The Sun. — London, England, 1842-05-10 00:00:00

The meeting at which the resolutiOnS Were passed wits confined to Whig Magistrates, or the Conrervativcs were not admitted. The name of his (the Marquis Londonderry's) correspondent was Wright, a. very re : apeetable solicitor, and One who knew more of the country than any other . man.—(Hear.) The letter proceeded to state that both Spoore and White were odd Conservatives. They had voted some times on that side—but had lately acted for the most part as Whigs. The last allegation of his, to which those gentleman replied was, that they had rejected applications for licenses en party grounds. Now, he had never said that the Magistrates were such fools as to refuse li censes avowedly on party grounds. What he did say was (as far as his recollection served him), that they had used the power and influence of their office for party purposes ; and the only paper which put the same interpretation as the Noble Marquis put upon his language was the Morning Chronicle, which never treated him with candour. Those gentlemen met his allegation by stating that one of the five licenses granted was to a Conservative named White, and another to a widow, who had no political interest. But they did not say that she had no friends who had political interest —(A laugh) nor did they say one word about the petitions of the other three persons who obtained licenses. Could their Lordships expect that he should come down to the House,and on toe strength of such a refutation, apologise to those gentlemen fur havinB made erroneous statements ?—(Hear, hear.) the Noble Marquis had made so vigorous an attack upon him, he would give the whole of the information he had rec..ived, although he was very unwilling to take up the time of their Lordships. The Noble Marquis then read extracts from a letter, which stated that at the last quarterly meeting of the Council a Whig Quaker, named Hill, produced the Morning Chronicle, and read the paragraph from his speech, on which the Noble Marquis had founded the attack upon him. The Quaker then appealed to the Council to vindicate the character of the Magistrates ; but some Conservatives who were present said that the report was incorrect, as it differed from all the other papers, and, besides, that the matter was one with which the Council had nothing to do. The meeting at which the resolutions had been agreed to was, he con tended, a hole-and-a-corner meeting, at which the Con servative Magistrates had not assisted. The Whig Ma ,gistrates were thus judges in their own. cause ; and, ,under those circumstances, he was not prepared to admit that the former statements he had made were wrong. No, satisfactory justification had, in his opinion, been ye.t given by the Magistrates, of whose conduct he had ci.n.nplained. He would leave the matter for the present - ,:o the judgment of their Lordships. If it should be pro4d, hereafter, that he was in error, ha. would be ready to inake the fullest retractation. He thought he . had some reason to complain of the manner in which the Noble Marquis had brought the charge against him that evening, The Noble Marquis was perhaps anxious to see if he could not " floor" him; but he should be sorry .to find that political ditferences put an end to these friendly relations which had formerly subsisted between him and the Noble Marquis. In the statements he had made relative to the Magistrates, he begged to say that he had no inten tion of bringing forward any charges against the Noble Duke whom he had succeeded in the office of Lord Lieutenant of the county of Durham. All that he had to say in conclusion was, that he had newer been and never would be a calumniator or a liar. The Marquis of NORMANBY begged to put it to the Noble Marquis, that he had entirely forgotten the whole of the question, which was as to the source of his Information. The Noble Marquis had said that the Magistrates had used their authority for party purposes in the granting and refusing of licenses. He had asked fur the authority on which that statement was made. The Noble Marquis gave no answer, and before. he (Lord N.) would make any further observation,he wished to give him an upportunity of answering the question. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY tho aght he had given the fullest answer, and had shown that; the Magis trates had done like other Magistrates of other politics, and used their magisterial functions for panty purposes. —(Hear, hear.) .The Marquis of NORMANBY said that .the Noble Marquis has used the very words he said we re errone ously attributed to him by the Morning Clronicle.— (Hear, hear.) But, on the part of those geinti Lumen, he indignantly denied the imputation. The Nolbb r Marquis had no authority for his statements, and he (?Lord Nor manby) heard his explanation, although it tel :cited the merriment of their Lordships, with great p: an, for the sake of the Noble Marquis himself.—(Hi is .r, hear.) During the Lord-Lieutenancy of the Duke of ''Cleveland, twenty Magistrates were appointed for the .county of Durham, and of these there were eight Torim a to twelve Whigs—the whole number of the Magistracy being 194, of whom 114 were Tories to 80 Whigs. T 1 el it was the enormous disproportion of which the Nobl a Marquis complained, as being created by the Whig Gm n fernment. —(Hear, hear.) The Noble Marquis had spm )ken of a highly respectable gentleman, as not corm( ted with 'Sunderland ; but he could inform the Noble Marquis, that that gentleman was connected with tip, borough previously, as the Noble Marquis himself (Lord London derry) was—namely, by marriage.—(Hear, an .sl a laugh.) The Duke of WELLINGTON said, that Ihe Noble Marquis had a large property in the county ,„ and con sidering the services he had rendered to th, county of Durham and the country, he (the Duke of V jellington) thought that the attack upon the Noble 313 'crquis and upon the Government for having selected the Noble marquis for the office of Lord-Lieutenant of the county of Durham, and that attack founded on the Noble Marquis's recent resignation of the office of A ambassador to St. lietersburgh, he did think that it was nm 22_, right or fair, particularly on that occasion. He (th 3. Duke of Wellington) would make one more observe tion. He quite agreed with his Noble Friend (the Noble Marquis) that he was quite right in volunteering to cow a.! forward and state the subject of his letter. Lie did m tr think it was Parliamentary to call upon Members of t hat House to explain anything 'that had fallen from Al embers of _Parliament, either in the heat of debate, or otherwise. If injustice had been done, it was the commc em practice for time person to come-forward and make atom 'gement, if that injustice had been done by any stateme a tin Par liament ; but it Was not the practice to ask . fc .r an ex planation of words spoken in the House of L » •ds, that explanation to be given at any moment it wa a thought proper to be called for. . He thought it right tto make these few observations, and, in conclusion, he w c iuld say, that. a more judicious appointment had not be le n made than that of the Noble Marquis. Their Lordships then adjourned. HOUSE OF COMMONS, May 9. The SPEAJUSIt took the Chair shortly heft,* a Four o'clock. The Boston Harbour Bill was read a second tit te, and ordered to be committed. - ' ROYAL EXCHANGE. On the motion of Sir 31. WOOD, the Londora Bridge Approaches and Royal Exchange Avenues Bill v n is read a second time, and ordered to be committed. The Market Harborough and Brampton Road 1 3ill was tend a second Lime, and ordered to be committe a. . On the motion of Mr. HARDY, the Met r< politan Wood raving Company's Bill was read a sect et .d time, and ordered to be committed. On the motion of Mr. BARNARD, the Lot ait'on and Greenwich Railway Bill' was read a second t inn e, and ordered to be committed. On the motion of Mr. LOWTHER, the 1 r4)rk Ca thedral Bill was read a second time, and order dto be committed, On the motion of Dr. BOWRING, the Imper ii al Bank of-E•agland Bill was read a second time, anu or r 3 ered to be ounimitted. NORREYS moved the second reading of the Brit Well Inclosure Bill.—The Bill was read a. second tixe, anti ordered to be committed. Mr. E. TURNER presented a petition from. Truro, *against the income-tax Bill. Sir R. INGLIS presented a petition from a pat ish in dent, against any grant to the College of Maynot th. Mr. .V.L U 31P1. 1 RE presented a petition from Rams gate, to a similar effect. • • TEN HOURS BILL. Mr: BECKETT presented a pe:ition from th te.i Vera tives of Leeds, pitying the House to pass a Bi , fj I u re strict the hottr4; of labour to ten hours a day. Lor,l .;ISIILEY presented a petition from Bi s, Arriurn, in '. l .4.6ashire, praying that the hours of labot u • m ight be limited to ten hours per day. Sir It D(KRiLAS presented a petition from t a place in forkshire to the same effect. PERKAND presented several petition s from kifraces in Yorkshire, braying that the hours of labour sight be limited toten hours per day for five days in the week; itnd eight liours on the Saturday for all p ersons working in factories, under the age of thirteen yea rs. EDUCATION IN THE ARMY AND NAV Y. Mr. RICARDO presented a petition from the :omen Catholics of the Staffordshire Potteries, complain Zia gof a want of instruction to the Roman Catholics in the , Army and Navy ; also, a petition from the inhabi tat i ts o f Southwark, praying that,the Metropolitan Bridg es t night be opened to the public. Mr. R. YORKE presented a petition from De t ham, from an individual whose name we did not learn. The petitioner stated that he had saved sixteen persons . ft:om drowning,. whereby he had contracted a chronic com plaint, which had reduced him to great distress, b , nt he was prevented from obtaining relief, owing to the c Tera al • tion of the new Poor-l aw Bill, an d h e p r ayed fora ua teradon therein. G. BANKES pre sen t e d a pet i t i on f rom a pia ce in 'borsetshire, praying that no alteration should bet nade In the 'd ut i es on t h e i mportat i on of foreign Jive stoc. k. Col. LYGON presented a p e titi on f rom W or;et iter eluv;t:agaiust the Turnpike Trust Bill. SOUTHAMPTON ELECTION. Nit'. WARD presented a petition of a peculiar , !..latt SC ter, which•had been sighed that morning by 17 3id ‘ 1 " bitten ts of :Southampton, and the petition stated the it Ilk 7 ' th. anhabitants of the County and town of Southamp :41 were deeply impressed with the truth of the Report he is lY umelp, by