The Sun. — London, England, 1842-07-28 00:00:00

fotwb 3124ition suiy- OFFICE, &yen o' Clock. SPIRIT of the PUBLIC JOURNALS. FROM TUE EVENING PAPERS OF THIS DAY. GLOBE.—The present • Session of Parliament hastens to its termination. Its closing scenes resem ble those presented at its earlier sittings. Bribery supplied it with business when it first met ; Bribery furnished abundant employment for its Committees, and fruitful' themes for debate, as the Session advanced—and 'Bribery constitutes the Chief discussion, now that the curtain is about to fall upon the stage, and the House break up for the season. The history of Parliaments presents nothing equal to the odium and reproach which rests upon the present House of Commons, caused by the unprecedented cor ruption of the elective bodies by those who sought, and obtained by such means, the questionable honour of a seat within its walls. Former Parliaments have been distinguished by some circumstance arising out of the occasions on which they were called—the length or shortness of their duration, or the more prominent measures which they originated or matured. From one or other of these causes they have been designated in his tory. The notise of Commons which hails Sir Robert Peel as its chief, and passes his measures, is, beyond all question, the most corrupt of any one of its prede ceSors. "Bribery" is inscribed upon its portals— " Bribery" is written with a pen of iron upon many a brow of brass within its walls—and by the charac teristic appellation of " the Bribery Parliament,". will it be handed down to posterity ! The proceedings of its numerous committees the resolutions recorded upon its " Votes and Proceedings "—and . the neeesSity apparently admitted on all hands of something being done to rescue it Irons undying disgrace, originated the Bill of which we vesteraay save an analysis. 'STAND A R Robert Inglis subjected him ;self to the attack of Messrs. O'Connell and Sheil, by declaring that violent intimidation is at least as great. si:poiitical crime as bribery. We have no hesitation in S - s4ing, that, in moral guilt, violent intimidation is at least ass black a crime as bribery; and politically a Much blacker crime. If bribery leads to hypocrisy, so dOes' intimidation ; for to vote against one's convic tion frdm cowardice is just as bad as'to vote against silie'S conviction for gain ; and if bribery some !, ' • tuneS lea& to perjury, violent intimidation as often ii,i&d to mutilation and to murder itself.' Politi cally,' violent intimidation is a worse crime than bribery, because, first, it openly insults the law, and secondly, because - it . always provokes bri bery, and the- worst kind of bribery, more especially 'treating. Men will not always • will ingly confront danger, and hence the motive to add the stimulus d a bribe to their political zeal. nd even where men would scorn to touch money, they Will . be "easily persuaded to assemble fora their common safety ; and when they are assembled they must eat and drink, and will not think that they do wrong or dishonour themselves by eating and drink ing at the expense of those in whose behalf they ex pose themselves to inconvenience, and, it may be, danger. If the Legislature desires that elections shall be pure, let them first take care that elections shall be free—they may be very well assured that they can not have the one without the other. Now,' elec tions at present are certainly not free, as we may know by the history of the electors forcibly carried elf by professional pugilists at Nottingham, and cooped in the garden of the ex-Prime Minister— know, if possible, more certainly by the report of the Cork Committee, which, in defiance of the evidence recorded before it, proving that no pretence of free dom existed at any one moment or in any One street attiring the last contest, nevertheless awarded the seat disputed to the author of sueli - out rageous violence. It is absurd and insulting to common sense to countenance this txrannical exer cise of brute force, and then to affect a zeal for the fairness of elections. Let Parliament begin at the right end, and place violent intimidation and bribery upon at least the same footing, and as, even in the present defective state of the law, a bribe traced to a candidate or his proved agent, deprives the former of his seat, declare that an act of violent intimidation so traced shall have the same effect. Until this shall be done there can be no end of bribery and treating. ELECTION COMMITTEE. (THIS DAY.) • IPSWIC 11. The Committee tact again this morning at eleven o'clock; P. M. Stewart, Esq., in the Chair. Mr. AUSTIN resumed his address.