except (comparing it with the seetion of a county to which the Right Honour able Gentleman proposes to transfer this franchise) to ask, whether the inhabitants of Birmingham, an unrepresentesl community, a population of &hundred and twenty thousand inhabitants, abounding with men of property, character, and intelligence; or the comparatively small number of fifteen hundred freeholders of Nottiugham.shire, all of whom already possess the right of voting for Members of Parliament, should be selected as the successors of the delinquent Corporators of Retford—(Hear.)—N ow , Sir, I ask the House whether this is not a question which answers itself? Can any man pretend to say that the claim of Birmingham to this transfer of the Elective Franchise is not far superior to the claim of a portion only of the county of Nottingham, sr that the form er i s not muc h more likely to m a ke a sound choice of representatives than the latter? Why, I ask, should we refuse this right to Birmingham, possessing such an extensive population, in order to give it to a number of persons not exceeding one third of the population of Nottinghamshire. Let the House consider but for a moment the vast importance of the iron trade, of which 'Birmingham is the chief and centre point —a trade spreading itself over a country com posed, as I may say, of towns--a trade running through Warwickshire anti Staffoldshire. I sin not sure whether iron form the second or third of the great branches of our trade; I think it is the second ; but whether second or third is inuuaterial to my argument ; I say that that trade is the least directly represented of any of the three great branches. It is neither my intention nor my wish to mention the names of other branches of our internal traffic; but I repeat that the iron trade is the least protected of all.—(Hear.)—But, Sir, we have now pre sented to us the opportunity of remedying this evil, by giving two Members to Birmingham on the disfranchisement of the Borough of East Retford. The Hon. Member has talked to us of the population of this Hundred; I wish he had given us some information as to the population of Staffordshire and Warwicicsliire.—(Hear.)—l wish he had told us the proportion of representatives to the population of these counties, as compared with the county of Nottingham, instead of telling us that there existed a small arithmetical disproportion between the places to which he has alluded. The question of disfranchising corrupt boroughs, anti trans ferring the franchise to large towns, was so ably handled by my Noble Friend (Lord Dudley) then Mr. Ward, that; I think I cannot do better than quote some of his obser vations. That Noble Lord proceeded with such a niinture of wit and argument, that every pleasantry contained a reason, and every assertion a proof. It had been said, in the course of the discussion to which I allude, that the corruption which had been rarrieA on in the boroughs of Gatton and Oh! Sarum was enough to make our ancestors rise front their graves. " No," said Mr. Ward, " that is not enough to make our ances tors rise from their graves, for they had had their Gattonst anti their Old Sarnms as well as ourselves; but there • is a circumstance which is enough to call them frum their graves, and that is, to see in the present day towns larger. and more populous than their London totally unrepresent ed"—(Hear.)—ls it possible, I ask, to express the defects of the existing state of the representation better, or in fewer words? I say, Sir, that if the House does not avail itself of this opportunity of giving two representatives to one of the great towns, we shall lose one of the best oppor tunities that ever presented themselves of sinking the Constitution more deeply into the hearts of the people; and attaching the whole of the community to our national in stitutions. We shah also lose the opportunity of giving to one of our greatest trading interests that protection which it requires, and in the absence of which it is left depending solely on the justice of Parliament. We have been told that, to transfer this franchise in the way recommended by hav th e a e t ith th e e r theon my Noble Friend, would be to establish a new principle, and that we ought not to fetter those who may come after us by the adoption of such a course. Sir, I deny that the lt"rignekttoalst',a, by e e t c h t s i s . Billl maintain wo u l d Parlia ment of future times would be empowered to exercise the adopt the same wariness in acting upon a precedent as we or rutrisele other recom o m f e t T i l e e se d Fame rights and the same discretion, and, no doubt, would do at present.—lt is sufficient —aye, more than sufficient f or s a—to look at what is passing around us, in order to in duce us to sanction changes that have become necessary, without venturing to conjecture either what could be done by those who came after us, or what course the other House of Parliament may think it right to pursue with respect to this measure. We have been told amongst other things, that this Bill would have the effect of creating combinations to detect bribery at elections. But, Sir, I would ask, is that so very great an evil ?