the -select Committee appointed by that KC 0 -- to try the merits of the last election for the td of 3outhanipton, at which the freedom and pu rmY of selections were grossly violated, that being the 613.. cond time within nine years in which the Memj hers had 'been unseated in consequence of the election hat dug been accomplished by fraudulent means. They s also stiatoi I. that under the present election laws the st tal e prrioti ces would again prevail when they w ere " .ain cal led upon to exerci se th e i r Parliamentary f rau d; ise, an ihey therefore humbly submitted that no new q Tit sh wild be issued for a fresh erection for Southe tv :on tit itil such measures were adopted for the preventi on of th wise grossly demoralising and unconstitutional pr. A cti t !es a• J he (the house) should i n t h e i r w i sdom th, co l t t at. Thee lion. Member then moved that the mini a y es of evide 'tree. taken before the Southampt on Electio gt Coi a nih Jae printed- - -Ordered. RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION OF ROMAN CATHOLICS. Mr. HOWARD presented petitions from Roman Ca tholics of Staffordshire, Westmoreland, Lancashire, De vonshire, and Huntingdon, for a better provision for the spiritual instruction and aid of Roman Catholics in gaols, workhouses, and in the Indian army. CLERKENWELL IMPROVEMENT. On the motion of Mr. T. DUNCOMBE, the Clerken well Improvement Bill was read a second time. TAXES ON FOOD. Mr. VlLLlERS — Present,ed petitions from Dartford, Glasgow, and several other places, against all taxes on food. EDUCATION IN IRELAND. Mr. A. LEFROY presented a petition from a place in the county of Meath, against the National System of Education in Ireland. INCOME TAX. Mr. LEADER presented a petition from the Church warden and Vestry of St. James's, Westminster, praying. the House not to pass the Bill for the Income-tax, which they considered inquisitorial, oppressive, and demoralising. NOTTINGHAM ELECTION. Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition, signed by 36 electors of Nottingham, praying the House to inquire by a Select Committee into, the circumstances under which the procedings upon the petition against the return fur the borough of Nottingham were brought to a close, and the disclosure of extensive corruption had been pre vented. THE TARIFF-INCOME-TAX. Mr. G. PALMER presented petitions from persons engaged in the leather trade, at Epping, and in various places in Essex, against the proposed reduction of the duties on the importation of leather and of boots and shoes. Lord EBRINGTON presented a petition from Ply mouth against the Income-tax. FISHERIES (IRELAND). Mr. F. FRENCH presented a petition from Clonmel against certain clauses in the Fisheries (Ireland) Bill. THE FACTORY BILL. Lord MAHON presented a petition from a place in Yorkshire, in favour of a Bill to limit the time of em ployment in factories to ten hours daily. Mr. ALDAM presented, a similar petition from Leeds. Mr. CUMMING BRUCE presented a petition from Forfar against the provisions of the Tariff with respect to live stock. NOTICES OF MOTION. Dr. BOWRING gave notice that in Committee on the Tariff he would move, that instead of the duty proposed on straw-hats and plait, a duty of 20 per cent. ad valorem be levied. THE SUN, LONDONi_TUESDAT MORNING, MAY 10; 1842. introduced by, other parties and supported by the • Government, it would pass into a law, and put an end to - she isholesale bribery that had been committed. He stsoke - it with shame and grief, but he believed that the practices that had occurred at the last election exceeded • anything that had been stated in the House, and he did not wonder at it when it was considered that the two great parties in the State were striving fur a great prize —the Government of the country. That prize was won by the other side, but the practices by which it was achieved were disgraceful in the extreme. Why, what had passed in another place with regard to the Bill of his Noble Friend, was well calculated to lead to these consequences.—(Hear, hear.) A Bill was sent up to the House of Lords containing provisions, which would at least have given Election Committees far more effectual powers than they at present possessed, for the investigation and detection of these practices. That Bill was sent down to them mutilated and shorn of those provisions—and when was it done ? Why, on the very eve of the general election. — (Cheers.) Those who so mutilated that Bill were deeply responsible for the practices that had prevailed at that election.—(Hear, hear.) On these grounds he should feel obliged to vote against the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He thought it unnecessary as the groundwork of that amendment of the law which that House was bound to enact, which he did not believe the House would refuse to enact, and which he was con fident, before the end of this session, this House and the other would have added to the Statutes of the realm.— (Hear, hear.) But he felt that this partial investigation against half a dozen individuals selected from the great herd of cases—(Hear, hear)—would be unjustly holding up to obloquy those who had done that which was neither illegal nor against the privileges of the House, and who therefore did not deserve to be held up to obloquy in so marked and exclusive a manner. Still he looked on the evil as one which, more than any other, tended to sap the foundations of social order, and thought it one for which it was the bounden duty of the Government to provide a remedy. One remedy had been suggested, for which he should be reluctant to vote, as he believed it would pro duce infinitely greater evils of another kind ; this was the vote by Ballot. But he could only say that if any thing could make him vote for it it would be the refusal of her Majesty's Government to give its cordial support to a measure corrective of these evils ; and if he should ever be led, which was not very likely, to vote for a mea sure the principles of which he did not approve, it would be this refusal of the powers necessary to provide a remedy. • Sir R. PEEL said he was not aware that this was con sidered a question of that party nature—(Cheers) —that a person in his situation should be called on to indicate, at the very commencement of the debate, the course he intended to pursue. He thought that this was a question which might safely be left to each indi vidual Member of the House to form his own opinion of the course most advisable to be pursued by the House in respect of the obligations of party. He did not expect that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman would have concluded the debate, and he was perfectly ready to state to the House in the course of the debate the opinion which he, in his own individual capacity, had formed on the subject.—(Hear, hear.) If the Noble Lord thought the Ballot so objectionable in principle that it would only aggravate the evil, the refusal of her Majesty's Government to bring forward any particular Bill ought not justify the Noble Lord in voting for that measure.—(Cheers.) He agreed with the Noble Lord that the Vote by Ballot would tend to promote conceal ment, aud, in his belief, would aggravate the bribery which prevailed, and when that subject came under dis cussion, he would vote on its abstract merits, and his conviction as to the probable results of that measure would not depend on the course the Noble Lord might pursue—(Cheers)—but if he thought it bad in principle he would vote against, and the course which the Noble Lord might deem advisable would not have the slightest effect whatever on the opinion he (Sir R. Peel should form.—(Loud cheers.) If the Noble Lord wished to change his opinion —(Hear, hear, hear) on the subject, he ought to seek for some other justifi cation than to make him (Sir Robert Peel) and his colleagues responsible for his inconsistency.—(Laughter and cheers.) With regard to the Bill for the more effec tnal prevention of bribery at elections, he could only say that the Noble Lord received from him a cordial and unhesitating support when he brought forward that measure last session. —(Cheers.) There might have been some defects in the enactments of the Bill, but he regretted deeply that, on the eve of a general election, the Bill was not passed, rather than the country should enter into the excitement and risk of that election without such a measure having been passed into a law. He was no party to its not being passed, and the Noble Lord could confirm his statement that the Bill received his cordial support.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for a Select Committee to inquire into certain corrupt pro ceedings, his opinion was that the charges were not sufficiently definite to authorise and justify the House in appointing that Committee.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He thought that it would be entirely unsatis factory to leave such charges on such grounds on the journals of the House.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the subject generally, he was bound to admit the fact of those compromises having taken place.—(Hear, hear.) He believed it was impossible to deny that those com promises had existed. The impression of Members on both sides of the House with respect to election petitions was, that they had contracted no other obligation than to defend their individual rights, and that the obligation was not cast upon them of maintaining the rights of the public.—(Hear.) That, he believed, had been the uniform impression during the present state of the laws, and he could not divest himself of the belief that compromises with respect to election petitions had long existed, and that they had not been thought to involve the persons engaged in them in any degree of criminality.—(Hear, hear.) At the same time, he thought, that the charac ter of such compromises must in a great measure de pend upon the facts connected with it.