-The Learned Gentleman commenced by discussing at considerable length the bearing of the Treating Act. With re spect to alleged acts of treating, he contended that there was no evidence tracing the fact to the knowledge of the sitting Members. Again. what were the alleged acts of bribery. If he (Mr. Austin) went to friend of his and asked him to dine with him, and in the course of the dinner he requested his friend to vote for a certain party, and that friend complied, they might just as well strike that man's vote oft the book, •as to say that those persons who had break fasted at the Salutation were rendered incompetent to vote. He would then proceed to the question of what they called agency. He had endeavoured to strip the case of its colour-tocrack the shell, and to come at the kernel. He said that Mr. Bristoe never was the agent of the sitting Members. He said that Mr. Cooke never was the agent of the sitting Members. They had no au thority.whatever to act on behalf of the sitting Members. Supposing this questionable case to be a case of corruption, Mr. Bristoe had no authority to act as he did, nor had Mr. Cooke. He said it was the highest injustice and cruelty to visit on the head of the sitting Members the misconduct of those parties. It would be as much in justice as to visit upon the heads of Mr. Moffatt or Mr. Gisborne the conduct of the parties in the affair of the Orion. He said that Mr. Bristoe and Mr. Cooke never were agents. There were no more agents for the sitting Members than there were for Mr. Gisborne or Mr. Moffatt themselves. These seats had been vacated by a Committee in the present session of Parliament, on account of' acts of bribery of the most profligate description. They would recollect that the writ was for some time suspended-they would recoil( that discussion after discussion took place with reference to removing that suspension. It was ultimately removed. There could be no doubt that the disclosures made on that occasion must have had a certain moral effect on the electors of the town of Ipswich. The same thing happened in 1835, when Mr. Kelly and Mr. Christopher lust their seats upon a similar petition. On that occa sion the vacancy was filled up by -Mr. Wason and Mr. Morrison. They obtained their seats easily and tri nmphantly in consequence of the moral impression made by the disclosures against the Blue party on that peti tion. The same thing happened the other day. The two gentlemen were easily and triumphantly re turned in consequence of the moral effects which hied been produced on the electors by the late petition. Mr. Morrison Was returned by a large majo rity, iipWards of 100 ; but the majority at the late elec tion, was upwards of 140. The sitting Members must Nave been bold men, indeed, to have kletermined to carry their election by corruption. No ; they went down de termined that not a shilling should be spent in cor ruption. What did Mr. Gladstone say to Mr. Ridley ? " If there is to be money spent, we shall lose our elec tion." He hoped Hon. Members would remember what their expenses at their elections were, and then he (Mr. Austin) would tell them what Mr. Gladstone's were at the last election ; and be would also tell them what Lord Desert's expenses were. Mr. Gladstone - paid the enor mous expense of 2501., and Lord Desart paid the same. Ile (Mr. Austin) would venture to say that no Member of Parliament had been returned in the present session at leSs expense, even beginning with the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath. Mr. PROTHEROE-The remark does not apply to all. Jr. AUSTIN-The I-ion. Member was one dissentient ; but he (Mr. Austin) would venture to say that the Hon. and learned Member fur Bath paid a greater sum than 2501. :at his election. He (Mr. Austin) would read the items of the expenses at the late Ipswich election. Traielling expenses, :371. . for certain voters front - 6,11 d0n and Newcastle ; the expenses of twenty voters from Woodbridge, &e., 26/. 14s. ; the ex penses of the detention of three vessels beside the Success, 241. 1 es. ; the expenses for constables, in cluding the constables employed in the procession, 1201. 2s. 6d. ; expenses for messengers, 311. 6s. 6d. ; e xpense for hustings, 331. 17s. Sd. ; committee room, 201. 4s. Id. ; expense for horses and carriages, 421. 17s. 9d. ; the band -for he supposed they would not wish to have an election conducted like a funeral-39/. )9s. ; ringers, 9/. 9s. ; the procession, in addi tion to the constables before-mentioned, 281, 12s. ; clerks, &c., 151. Is. 10d. ; din ner f or the clerks, at the election 31. is. The rent of th e assem b ly room ' 31. Mr. Jacobin's bill for attendance 12/. 13s. rod., and miscellaneous expenses 1/. 