—(Ylear, hear.) I say, the disfranchisement of this borough would operate as a warning to all others, and if those others trangressed the law in the face of that warning, why let them pay the penalty of their delinquency. An Hon. Member has talked of this disfranchisetneut as a punishment to the voters. Sir, I protest against the use or application of the term. I say, we. are only taking away the franchise from persons unfit to exercise it properly. if I looked upon the Bill as a punishment, I should object to it; but I view it in a very difkrent light. I look upon it as a measure of great legislative policy, which this House exercises for the gene ral benefit of the community. For my part, though long affected br illness, 1 came down determined to bear my public testimony to the benefit of this measure, while others of a like beneficial tendency will bear down the name of my Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) to the latest posterity.—(Hear, hear.) If I have not been able to enforce my opinions in favour of this most sacred, most excellent reform, I have at least discharged my consci enc e from the charge of not having given it my humble support. It is the beauty of our Constitution, that while we are enabled to maintain our institution, we are, by its flexibi• et s ion ig iAifd i .an n : a lten l neder i isr i .n u i o eie t snn i et agricultural and He Qtilie,is observes], tdi::ti lity, also enabled to adapt it to circumstances, without ' East Retford in its present si tuation, are so 'dreadful in their immediate consequences, and *Zeman sat down amidst loud cheers.] General GASCQYNE rose amidst loud cries of " Que d tion." lie supp t o n r o t r id ti t ia h n e that ilt di ' or .laz eailt a in g i r r o l e b. i t o r e l e io nr :t u t s g fE : oo o Nr i t n' i l l Ei n t i l i t‘ iTe l' ei' adoptinge iTortfeuiffpaoelitrp.rseit, supported e ale i t : s d i s s— et c li e iae [n'ers im i ; l s e : o n : , i s o o t i n u l ig . . m ohi au it n i ilet(ioia' Learned n givenl. the di o l n Gen o : t n n . ( o ' . : any means so it.titzaita'en.Y particularly after • the very able and powerfully question. ers. He did not think that dis tricts, who agriculturalwere interests were by E n k o c t t i v f e re r e i nT h i:: o el l ti d led the io n that House. represented Mr. W. hour, - wYNN did not wish to obtrude himself on the r !louse ch o f e l oq uent sr" and Le arne d Membee for K na resborough. T he question, however, was of anti'. i m portance, that he could not reconcile it to himself to givo a silent vote iipon it. The Hon. Member proceeded to cutter shortly into the grounds upon Which lie supported the • motion in preference tq the tut:wadi/tent, but the ' in the House rendered him at intervals inaudible in ise gal he With respect to what might be done •' I thea he thought they had nothing to do. It „4-s u f t ( i i eitier place of Commons to adopt that course which the deemed thy, 1(12'7 per, and to leave it to the other House to do as y tl ee7 l pr d. - Thve were, he perceived, thre e m o d ea of 1 '!Yul ) ease o 'taming free-, doin in this borough—by birth, by se . • r e v s m e , and by redepo-. t ower and s' by this latter means, 4 power and influence might ereate P Z ." l P""ssiog Peet overwhelm his antagonist. A nother ground, votes as to , too, whyhe wished to transfer the franchse to !If'. was this, that in large town s u-i. ,_, g ( populous towns omn \sere represented, there was always an action and re-action of public feeli ' while in large unrepresented towns the popular feeling n t!ett ; generally on one side, and opposed to those who they roe ceived deprived them of their privileges. Upon . tlueeo ' different ;munch he would support the motion. Mn Secretary PrEL, in explanation, denied that In I had over i What wax did say wi they took that they adopted ti they eonsi deecriptiol versed on stances w effect of ti Mr. W, Hi did no at that Jai ing the ea difference transfereno be did this to be the them. E fec the fra it °p ea to effects wh 4 nother pl The He Pared-- Mr. G. inquire ini and Irelan tio n , and R , as canie The ott and the If o'Cleek. p AR ZION j. Stain 2. Paupi S. Luna Re 4, Rome (. Cities of Corp( del 7. Penr3 of Ff , 8. rime Re 9. Freeb 10. Alehc 11. Suppl 12. Suppl 13. East 14. Priem 15. Juries 1,6. Life 17. hal( Mr. Chin ( nies Peni The gave a gr 4i lane, to the Emars of Gentry. A Cal yesterday a whieh veal 13AvitlasT vt LLE an, Secretary Ctrs.licna • ;ained in APPR THIEV7 f orced their s o uth Brie window- sh all suspinio: Iti rt) : 4 wttefo:i: r g q eesit : dhhry ioeur differed y e a sddnvimt:t b roke n aohilemAyalthetai.nitl ight femah itercurp