—(Hear, hear.) If a Member, who was not possessed of great pecuniary means, found that the defence; of his seat would involve him in great expense, that there was no subscription to bear that expense, and that he had to make the choice between serious detriment to his future prospects, and to the happiness of his family, saving what was the ex pense of retaining Counsel and of maintaining witnesses, he could readily believe, that an individual with those alternatives before him, would choose the alternative of compromise rather than of ruin ; and he could not be lieve that in that case, there would be anything criminal in the proceeding. He could readily believe that many compromises had taken pl ace, which were altogether free from suspicion, and which subjected. the indivi dual who entered into them to no just charge of criminality: m na c l o ity p .s— ro ( m H is e e tt s r, hear.) O n the other hand, no d had taken place which were of a difierent character. In his (Sir R. Peel's) opinion, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman ought distinctly to place upon record the nature of the charge which be proposed, and if, when placed upon record, it involved a breach of the privileges of the House, in his opinion it was for the character and honour of the House, and for the public interest,-that that charge should undergo investigation.— (H ear , hear.) He took that course when a charge was preferred against the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, the Member for Cork. In that case there was an allega tion of a pecuniary transaction, and he thought it of so doubtful a nature that he consented to the institution of an inquiry. He did not rest upon the fact, that election petitions had been presented, but upon the broad allega tion of a breach of privily. It was quite true that they had appointed another tribunal, for the purpose of de termining individual rights, but he apprehended that they had not divested themselves of the power of investigating breaches of privilege.—(Hear, hear.) In this case there was a petition from the electors of Nottingham, and also from the electors of Reading, and if the Hon. Gentleman would reduce the charge which was -preferred by those petitions into a definite form ; and if, upon seeing that charge, the House of Commons should be of opinion there was prima facie a case of suspicion, painful as it would be to come to the conclusion, he did not think it would be for the credit of the House to re fuse to enter into the inquiry. --(Cheers.) He entirely reserved the question whether he would compel parties to criminate themselves, whether he would deprive them of a privilege with which every person was invested by the law of England. But supposing that the cases were analagous when a charge of corruption was brought, he was prepared on this occasion to take the course which he took with respect to Mr. O'Connell. He spoke of course, individually, for he thought the question was one of a judicial nature rather than a party nature. But he was prepared now to take the conrse which he took with respect to Carlow, to vote for an inquiry by a Cora mitte which had the ordinary constitutional powers for conducting such an inquiry. Lord J. RUSSELL said it appeared to him that the object which they should all have in view was that charges of bribery should no longer be matter of com promise. That they were so at present the Right Hon. Gentleman and his Noble Friend—that they were so, no one, he thought, would deny ; and it was upon that very ground that in 1840 he proposed a measure for in stituting an inquiry. He then said that the conse quencesofof property, the Grenville Act, and of other Acts which followed it. were, th at t h e po ssession of a seat became a mutter and that individuals in spending large sums of money, either in defending or opposing a seat, were influenced by personal consideration, and not by public interest. It would be most unreasonable to expect that an individual should spend 3,000/. or 4,0001. in order to establish a case by which a borough might be disfanchised, or bri bery and corruption exposed. A very remarkable case had occurred in the last Parliament —the case of Nor wich. Every one who had talked with gentlemen from Norfolk, or who had read the Norwich newspapers, must remember that there hardly ever was so gross a case of Norwich. bribery and I n respect corruption to Norwi as was stated i t wasw it h stated resp ect thatto great numbers of the electors had been bribed, some having received 101. and some 214 for their votes ; but when that case came to be trie d, it ended in a compro mise : so with respect to th ree other cases in the last Parliament. In the presen t Parliament it was i, no torious that a greater number of these cases had been talked of ; and if that were the case, it would be well that there should be some remedy, and their remedy should be one by which they could in future investigite those cases—whether the in dividual petitioning w e re a candidate at the election or not—on oath and at the public expense, and thereby they might find some means of protecting these boroughs, and discountenancing bribery and corruption; , (Lord J. Russell) was in hopes that the Right Hon. Gentleman would have held out some prospect to the House of in troducing, a measure of this kind. The Right Hon. Gentleman said truly that be • gave him (Lord J. Rus sell) every support• when he brought forward his-motion ; the Right Hon. Gentleman did do so, and he was not bound to do more than he did ; but he (Lord J. Russell) might be permitted to say, that on this occasion he' had a right to expect something more.—(Hear, hear.) When , he (Lord J. Russell) introduced a measure in 1834, and THE TARIFF-TIMBER DUTIES. In answer to a question from an Hon. Gentleman, whose name we could not learn, relative to the duties to be paid on timber, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said (as we understood) that the timber imported since October last, and now in bond, would pay the duty in existence at the time when it was taken out of bond ; but the timber not in bond would pay the duty of that period at which it was imported. ' CASE OF MR. BIDDULPH. Mr. SHIEL said, that seeing the Noble Lord, the Se cretary for Ireland, in his place, he ventured to ask him a question respecting a matter of which he (Mr. Shiel) had given notice. It appeared that Mr. Biddulph, a Magistrate of King's County, of considerable respecta bility, was fired at some time ago, and two persons, Colville and another, were tried for firing at him. .No less than three trials took place with reference to this matter—two under the late Government. At the last trial a complaint was made by Lord Charleville, respect ing the constitution of the jury. The fast trial took place at the late Spring Assizes, when the prisoners were acquitted. It appeared that, on that trial Mr. Keating a man of distinguished ability was sent down as counsel. Upon the examination of Mr. Biddulph, it appeared that he, in his capacity of Magistrate, had conveyed advice to the two persons charged with the felony to abscond and fly the country. On the cross-examination by Mr. Murphy, he (Mr. Murphy) said, " I shall now leave you in the hands of the Attorney- General." Mr. Keating was then the representative of the Attorney-General. After this Mr. Castles, Mr.Buddulph's steward, stated he had been authorised by Mr. Biddulph to advise the prisoner to fly the country. Mr. Biddulph had since been dismissed by her Majesty's Government. He (Mr. Shiel) wished to know the day on which the trial had taken place upon which Mr. Biddulph was dismissed. Lord ELIOT said, he believed the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had stated with perfect accuracy the facts of the case. He (Lord Eliot) regretted that the Right Honourable Gentleman had not given him intimation of the specific question he had intended to put upon which he desired an answer, but he would take care to ascertain the dates, and let the Right Hon. Gen- tleman know. The Lord Chancellor of Ireland, upon the investigation of the circumstances, had dismissed Mr. liddulph from the commission of the peace for King's County. The first intimation that Government had received upon the subject was, from a question put by a Noble Person in another place. Under these circumstances he hoped the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman would feel satisfied with the course taken by the Government and the Attorney-General. Mr. SHIEL expressed his satisfaction at the reply of the Noble Lord. BREACH OF PRIVILEGE. Mr. ROEBUCK moved the Order of the Day re suming for the adjourned debate on the breach of privilege. The Order of the Day having been read, Mr. ROEBUCK presented a petition from the bo rough of Reading, stating that the petitioners had heard of the circumstances that led to the debate of Fri day night; that they believed that the charges con tained 'in the petition against the return for that borough were and are true ; and that the object of the arrangement that had been made was to prevent the dis closure of the corrupt practices that had prevailed ; they, therefore, prayed the House to grant a Select Comittee of Inquiry without delay. ELECTION PROCEEDINGS—ADJOURNED DE BATE ON THE APPOINTMENT OF A SE LECT COMMITTEE. Major BERESFORD said that it was his intention to address the House on Friday evening, when he was per sonally attacked, and he hoped that he would not now be precluded from addressing the House. The SPEAKER said that the question should be put first. The question having been then put, Major BERESFORD said, he was anxious to address the House, especially as he was not in the habit of occu pying. its time on a subject in which he was person ally concerned, and in which his honour was at stake. —(Hear, hear.) He rose for the purpose of saying that he considered this Committee should be appointed —(Hear, hear)— which would not be so unparliamentary as the precedent which the Hon. and Learned Gentle man opposite (Mr. Roebuck) sought to establish. He ' believed the question of the Hon. and Learned Member was unparliamentary, and he should refuse to answer it, though if it were put by a competent authority, he Would not.—(Hear, hear.) He did not object to the Hon. Gentleman's request for a Select Committee, but he did object; and with reason to the manner in which he asked for it—the matter he brought forward—and the tone and gesture with which he enforced it. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had charged him personally with bribery and corruption, and he stated that a rumour was abroad to the same effect; but he thought the Honourable and Learned Member should have known that rumour had been called a lying jade ; but he, too, heard a rumour, perhaps as well founded as that of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, that he (Mr. Roebuck) was a Member of that House without a qualification, and that he swore to that qualification the very day on which it was executed for him in London. That was one of the rumours which he (Major B.) had heard, and, perhaps, as well founded us that upon which the Hon. and Learned Gentleman charged him. He had heard a rumour, too, that not patriotism alone, but that bad feeling also, had excited him to his present measure. (Hear, hear.) Perhaps that was unfounded also, and he, had not come to point the finger of scorn and malevolence at any person; but he thought the Honourable and Learned Gentleman was trying to establish a dangerous precedent, and one which ought not to be tolerated. It was better they shoulil go before a Committee regularly and fairly appointed to vindicate their characters, than to be called on to do so in that House, the arena of public discus sion. —(Hear, hear.) He had said that the Hen. and Learned Gentleman was at liberty to draw what con clusions he pleased, and the Hon. Gentleman drew false conclusions, which he always would do as long as he argued on false premises. The Hon. Member for Cockermouth had also made a remark, which he could not assent to. He knew no reason why, because a man was accused, he should be judged guilty, if he did not immediately appeal to some tribunal for the purpose of clearing himself. He protested against any such conclusions being drawn, and he trusted that the House would grant the Committee. Mr. C. WYNN had moved the adjournment of the debate, for the purpose of affording himself an opportunity of maturely considering what would be the effect of the Honourable and Learned Gentleman's motion. That motion appeared to him to be of too general a nature. The Honourable Member bad brought forward nothing specific for the House to inquire into. The Honourable and Learned Member had brought forward certain charges against certain individuals, but there was nothing definite in them—the charges ought to have been specified. There had been one case mentioned, in which it had been stated that a bond had been given with a conditional penalty to be enforced on the withdrawal of the petition, if the Member did not resign his seat within a certain time r In another instance it had been stated that a sum of money had been laid down. If a corrupt contract could be es - tablished no doubt that would be a case of breach of privilege. But there might be a case in which a person not being able to support the expense of defending his seat, and not wishing an investigation to go forward affecting his character during his absence, might say to his opponent, ~ If you wish merely to get a new e l ec t i on, you shall have an opportunity of going to one, for I will resign my seat. Of any such arrange ment as that the House had no right to complain. He thought the regular course was for the Hon. Member to bring forward a separate charge in each case, and upon that charge the House would determine what course it should adop t in each special case. I n each case the facts and charges might be taken down as the ground upon which the House acted, and it would then be entered on the Journals as the evidence of that ground. He had studiously abstained from enter ing into the merits of the case that had been referred to, but he thought that the adoption of the course he had proposed would be consistent with justice ; as it must be clear to every Hon. Member that it would be much better that each case should be disposed of according to its own merits, than that fishing or roving Committees should be appointed. Mr. WARD could assure the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that nothing was further from the desire of any person on that side of-the 11I4use i tj?antio fur ther the issuing of a fishing or rovitmPonhiittee ; but there were certain allegations which had been made' by his Learned Friend, which he believed could' be proved. He believed that his Learned Friend had understated his case, and that more might be proved than he had asserted. The allegations that had been made had in a great measure been confirmed by the conduct of certain Members. In Nottingham so clear was - Ahe evidence of malpractices that one of the Hon. Members had found it so impossible to defend his seat that he had accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. The object of his honourable ambition was a seat in that House. He stood two contests for Nottingham, and that was no small proof of sincerity.—(Hear.) Why had he withdrawn ? His withdrawal was itself, under the circum stances, all the confirmation the House could require as a ground for investigating the facts, and those facts he believed would be proved in Committee. With regard to the Gallant Major who had just addressed the House, no one could suppose that he was cognisant of what had taken place at Harwich, but still as the reports were rife, it was necessary that the matter should undergo investigation. They had heard from his Hon. Friend, the Member for Bath, something about a Parliamen tary Napoleon going down to Nottingham, but it ap peared that there was also a Parliamentary Caesar, who had been down to Harwich, and this Veni-vidi-vici-Gentle man had swept everything before the strength of his arms—(Laughter)--and in that town 83 objections had been served on one side, and 81 on the other, a number which included a very large proportion of the voters.—(Loud laughter.) He did not say they had all been bribed, but the objections bad been served. They had been told, and he believed proof would be adduced before the Committee of the fact, that in the course of two or three months the House were to be deprived of the Gallant Major's services, with no ex planation of the fact, except the inconvenience of allow ing the allegations of the petition to be tried before the House. He thought such charges ought not to be made without being thoroughly investigated. They were told that there was at that moment a bond in existence, pro viding that a penalty of 2,0001. should be paid, unless the constituency were dealt with in a par ticular manner, and handed over to a particular individual without opposition. He believed that fact would be proved before the Committee. This could not, then, be called a fishing Committee, grounded as it was upon certain allegations made by his Hon. Friend. He would entreat the House to pause before deciding upon the course to be adopted. This was not a fishing Committee ; it was not a roving Com mittee, but one confined and limited to cer tain cases adduced. Let them give such a Com mittee the adequate powers and authority, and they might depend upon it that those who wished to stop the rapid progress of corruption and bribery at elections in this country would find that they never had so good an opportunity of effecting their desires. He had no party or personal feeling upon this question ; all he wished to see was the axe laid to the roof of a system which was un dermining the morality of the country. In the present in stance, they had to deal not with mal-practices sanctioned byEleetionCommittees, but with malpractices,in which the name and character of that House were constantly mixed up, and which were most dangerous to the moral health of the nation. He trusted that the Right Hon. Baronet,the First Lord of the Treasury, would not throw any obstacle in the way of the inquiry now sought for, which inquiry it was his interest, as well as that of the House at large, to promote. He hoped that all due powers would be given to the Committee, for the purpose of bringing the just censure of the House upon those who might be proved to have infringed its liberties, and to have compromised its character with the country. Sir R. H. INGLIS said, it was very true that the present could not, in the common sense of the word, be called a party question, inasmuch as the allegations made by the Honourable and Learned Gentleman opposite affected both sides of the House. Not having had the advantage of being present on Friday night when the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman put his question, he would take the liberty of expressing, with respect to it, that which he should have personally desired to do, and which had not been done by others. He certainly should have en deavoured that that question should have been put not without opposition from an individual at least. He should have endeavoured to have resisted the inquiry. Supposing the Committee were granted, he would ask by what course of proceeding would the result so confi dently anticipated by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath be arrived at? Did he mean to make individuals cri minate themselves. Did he mean to take the evidence of informers as to practices in which they themselves were implicated ? If so, he would certainly have followed the example of the Old Bailey, but he would not so satis factorily arrive at the conviction to punishment of the parties accused. For those reasons he would certainly vote against the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman. Mr. R. YORKE simply rose to quote an au thority which would be respected on the subject, which had been brought before the House in the autumn of last year. He referred to the dis cussion arising on the disputed election for Caernar von. On that occasion, it had been said that bribery had prevailed to a great extent during the recent elec tions, and that the worst cases of bribery occurred in the larger towns, and that nothing could give greater satis faction than to see the House take up the cases of those large towns, and if the guilt were brought home to those places nothing could be more desirable than to have them disfranchised. Such had been the case of a Right Hon. Member of the Government. . _ _ Lord PALMERSTON could not allow this question to come to a division without stating strongly the grounds upon which he voted ; at the same time he could not help expressing his surprise at the si lence of the Members of her Majesty's Government— (Opposition cheers)—upon the present question, which so deeply interested that House and the country, He should have expected that the Right Hon. Baronet at the head of the Government would have stated the course which he meant to pursue, and the reasons upon which that course should be founded, and that he should have intimated to the House what was the proper line to be adopted upon the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gen tleman. The Right Hon. Baronet and his Colleagues, however, had not thought fit to do so. No doubt they had their reasons for it.