4s. 6d., making in the whole 459/. Os. id., which being divided by the figure 2 would give 2301. for each of the sitting members. There was nut one farthing further expenses whatever, and that money was paid by - Mr. Hunt. Not a farthing was paid for bribery as there was no bribery whatever at the election. Upon this state of facts they were called upon to unseat the sitting. Members, and he asked them whether they did not ex pect from the manner in which the case was opened that extravagant acts of bribery would be proved. The Learned Gentleman read a great number of su tholities on the question of agency, and con tanded that Mr. Gladstone and Lord Desert were not bound t,y the acts of Mr. Cooke or Mr. Bristoe, I"ven tIH acts w ere h e ld t o b e corru pt. H e p u t t o th e Committee that Mr. Hunt was the only accredited agent, and by his acts alone could the sitting Members be bound. The conduct of Mr. Hunt had been pure and upright, and th e w h ole expenses which he had incurred only amounted to 460/. for the two sitting Members. Ile had done his duty. Ile had attempted, and he felt he should succeed in establishing Here a great Parlia mentary principle. to tuiseet Members because they . were called upon some fool or sonic scoundrel had, in an alley of that city, bribed a voter, and this without proof. He felt that law and justice were on his . ,rile, and he entertained no doubt that the Committee -e Onld coule . to. a resolution exonerating the sitting Mem . hers from the charges brought against them, and declare • Altera duly elected, and discharging diem front all sus P "- v fi wilicLitad,been .attempted to be cast upon them. l . He would sit down, therefore, and if he did hot suceavd he should be more astonished thuu he ever was in his Ufa: Mr. TALBOT then proceeded to call the following witnesses : Mr. Hunt examined—l am a solicitior. I have been connected with Mr. Gladstone. It was at my suggestion that Mr. Gladstone became a candidate for Ipswich. Be fore I left London with Mr. Gladstone I was aware of the principles of • Mr. Gladstone as to the conduct of elections. In the year 1839 I accompanied Mr. Glad- - stone to the borough of Sandwich to canvass the borough. Mr. KINGLAKE objected to the examination as irre levant. _ . Mr. .Htint—Mr.. Gladstone told me before the elec tion took place that no moneys beyond the legal ex penses were to be spent. On my arrival at Ipswich I saw persons connected with the party supporting Mr. Gladstone and Lord Desart. I told them all the prin ciples upon which we came to canvass the borough. I told this to Mr. Cooke and_Mr. Bristoe, and a number of other partizans. I considered that I was the manager of the election. I made out a list of returns. I canvassed with Lord Desart, and all applications were made to me respecting the election. I am a stranger to Ipswich. I took the returns every day. On two occasions I took the return at Mr. Steward's private rooms, as it was more convenient. I communi cated to Mr. Steward, on that occasion, in the most distinct terms, that the candidates would not, spend Any money, and he fully concurred in that arrangement. This was at Deck's rooms. I have the account of the expenses which Mr. Austin read. I never gave guy authority to Mr. Cooke-or Mr. Bristoe to act at the election. I never gave authority to any one except Mr. Steward. In May, Kgave Mr. Steward a cheque for 101. to remit to Mr. Jacobin in London. In June, I gave him another 10a. ; and on my arrival in London, I sent him another 100/.. I then received a letter from Mr. Steward, suggesting that I should send 290/., which I did, making altogether 500/., which was the precise sum of money I had nceived from the candidates. A less sum was ex pended, and Mr. Steward j s now in my debt. Cross-examined by Mr. PHILLIPS—I have not been at ninny elections. I have heard that every . candidate disclaims bribery when he goes to an election. lam quite a stranger in Ipswich, and I relied very much on the local friends of the candidates there. Mr. Steward lives in Tpe.vich. I met him the ' night I arrived in Ipswich, at Deck's room. I did not know of the tickets being given to the voters. I heard that some of the parties in Ipswich in tended to give breakfasts on their own account. I car; vassed with Lord Desart two days. I canvassed in coin pany with Mr. Cooke on the Monday. I did not know at that time that he had been reported for bribery. I should have gone with him even it' I had known it. I believe be is a very respectable man. if the landlord of the King's Arms supplied breakfasts to the voters I did not know it. I never knew that refreshments were given on the day of the election until I heard it in this room, and believe now that there is some mistake. I have met Cooke at the little Carlton Rooms. I think Mr. Cooke told me that he had been sent to Newgate by the House of Commons. I had intercourse with him