—(Opposition cheers.) He (Lord Palmerston) should not shrink, however, from stating his intentions, and whether those intentions were conformable or not to the opinions of the majority of the House, entertaining the strongest convictions and opinions on the subject, ho thought it his duty to explain his vote. He (Lord P.) could not vote for the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. He understood that motion to be for a Committee not to inquire into the extent to which bribery had taken place at the last general elections, but to inquire into the existence of certain compromises which he alleged to have occurred at certain Election Committees recently, by which some parties had consented to withdraw their petitions, and others to accept of the Chiltern Hundreds. He (Lord P.) apprehended that the grounds upon which the House ought to be called upon for that purpose, would be either that the compromises alleg ed to have been made, were against the established law, or were a breach of the privileges of that House.—(Hear.) That it was against the statute law he was not prepared to say. There was a clause in the Act constituting Elec tion Committees, expressly enacting that any parties pre senting an election petition should be at liberty to with draw the same at any time they might think proper, and it was manifest that nothing could be more proper than that such power should be given, because the trial of those petitions was conducted at the expense of the parties petitioning ; and it would be an injustice if they were not permitted to withdraw from the trial of such petition whenever they might think proper. The next point to be considered was, if such compromises were a breach of the privileges of the House. As at present informed he was not aware that they were.—(lronical Radical cheering.) If .it were thought that the question was of sufficient importance to merit a separate discussion, let the statement of the Hon. Gentleman be assumed to be correct for the purposes of argument, and let the question be solemnly argued. Let the case be put that A and B had been returned to Parliament, and C and D petition against them on the charge of bribery. A and B are told by their Counsel that, though they themselves are guiltless, yet their agents have abused their confidence, and done things affecting their suits. The parties petitioning, naturally anxious to avoid the enormous expense of a trial, and thinking there may be some uncertainty in the case, are willing to enter into a compro mise, by which the parties petitioned against resign their seats. Another election takes place, and the electors have again another opportunity of making a choice. He could see nothing inconsistent with the privileges of Parliament in all that. If it were so, let the question be argued, and if, after full consideration he should be of opinion that such was the case, he would rote accordingly. But these compromises which were said to have taken place, were no new matters. It was not the first time they had been suspected_ ~ it was not the first time that they had happened. No man could get up in his place and say that the existence of such compromises had not been known before. If neither a violation of the law nor a breach of the privileges of Parliament had taken place, the inquiry could not lead to the punishment of any of the; parties eoncerned. There was a perfectly legitimate ground on which this Com mittee ought to be sought for, namely, to lay the ground-work for an Act of Parliament, ren dering such compromises for the future impossible. He did not require investigation to lead him to that ; he was prepared to take the statement of the Hon. Member as the ground-work, and he was prepared at once to vote for the measure proposed by his Honourable Friend the Member for London in 1840. He was prepared to vote for a law which, if they would, should not only give power to Committees but make it imperative upon there to enter into cases of bribery. Those proceedings being for the public good, they must be at the public expense, for they would be well incurred if they • enabled the House to get at those mal-practices, a nd visit them with severity. For any legitimate purpose for which this Com mittee could be appointed, he was prepared to go with the Hon. Member, and he would vote with any other Member who would introduce a measure, or he would in troduce it himself, that would give to Committees the extra power, or make it imp erat i ve on t h em t o go into the circumstances of bribery; and he would also agree to add the clause whieh was struck out of the Bill of his might be told th at t hi s was a ll very we ll, Hon. Friend in the House of Lords, indemnifying wit nesses from any consequences arising from their own evidence. He but they had, no certainty Such a measure would pass. H e w ou ld sa y to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, that for such a measure he ..should claim the support of the Government, not only= ,in that House, but elsewhere ; and he was persuaded if such a mea sure were proposed by the Government, or if sent it up to the House of Lords—when he introduced a measure in 1311, and t‘ • he could not expect that the majority of the lions , . of Lords would be influenced by the instructions in that Bill so sent up from that House; and perhaps the Right Hon. Gentleman, whatever his own opinion might have been, would not have had influence enough to make his friends in the House of Lords concur with the views which he expressed in that House. He did not, therefore, find fault with the Right Hon. Gentleman that that measure was defeated in the Lords ; but at present, if the Right Hon. Gentleman were to bring in a Bill in the name of the Government, it would of course be supported by his colleagues in the House of Lords—(Hear, hear)—and so supported in the name of the Government, he could not doubt it would become law.—(Hear, hear.) It appeared to him (Lord J. Russell) to be the best result which they could draw from these disclosures. With respect to the motion immediately before the House, the Right Hon. Gentleman said that it was far too general and indefinite for him to agree in it. His Noble Friend made a similar objection, and he (Lord J. Russell) agreed in it. He did not know if the House appointed a Committee on the present occasion but there might be great doubt as to what those charges might be. He could not, therefore, consent to the Committee on those terms.—(Hear, hear,) The Right Hon. Gentleman said that if there were specific charges made or stated in such a manner as could be entered on the journals, and should amount to a breach of privilege, he should be ready to support the appointment of a Committee. He (Lord J. Russell) agreed with the Right Hon. Gentleman, that if such a statement could be made, it would be most de sirable that a Committee should be appointed. He entirely agreed with the appointment of aCommittee in the case of Carlow. He did not know until he he heard them stated what would have been the particular views adopted by the Right Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Mont gomery. Agreeing, as he did, that these compromises were injurious to the character of the House, believing that they tended to suppress evidence of bribery, he did not see how the mere fact of entering into a bond could make any particular compromise more criminal than others. That, however, was a matter which would here after become the subject of debate, if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman persevered in his eourse The great benefit, as it appeared to him, that ought to be derived from the consideration of these transactions, was the in troduction of some measure to prevent such compromises from taking place for the future. He hoped the Right Hon. Gentleman would undertake to bring in such a Bill. If the Right Hon. Baronet would not do so ; if he would give him (Lord J. Russell) his (Sir R. Peel's) opi nion on the subject ; and if he (Sir R. Peel) would un dertake to give such a measure not only his own indivi dual support, but the support of the Government to which he belonged, he (Lord John Russell) would un dertake the introduction of such a measure.—(Cheers.) But, as he had said before, he would rather the Right Hon. Baronet would take the subject into his own hands, and would consult his colleagues on the subject. With regard to the measure of 1834, which had been altered in the House of Lords, he (Lord John Russell) should have been inclined to have adopted that measure, altered as it had been, if the time had. permitted. He trusted that the fruit of this discussion would be that some mea sure would ba introduced by which bribery and corrup tion might be lessened, and by which compromises of this nature might for the future be prevented. Mr. MORGAN JOHN O'CONNELL complained of the allusion made by the Right Hon. Baronet to the con duct of the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork in rela tion to the Carlow case. Any one who had heard the Right Hon. Baronet's speech would have imagined that the Hon. and Learned Member had opposed the inquiry. Now the fact was, that on that occasion there was no division, and the discussion did not extend to any great length. If he had not risen to explain this circumstance, perhaps the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet would be made the foundation for a calumnious attack on the Hon. and Learned Member by some pot-house Conser vative orator. The objections to the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath seemed to him (Mr. Morgan John O'Connell) rather objections of form than of substance. Sir E. PEEL explained, that with reference to the Carlow case, his argument was unaffected by the circum stance of the motion having been opposed or not by the Hon. and Learned Member for Cork. There had been no imputation whatever cast upon the Hon. and Learned Member by what he had said. He had not stated that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had opposed inquiry ; all he had said was, that an allegation had then been made that a breach of privilege had been committed, and that he (Sir R. Peel) had supported the motion fur in quiry. He did not know whether, in a subject of such importance, he should be excused from adverting to it, but with respect to the Bill, he could assure the Noble Lord that he had a sufficient justification for not bringing in the Bill. The Noble Lord had more leisure than he had, but he was ready to co-operate with hit'n. If the Noble Lord would bring in such a Bill as he had adverted to, he was ready to lend what assistance he could, but it must be considered that he had a great mass of business on his hands, and that the subject required a great deal of consideration. He was ready, however, to undertake to give the; measure due consideration, and zealously and cordially to co-ope rate with the Noble Lord.