after that, for I • believed him to he a very re spectable man. L did not tell Lord Desart or Mr. Gladstone that • a person had been canvassing who had been committed .to Newgate. I did not think it was my duty. I was not aware cf certain voters getting 30s. for their travelling expenses from Ilerwich until last Thnrsday week. I shauld not have paid 30s. for a voter coming six. miles. I believe that the money was paid by Mr. Steward out of the money I sent him. There has been no account given to me of the tickets issued to the Blue voters. I kow Mr. Bristoe. I canvassed with him two or three .votes. I told Mr. Steward that no expenses would be paid except travelling expenses. By Mr. AUSTIN—I never 'intended for a moment to treat with Mr. Bristoe on the footing of an agent. From the conduct of Lord Desart and Mr. Gladstone they never looked upon him as such. I never felt bound by any act of Mr. Bristoe. He had no authority to contract any debt on the part of the candidates. The same answers distinctly apply to Mr. Cooke. I. told. Mr. Stewart, as distinctly as a man could speak, that the candidates would not sanction any expenditure of money. I never gave time slightest authority for the breakfasts. Several ap plications were made for breakfasts, but I said we are prepared to lose the election, rather than sanction such a course. I used all the means in my power, to avoid any illegal expenditure. There is not a farthing due from the sitting Member to any person in Ipswich, on account of the election. At the time of the election, I thought travelling expenses were legal ; if I had entertained a contrary opinion, I should not have allowed it. It was my duty to avoid every expense beyond the legal ex penses. It was my duty, and my decided intention. The Committee then adjourned till eleven o'clock to morrow. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. (THIS EVENING.) HOUSE OF LORDS. The Earl .of SHAFTESBURY took his seat on the Woolsack in the absence of the Lord Chancellor shortly after Five o'Clock. A Message from the Commons brought up the Tithe Commutation England and Wales Bill, and several other Bills. EXCHEQUER BILLS' BILL. The Duke of WELLINGTON moved the third reading of the Exchequer Bills Preparation Bill. Lord BROUGHAM saw nothing objectionable in the Bill except the first clause, which made the Assistant-Comptroller of the Exchequer responsible to the Treasury, which he had not hitherto been. • The LORD CHANCELLOR at this time took his seat on the Woolsack, and was congratulated by several Noble Peers on the restoration of his health. After a few observations from the Duke of WELLINGTON, the Bill was read a third time. The Noble Duke then moved certain amendments, which were agreed to, and the Bill passed. CUSTOMS ACT AMENDMENT BILL. The Earl of RIPON having moved the third read ing of this Bill, Lord MONTEAGLE said that he wished to take that opportunity of alluding to some points connected with our commercial policy. He perceived that it was proposed in the Bill then before the House, to re move the duty which had been imposed on the exporta tion of cement-stone in the original Tariff. He wished to ask what were the motives which had induced the Government to alter their intention upon that sub ject. He had a few words to say relative to the position in which the Corn question was left by the Government. It was known that there was now a considerable portion of foreign corn in bond ; and he was happy to think that a considerable portion of that corn was at present likely to be released. He should rather find that our markets would be relieved in that way than by any special interposition of the Government, which would free corn from the duty to which it was by law subject. The effect to the consumer of the admission of 1,200,000 quarters of corn on the payment of a duty or without any duty at all would be precisely the same in the one case as in the other ' - because the price would be regulated not by the amount of duty paid, or by the absence of all duty ; but by the amount of corn in the market as compared with the means of the people to consume that corn The only effect, therefore, of admitting the corn duty free would be to put so much money in the pockets of the holders of corn. There was another part of the question to which he wished to direct their at tention. If the price were low in this country the admission of 1,200,000 quarters of foreign corn would be considered as an evil, because it would glut our rz,arkets ; but, on the other hand, if the price were high, the admission of foreign corn would be consi dered as a benefit, inasmuch as it would afford a relief to the consumer. (LEFT SPEAKING.) HOUSE OF COMMONS, The SPEAKER took the Chair at the usual hour. SOUTHWARK IMPROVEMENT BILL. The Lords' amendments to this Bill were agreed to. ATHLONE ELECTION. Lord G. SOMERSET brought up the Report of the General Elections Committee, fixins Monday, the 22d of August, for the appointment of a Committee to try the merits of a petition against the return for the borough of Athlone. COURT OF EXCHEQUER (ENGLAND) BILL. On the motion of Sir G. CLERK this Bill was read a third time and passed. WESTERN AUSTRALIA BILL. The Report of the Committee on this Bill was re ceived, and to-morrow was appointed for the thir,l reading. DONCASTER. _ Mr. S. WORTLEY present,d a petition from !... Doncaster, stating that tha town contained 11,000 inhabitants, who were :nstinguished for their good sense, honour, and, loyalty ; and the petitioners prayed that if it was contemplated to transfer the elective prlvilegs from any borough, the claims of Doncas,ier might be considered. CLASS LEGISLATION. Mr. HUME presented a petition against ' c la ss legislation, and all restrictions upon food. The Stamp Duties Assimilation Bill was read a third time and passed. Slr. MACKINNON gave notice that in Committee ' the Bankruptcy Law Amendment Bill, he shol,id move a clause to the effect that no party afte; . 1)e h a d completed his 70th year should be bnlntsoned under any Bankruptcy Law. Mr. HUME gave notice ttott he should to-mor row present a petition tan the dethron e d R a j a o f Sattara. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHtQUER moved that the Order of the fbr th e C omm i ttee on the Common Law Courts (Ire and) Bill should be , read, for the purpose of bent , - postpo ne d. BENCH LAIMS. Mr. DIVETT rose to put a question to the Right Hon. Baronet as to the present state of th e proceed ings of the joint French and English Commission, on the claims of certain English merchants for serious injuries to their ships and property by the French au thorities in the Bay of Portendic. So far back as 1832 very serious outrages were committed upon British merchants, and in the course of time a Commission was appointed by the French Government, but he was sorry to say that it only led to protracted discussion on the part of the French Government ; and questions of that sort actually involved the neces sity of reprisal on our part ; therefore it behoved them to approach the subject with great delicacy, and not to produce irritation. This was a subject which in volved the peace of France and this country, and the peace of the World. He.. had brought the subject under the consideration of the House in order to ob • thin from the Right Hon. Baronet an expression of hiS opinion. with respect to • these proceedings. He had little doubt what the nature of that expression would be, because on several occasions the Right Honour able Baronet had spoken in a manner which showed that his opinion was in favour of those persons who were suffering under those proceed ings. In a speech delivered by the Right Honourable Baronet on the Navy Estimates in February, 1842, he spoke in strong terms of the conduct of the French Government, and he said he did not think that they could be vindicated in the course they had taken. He (Mr. Divett) thought it right to state to the House the means which the French Government adopted to appropriate to itself the trade with the For tendick. The Hon. Gentleman was proceeding with the detail of the unjustifiable manner in which the French Government proceeded to interrupt their trade with Ihe Portendiek, for which purpose they carried on a war with the people north of the Senegal creating a loss to the claimants of not less than 100,0001., when Mr. ROEBUCK. rose to order—lle did not think that the Hon. Gentleman .was justified in discussing at such length a subject respecting which he had given notice of merely putting a question.—(Year, hear.) He therefore wished. to know whether the Ilon. Gentleman was in order. The SPEAKER said that the Hon. Gentleman having risen to put his question on the 'Order . bf the Day for going into Cominittee'npon the Common Law Courts (Ireland) Bill, it was impossible for him to interfere.. , • Mr. ROEBUCK said he understood that all mat ters arising upon moving the Orders of the Day, should be merely relevant to those Orders, otherwise he should have risen. If it were otherwise, it would raise the question upon the resolutions he. was about to move. Mr. DIVETT said that he did not wish to do any thing which would be contrary to the sense of the House. The Hon. Gentleman was, however, enter ing at length upon the subject, when Sir ROBERT INGLIS rose to order. He begged to repeat the call made upon the Hon. Member by the Hon. and Learned Member for Bath, to confine himself to the question of which he had given notice. MI% DIVETT said it was necessaryfor