—(Hear.) _ . Mr. HUME being of opinion that the Honourable and Learned Member for Bath had done much honour to himself and good to the country by bringing forward this subject, feltsorry to see so many impediments thrown in his way. After the manly manner in which the Hon. and Learned Member had brought the subject under the consideration of the House, he thought they ought to have an inquiry into the mode in which Gentlemen found their way into that House. The Noble Lord and Right Hon. Baronet had admitted there existed bribery and corruption, and yet they hesitated in bring ing in a Bill. He believed that the practice of Parliament would not tolerate the course that had been referred to. They had the authority of the Hon. and Learned Mem ber for Bath, and the authority of the Noble Lord. Why not, then, allow his Hon. Friend to - have a Committee, that he might proceed to prove his case, and lay before the whole country the state of bribery and corruption, in order to pave the way for further reforms and amend ments in the constitution of the House with regard to this matter, which had been a scandal on the' House for a long period ? He should support the motion of his Hon.. and Learned Friend.—(Divide, divide.) Mr. LINDSAY rose, and was almost inaudible from the general cries of " Divide." He trusted that the House would fairly put its shoulder to thewheel, and en deavour to sift to the bottom these corrupt practices. He believed that the character of the House would suffer if they did not. Mr. MUNTZ would vote for the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, for the same reason as the Hon. Member for Sandwich. The character of the House was at stake`; he well knew what was the state of feeling out of doors ; the country looked upon them with a great deal of suspicion ; it was believed that bribery was committed, and that every means was taken to conceal it PLUMPTRE agreed with Hon. Members in think ing that that waa no party question. It appeared to him that it was a question in which the character of the House was involved ; and he should, therefore, most de cidedly vote in forour of the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. Lord STANLEY agreed with the Hon. Gentleman who had just sat down,and with other Hon. Gentlemen, as to the impropriety of offering any resistance to the mo tion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, if he held that it was to be, or that it was intended to be, an inquiry into certain corrupt practices at elections affect ing the character of the House. But that was not the object of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, who pro posed to appoint a Committee for the purpose of in quiry into certain corrupt practices alleged to have taken place before certain Election Committees, and which were charged as a breach of the privileges of the House ; and without stating who were the parties accused, or what were the practices complained of. The Hon. and Learned Gentleman assumed that certain practices not specified had taken place before certain Committees not named, which amounted to a breach of the privi leges of the House. The Hon. and Learned Gentle man's motion seemed to bemisunderstood by many Hon. Members. The proposed inquiry was not an inquiry into the general prevalence of bribery at elections. No such motion was before the House ; therefore ' in oppos ing the motion of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, no objection would be evinced to an inquiry into a general system of bribery. It was of the mode of proceeding before certain Election Committees that the . Hon. and Learned Member complained, and of certain compro mises that had been entered into. Now, some of these compromises might be perfectly fair, perfectly le gitimate, perfectly innocent. He would take, for in stance, the case of Lewes. There was nothing in that case, as stated by the Hon. Member for. _that borough, which would lead to a suspicion that there had been any improper dealing on the one side or the other.— (Hear, hear.) An Hon. Gentleman found that it was very doubtful 'whether, after undergoing the great pecuniary sacrifices of a petition, he could defend his re turn, and under those circumstances it was agreed that the case should not be prosecuted. He understood the case to be that the Hon. Gentleman, now the Member for Lewes (Mr. Fitzroy), together with the Noble Lord who had been Member for Lewes (Lord Cantilupe) were petitioners.—(Some observations m ere here made across the table from the Opposition beaches, but in so low a tone as to be inaudible.) Now, there was the inconvenience of discussing in that House an inquiry into those cases in which parties were charged with a breach of the privileges of the House, when not only the House collectively, but even individual Members knew little or nothing of the circumstances of those cases. As far as the Lewes case was known to him he knew no thing questionable in the transaction, and in the other cases mentioned there was not more doubt or. difficulty. But those questions of compromise in the case of Election Committees, where parties with drew from the contest when success was doubtful, or the expense excessive—these questions did not present any new principle, neither were they unknown to the House, nor ever considered as breaches of privilege of the House, and deserving of its censure. In the case stated by_ the Hon. and Learned Gentleman there was this apparent novelty, that in consequence of the com promise entered into by the parties, the verdict of the Committee was set aside, whereby the parties were esta blished in their seats in the House. There were va rious allegations made, that for the purpose of securing the performance of those compromises, sums of money were paid down, the effect of which was to se cure the agreement entered into, and which should, also secure that no contest should be en tered into by parties who professed the same prin ciples against the parties who took their seats. He (Lord Stanley) thought those allegations too broad and indistinct. There should be distinct allegations laid down, and evidence add uce d, upon which the Committee would be able to make a clear and definite decision. Under that order of reference, no Member could know what he was about. The question, as he said before, was not to prevent bribery and corruption, but the question was to inquire into loose and vague alle7a- LhO O in that house, upon a. mcre rumour or their hav;ng taken place. On Friday had no Palgiamen+ary grounds to proceed, and to-night two petitions were pre sented, but he thought those petitions were not specific enough. If those petitions had been presented from Nottingham and Reading, and complained of specific and definite abuses, and asked for a Committee to inquire into their allegations, the House, he scarcely thought, would refuse an inquiry. That was the case with regard to Carlow. But he thought the allegations at present were so vague that the inquiry would be productive of no practical conclu sion. With regard to bribery and corruption, no per• son deplored more strongly than he that those practices prevailed in the large and small towns ; and no Member was prepared to go further in applying an efficient re medy to those evils.--L-(Hear, hear.) But for that pur pose an Act of Parliament, and not a Committee of that House, was necessary. Great caution was requisite in investigating the bribery alleged to have been committed at elections, that the prosecution of individual rights and the vindication of the character of the House, should be kept separate.—(Hear, hear.) - The question of disfran chising a borough was one entirely distinct from the proper subject of inquiry before the Committee, who had to determine whether A or. B was entitled to a seat.—(Hear, hear.) If the public were to take the conducting of those inquiries, the result would be, that the disappointed candidates would take advantage of that opportunity to avenge themselves on the borough ; and though individual cases of disgrace might be detected, it would not be sufficient to disfranchise the borough. He did not, by any means, mean to say that where there was a strong prima facie case of bribery, the investiga tion should not be instituted by the House of Commons; but he would say that where there was a contest between two individuals, the one in possession of the seat and the other claiming it, the House should not take upon itself to conduct that inquiry at the public expense.—(Hear, hear.) He wished at the same time, that it should b e un derstood, as had been said by his Hon. Friend behind him, that an objection to this motion was not an objec tion to inquiry. —(Heat, hear.) Mr. SHIEL (who rose amidst cries of " Divide,") wished to say a few words.—(Hear, hear.) It seemed the general feeling of the House that the inquiry, if it could be conducted properly, ought to be gone into.— (Hear, hear.) He thought it was a mistake to say that his Hon. and Learned Friend the Member for Bath was not specific in his allegations, and he thought the House ought to take care lest any charge of indistinctness in his speech, or indistinctness in his motion, should cause them to lose sight of the object which they ought to hold in view. With respect to the right of his Hon. and Learned Friend to bring forward this motion, it should be recollected that his Hon. and Learned Friend had asked the Speaker, who informed him that if he made allegations of a breach of privilege, he could bring forward a motion founded on his own allegations. Allegations were made in the House of Commons, and a Member took upon himself to state that he believed in these allegations. He was permitted by the Speaker to do so, and by the whole of the House. Some lion. Gentlemen denied the accusation ; others remained silent. Why they remained silent it was not his province to inquire. There had been a bona fide case made outfor going on with the inquiry; and they were, therefore, after all disputating about smatter of form, about the phraseology of the mation of theHon.Mem ber. They did not wish to injure individuals. They made changes of things, of which many others had been no toriously guilty. What they wanted was to get facts that would illustrate the nefarious system, in order that some public act of legislation might be had upon it. They wanted facts, they wanted something better than charges. It had been said, " Hear my allegations." Give him (Mr. Sheil) something better than allegations. Let witnesses be examined and the evidence be taken down, and let this testimony be such that there would be no difficulty in another place... The Noble Lord, the Member for Tiverton, lamented that a most important clause in the Bill of the Noble Lord, the Member for London, had been objected to by the House of Lords. Let them have the power required by, his Hon. Friend; let them have such facts that would go before the House of Lords and before the country as would set all doubt at rest.—(Cheers.) Mr. ROEBUCK said, that if he had understood the Right Hon. Baronet, he should not have troubled the House with more than one or two words in answer. He had been, by accident, absent from the House at the time, and he had therefore lost part of what the Right Hon. Baronet had said. He,(Mr. R.) had stated, last Friday, that certain remarks had come to his ears respecting cer tain specified individuals. Those persons lie had named, and the allegations he made. He had made these alle gations in such a manner as to meet the objection of the Noble Lord, the Member for Lancashire. The first of the cases to which he had referred was the case of Not tingham, in which money was paid down' to avoid investi gation. The charge he - brought forward was a Compromise, for the purpose of screening bribery. Now, he wanted to know whether the Houseveould grant him the Committee he asked ? The Noble Lord said he must have some evi dence. Indeed I Why, the evidence was given on the trial. What could he do more than make the charge ? —(Hear, hear.) He had made the charge, and named the places. But it had been said that his charge and motion were too narrow—that it ought to sweep at the whole practice, and not 'select certain eases 4 :while, on the other side, it was stated' that he wanted a roving commission. He could net, pleese - any one Lhe was like the man whipping another,' 'let *WM' hit Where he would, it * did not please .-:=-' glean Via latiihter.) He wanted no roving Committee, for he had named the places ; he hoped he should have the unanimous consent of the Right Hon. Baronet and the House to his motion. It was well known to the House, when Com mittees of this sort were - appointed, that a short Bill of Indemnity was 'brought ' in, Which - he would introduce to -morrow, and it might be passed through the House in three days. There was the - _ , Case 'of - Reading, where a bend was entered into for the same purpose ; there was Penryn, in which the only z purpose that had been kept in view was, to - pre - vent an investigation. There= was the case or Harwich, in which the same charge *as made, and not denied - and there was the case of Lewes,. in which he had put it to his /ion. Friend dis • tinctly, not whether he was about to ac..ept the Chiltern Hundreds, but whether the investigation was not with drawn, on the distinct understanding that there was to be no ingairy ? That was his charge --that was his indictment; but he thought there was nothing in his manner that could be considered offensive. He had made it with per fect boldness, and perhaps it was an extraordinary charge—but the facts . were extraordinary ; still he was extremely desirous to give no man offence. It was the systere which he desired to brand as infamous. To meet the objection of the Hon. Baronet he cited the case of -the Shepherds, who were charged with bribery in 1700. It appeared on the Journals of the House that Samuel Shepherd, a Member of the House, was charged with bribery in several corporations, to procure Members to be elected ; and Mr. Shepherd, being heard in his place in the House, and insisting on his innocence, it was resolved that the matters charged should be heard at the bar. He asked no more than this, and what would appear.? The Hon. Gentleman must be perfectly aware of the difference between an oral and a written charge. That oral charge he made, and he simply required from the House a Com mittee of Inquiry. That was within the re gular proceedings of the House, and all he wished to avoid was the • charge of having rushed into a course not consistent with the rules of the House. He was prepared to adopt any mode of proceeding that would grant him what, he wanted. He would ask the Right Hon. Baronet, if he moved a resolution affirming that certain corrupt practices had prevailed at Reading, Nottingham, Lewes, Falmouth, and Harwich, whether that would be sufficient for entering into the charges in all those cases in which there had been corrupt com promises for the purpose of preventing investigation into the bribery practised at the elections. He did not wish to bring 'invidious charges against any individuals ; he wanted only to brand the system as infamous. But without that power the Committee could do nothing. They would say " You give, us an instrument, and give us no power of using.it.” He was not going to ask a Committee to disown shame when the whole world was looking anxiously at the'proceedings. If the House de sired to probe to the bottom this' festering wound, and would puttlse instrument into his hands, he would plunge to -the place of its nastiness.—(Hear, hear.) He would now distinctly state to the House the exact terms of the motion which he was about to make, and then he hoped to have the unanimous concurrence of the House. Sir T. D.' ACLAND said he thought the case of Lewes should be exempted from the investigation, as he conceived that that case rested upon totally different grounds from the others In that case it did not appear that either of the parties had intended not to abide by the judgement of the Committee. The original motion was then withdrawn. - - After a desultory conversation between Sir G. Grey, Sir Robert Peel, and Mr. Roebuck, as .to . the form of the motion. _ The SPEAKER ultimately put the question as thus amended : " That a certain Member having informed the House, that he was informed, and believes, that in the cases of the petitions against the returns from the Boroughs of Reading, Nottingham, Harwich. Lewes, and Falmouth certain compromises were entered into for the purpose of avoiding the investigation into gross bri bery, alleged to have been practised at the elections of the aforesaid towns, a Select Committee be appointed to inquire whether those compromises have been entered into, and whether this alleged bribery has taken place in the aforesaid towns." Mr. NEELD said, that as he was a member of the Lewes Committee, he thought that the investigation with re gard to that borough, ought to be left out.—(Oh, oh.) He hoped Hon. Members would hear his reasons.—(oh.) Upon the Lewes petition, there was no evidence brought before the Committee that bribery and corruption had been practised.—(Hear, hear.) The petition was, as far as it came before the Committee, one of scrutiny ; and Mr. Harford, after the investigation of several votes, was placed in a minority, and withdrew, upon which Mr. Fitzroy took his seat, upon the Report of the Com mittee. There were no allegations of bribery, and therefore it appeared that there was no case for including Lewes. Mr. LABOUCHERE said, he was sure those Mem bers who were present during the discussion of the mo tion, would agree with him that it would be improper to exclude Lewes. (Hear, hear.) It had been stated by one of the Members for Lewes (Mr. Elphinstone) that his belief was that a compro mise had taken place with regard to that borough, and that the borough would have been disfranchised if the proceed ings had not been stayed, in consequence of the general, flagrant, and gross bribery which had taken place.— (Hear, hear.) The House haying agreed to the prin ciple of the motion, he thought that, of all other cases, Lewes was the one that ought not to be excluded.— (Cheers.) He was glad the motion of the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath was altered, because he could now vote for it, whereas he could - not do so as it stood before, notwithstanding 4he misrepresentation that he might be subject to in cogjequence. "ar- Yr. MITRPHIrsaid that it would te'imp , ..,p aser; far.F -,-.=;.irdvd the Hon . . Member fol. Lewes iy:;, - v i!(-t s l3- eonded the motion of the Hon. and Learned 7tlemlu'r fei Bath, and who challenged a most setaehiug into the facts, if the borough of Lewes were excluded. In fairness to him it could not be excluded, more part' cularly as his Hon. and Learned colleague (Mr:Eli-thin' stone) stated in the Hous e th a t t o hi s knowledge litiberi had been committed at the election for that place... After a few words from Sir T. D. ACLAND, - 2 Sir J. WALSH said, that he understood the ripq• Learned Gentleman was proceeding, not upOn qjec„a ° information, but up on genera l report, an d that-he a's" claimed all party view s.—(Cheers.) begged to bring to the recollection of the n H e o ; us tb e; .‘l. : f e oasre' t which had excited considerable attention at the close of last year, and with regard to which it . had_-bee n surmised that a compromise had taken: - Pfi e ' He meant the case of Bridport.—(llear, hear.)' Th"-, who knew him were aware th a t h e did not b r i n g forward this case from any hostile feelings, but he thought the case cf Bridport ought to be taken into considerattota. Mr. C. BULLER thought that the inquiries would be incomplete if a case so notorious as that of Bridpolli excluded from the operation of the Committee;, begged, therefore. to move that Bridport should,. be eluded in the motion. Sir ROBERT PEEL thought that inquirtgiot . nature ought not to be instituted without notice. I! Honourable and Learned Memb e r , 1341. '" had given notice of his motion ; if the course tio* . Pr o . posed was to be adopted, th e n ames o f pl aces m ight added ad libitum, and the Committ ee woula. be ov er ' loaded with business. He still retained the otbjeetien be had stated to the motion of the Hon. and Le'arnediGe ri. tlernan, as he thought it ought to appear rdi s tinctly ' 3 . 11 the Journals, that the House had been inforMed that 10 certain places corrupt practices appeared. As theji . and Learned Gentleman had adopted a suggestion, he had thrown out, he was ready t o acce d e to the. nipt ° l 4 but at the same time he must expresso, wi s h t h a t A Jituw more time had been taken to place it in" a thote.,deliDit e - way upon the Journals of the Ho u s e . S an g - After a few observations from S ir R . iNG Mr. C. WOOD 'ea The, SPEAKER put the motion, which Wa'S' gar' without a division. INCOME TAX. - • The Order of the Day for th e f ur th er co n s id erat i o n of the Report on the Property-tax Bill being read, •• „7 ; The CHANCELLOR o f th e EXCHEQ UER Ic a tits in consequence of a suggestion from the Hort.. AtOwb e for Finsbury, he had prepared a clause to proteet,Parliir memory electors from being charged upcin theii cation beyond the-Assessed Taxes. The clause was read and agreed to withoactiseiSsiott• Mr. B. WOOD proposed- the addition of a atuae the purpose of protecting " persons from a charge of come-tax upon a larger sum than the net' aniou t. o4?f ref , ' income, and to provide that' the'acconnt of such ineuol e shall be made out and ascertained on the following per as the case may apply, Income derived th.der Schedule-- _ A. on lands, &c., ascertained and confirmed by Commis 0/7 sioners B. oil occupation of lands, ditto • l O2 C. on Annuities, &c., ditt o - - 1w E. on Public-office, &c., ditt o ". Deduct loss sustained under Schedule— I). on trade, &c., ascertained and confirmed by Commis- On sioners Real income • And further, to provide that in cake ell ofthe said , &IL" on Schedules A. B. C. and E. shall have-been paw t 4 Commissioners shall certify to the proper parde4 amount overpaid, who, on production of sueh'eertii#,'!„. shall repay the same." If i t was t h e - O bj ect of thel vernnsent to tax income a nd no t l oss, h e . conic!' why they should object to this clause, in_ whichifei taken every possible precaution against fraud. to The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER-00 be oppose the clause, because he • apprehended t.r-- 1 : adoption of it in the Bill wou ld requirethat all the visions of the Bill should be: altered ; and it 'visit moreover entirely defeat the object of the Bill;:bt t P t ' ' dering it ,impossibl e t o r ai se t h e revenue 'require4,lo he ,: d raised under the Act: Not w iths tan di ng what had f a ll from the. Hon. Gentleman, he would cobtend that would open a door to fraud. Mr. - Pitt's first • tbe 1798; was founded on the principle erabodiedertte clause of the Hon. Gentleman ; and to .180.41n g a duty of 10 per cent., a revenue of 4 ,60 1 9,00.4 1 14".° 1 "ii had been raised. The present principle .. Imd:r eti; adopted in ISO 3, and in the following year, with tt.a° of 5 per cent., a revenue of 3,600,0001... had beenl lo ,., The proposition of the lion. Gentleman , woeki"aisc'_Le quire a full develop men t o f t h e actua l income of individual, which would be avoided by the the Government 'plan of taxing property at' it.l kce t io, Mr: WARD said it was perfeetly: natural for s Chancellor of the Exchequer to try_ to., get AsS r 00 0 money a,s he possibly could, but he ought.--11b-irfiggo consider whether he would r ece i ve the tnere t i jitsga If a man proved that lie sustained a loss,. and .atikl j' the Income-tax, he paid that tax upon a nomitrOiner,,,, e , Now this appeared to him (Mr. Ward) se, great injOr n : If the man said he had sustained a lofts, he' hiaLn ,l ' in . dergo a most searching investigation before' the'"),* missioners, and no man would attempt that 'OW.. had good grounds to go upon. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUO47,._ o still repeat his objection that it ii!otild ope,OF fraud, as it was impossible to ascertain the exact la a°l/I"s ' of profit and loss of any person. Mr. B: WOOD said the clause he had proPes*"` n 0 not interfere in any way with the Bill. If tifell'e r c V sustained loss under one schedule, he merely wis he h i s set off against the profits of an o th er; an d, in doing T,, he mutt -submit his affairs t o the' i nves ti gat i on Of 0 ,1 Commissioners. Wher e th e n cou ld th ere b e any 'filt„f, committed - `impossible, It _ was Mpossible, as he c our t e d i nquilf d He (Mr. B. Wood) thought the Right Hon. Gentian' -eould-not-htive read the clause. Sir -R. PEEL said that, supp os i ng a person had be 10,0001. a year, received fr om hi s tenants, an d that ot had a farm that would bring him in 1,0001. a yeror; ' that he kept it •in his own hands, and farmed it bi.a. l *l but being - abed farmer; he lost 3,0001, they w oeldi: P t , set that against the amo u n t rece i ve d from his tOn.ti l l therefore, the principle upon whi c h they went tfrk 1 41 not carry out. They:all recollected that, under. tax, great frauds were committed, and-he hoped the Gentleman would again take the subj ec t i nto -lie , 0 ,,e deration, and that the House would h es i tate b e f or e adopted this proposition. Lord HO WICK said that th e p r i nc i p l e of the p ro a d sition was in some degree recognized by the 8i11,2 1 1, b0 incomes under 1501. w e re exem p t . H e agreed Witti-ftee Right Hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, tb the wording of the clause needed some correction, t • dui fully agreed in the principle. It was perfectly triOe'' • ama s s, it was difficult to ascertain th e amount o f profit' 01 e • e 1 but the Bill already proceeded on the principle tb were to ascertain the amount of profit and loss.— -( 2 , -, gs et hear.) If a man h a d t wo manu f actor i es, he coat'; r the loss from one against the profit of another, -14..qiie man had a mine and a manufa c tory, h e could noli - seb, i ' 0 loss of one against the profit o f another. ..Now-tbis.;ii not just. Ile should therefore support the prop 04? without- hesitation. b 0 The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER took - t y case of a man possessed of a mine in Mexico and a 11 2 V nufactory in England; it would not be fair to set the 09 of one against the profit of another. -- - - Lord HOWICK said the proposition would not el' tend to property out of the country. __ Mr. Ald. HUMPHERY thought the principle o. e e ti y empting the man who sustained a loss - from tra - 4 0 , hada 150/. a-year in the funds, should be fullycariiect e d • ._ e Mr. A. CHAPMAN said that se ld om as h e differ ed from the Right Hon. Chancell or o f t h e E xc h eque r, f or must support the proposition of th e , Hon. maniket So After a s uthwark, as he on believed it to be founded in jUstlcere u to hort cversation, strangers were order withdraw, and the House divided, when there appOr eti l For the clause 66 Against the clause Majority against the clause ~ Mr. GILL then rose to move the amendments $ new clauses of which he had given notice, ha l f for their object to capitalise all i ncomes not derivitivy landed or funded property, and to charge five per 0,..., 1 ' on such capital as the ground-work of the Prop e rty Having explained the obj e ct o f t h e amendments; be stated he should take the sense of the House on first one, that it might decide the acceptation or - 7 : 1..- tion of the others. The amendment was as follpr Ni 1. Schedule (A), Rule 2, page 33; line 17, al.Kjiii 3 O word "limited," to insert—" Provided always, t a,l u e every Case where the party to be assessed has it life terest only in such profits, the value of such life inter-`4f shall be ascertained, and the amount'thereof be deertto tirbe'itr'inUCh-CaPital :—And for the purposes of t o o , Act the profits to be assessed shall be computed at - 0 3 rate of five pounds for every hundred pounds of s's capital." •• • • The CHANCELLOR o f t h e EXCHE Q UER tb° 4l l O ,44 1 the Hon. Member had brought forward his ame nding rather with a v i ew to ma k e h i s op i n i ons pu bli c Oar embody th em i n th e A ct . H e must oppose the anol°ll.. ments. Mr. HUME thought the Right Hon. Gentlentt when imposing a tax on the whole community, °V not to give such an answer if h e was no t prepare be go into an examinati o n o f th e p ro p os iti o ns. If,t v Hon. Member divided the Hou se , h e wou ld -. Offal° i divide with him, in order t o mar k hi s sense o f the injil!' tice of the Bill. After a few words from Mr. Alderman Humphe r l o ;; Lord Ebrington, and Mr. Gill in reply, the 1 1(41, ' divided, when there appeared— For the Amendment 36 - , .. i e Against it • 183 - ''" Majority against the Amendment --W : AA The other amendments, of which the Hon. CT l i , man had given notice, were next severally put altd:# i gatived without a division. cts •• a 0) The Bill was then ordered to be engrosled :hird time on Friday next. In answer to a question from Mr. HUME, Sir R. PEEL said, that if there .was any objection the third reading of the Bill, before th e tariff„,," ti through Committee, he had no objecti on to i ts .postr"- .611 ment. POOR-LAWS, In reply to a question from Captain PECIFIELt, le _ Sir J. G 0 RAHAM said, that h e wou l d state .417 .,, 00 what was his intention with reg ar d to the Foor-law NOTTINGHAM ELECTION. Mr. F. FRENCH wished to know whether the Hon. Baronet would oppose the issuing of the vvri, Nottingham ? Aoula Sir R. PEEL was und erstoo d to say that h e - w OJ4. oppose it. EXCISE DUTIES COMPOUNDS On the Order of the Day for the House. going Committee on this Bill, ' -01 The CHANCELLOR o f th e EXCHEQUER - 1 139 ,.(0 as an instruction to the Committee, that the 21 Pe 7 - 7 -the ma time. 1? Fyispc time 4 1 , 2 ,„ Captt -aith ' ; ,tbdielause : After Baring, 1 f , 4 .. The ; aei-e aaia9l dI ( -Eib mo- Q ll t } ~,, u "tiltd i 14,15 . ,Tew Z€ 1 .4zoci ' The I iy ut ,,erbal a 41: ,5 4 1 , 1 : 11 3'° 1 .1 1 : . : d , ..... ~. .I '.i debate ° ,i ' :. r.A itA asrCT .vt ehih r r n u . eiu g d l iis c i l *lli 5.!-he pay On tt Q : - My. ,4, 4 Mr: I . o , l _ lt,..the r, $4 ''. i6pOsed lir .1,,, • The I at{ .On th eo , iron co • ,r f-iii it tit l A , ,al ,a u p x,;,cimt ar I ' 4 .:I,nittee. ,„,•14titek ' ll , ' '3l.l3 : i!nn t] SlL4 l b: . Plll9 Ailidi IV c„ tti e4tablisl teerimsk F',; 4 , Sir J. cbiu Aid his ' Mr. tl After 1, 2 4 011 th , :;, - ,*l6S add ' Sir Jt 'The-0 tald the * 4aII9PT * Henry COMP A ^~;; ~. =: Fl B Henry Phainit tut •••• t ter 4 e • • .J.l•. It. • ;ON • • ICI ortv. DAL9u 3 d 0. Zslt • E ..f t/ 1 I a&:, driT ll o 1 • ari , ' Y trices, • first rent' \i; , nut be wit .4A pock t P ° ek 41• , RV I , 9ek 4f) • Thom 1 14eira,? arlineitne - - Of the saa ILS keeinz' TRIOLIT e• 'er or,! ,„ kg LAR Q `e now Persoin tk l 'LARS u ;••:. The N L. 1 -V I •• ~ TEMA Tbe Pei Mats • Ttih eon. . ja and Plaiv-eil Poslitt. el; AnL VVi as ll be m t; aluziliAry a i2After ire-"j *lb It & r, ' , Mks .N '''Notted, mentect V •-. 02 . 1picnn. !. 1171' 44 n ; at , t er:Sitol ao e erie] t 4.10.1 A *4 t bri ~ `~i 9Ri 4il i i ; 61 Aiti 41 Till .. m.i l)ll 'l%lY7 " V 'bI YAL: 1 7.2.0 1 , Agt!tiii 4114 i >. '! tit ~4 ~ ,