him to make a. statement relative to the question, but as it appeared to be against the feeling of the House he would sit down by merely putting the question of which he had given 44otice. Sir R. PEEL said, that as the Hon. Gentleman had determined to bring the subject under the consi deration of the House in the form of a question rather than of a motion, he thought it incumbent on him, in answering that question, to adhere to the ordinary rules by which the conduct of Ministers in answer ing questions was regulated. He was not at li berty to enter into the discussion, but he was justified in answering the question put to him. What ever feelings he may entertain as the subject of these claims—and they were strong—he thought the wiser and more dignified course to pursue was to abstain from all harsh and contumelious terms.—(Cheers.) And if he used forbearing and temperate language, it should not be thought inconsistent with the strong feelings . which he entertained as to thejustice of the claims of those persons whose interests were involved into the subject. At an early period of the session he held out strong ex pectations that these claims would not be satisfactorily arran g ed, and his Noble Friend, th e S ecre t ary ,o f State for Foreign Affairs, held out similar expecta tions. He was not, however, enabled to confirm these expectations;but he could assure the lion. Gen tleman that he gave no ezipeetations which he was not justified in giving, in consequence of the assurances which the Government had received. The Hon. Gen tleman who was interested in these claims, more from a sense e 2 their justice, he was sure than from any persoitta interest he had in the matter, was, he sup posed, aware of what had taken place on subject between the British Government and the French Government, and he thought it was better the matter should remain in its present state, than raise any discussion which might throw impediments in the way of the settlement Of the question ; and when he looked to the origin of those claims, the delay and interruption thrown in the way of their adjustment, he could not but feel confidence that, in a great country like France, animated by a strong sense of justice and keen feelings of honour, would compel a just settlement of these claims to be made. As he had before stated, he would not say more on this subject ; he thought the Hon. Member had ex ercised a sound discretion in putting a question only, and not making a distinct motion. He trusted, how ever, that the Hon. Gentlem an wou ld n o t construe;construe;the forbearance and moderation with which he had spoken on this question into any indifference as to the limportance of the suh;ect.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. DIVETT said he should be quite content with the statement of the Right Hon. Baronet on the assur ance that the subject should not - be allowed to stop, but would be followed up by the Government. Sir R. PEEL said within the last few days a com munication had been made to the French Govern ment, the delivery of which had only been postponed in consequence of that lamentable event, which, what ever might be their political feelings, he was sure hid excited the deepest 'sympathy with the sufferings of the Royal Family of France.—(Hear, hear.) What ever de'.ay might occur, he was quite sure that the British House of Commons would res z ind to the feeling he had expressed, both toward s I ranee and the Royal Family, on the subject.--(Hear.) LAW COURTS (IRELAND) BILL. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, on the motion for reading the Order of the Day for going into Committee on this Bill, said that it was one of great importance, involving the interests of a great number of persons, a proper inquiry into whose cases would require comMunication with the authorities in Ireland. lii the preSent state of the business of the House, and the importance of giving a full consideration to the subject, he found it impossible that this inquiry could 'be gone into this session ' or the Bill proceeded with. B u t h e a l so wished to give notice that at the commencement of the next session, he should certainly renew a Bill that would give effect to the provisions of the present one, in order to ensure that saving of expense which he was sure would be the ultimate result. Mr. O'CONNELL concurred in the propriety of postponing the Bill. The Bill we then postponed. CONFERENCE DEPUTATIONS TO THE MINISTRY. Mr. FIELDEN seeing the Secretary of State I\t , r the Home Department iu his place, Wished td iiiil a question to him on a matter votgaiihl to himself. In the report of the interview Of the delegates from the manufacturers in London-with the Right Hon. Baronet, on the "2tith inst., as given in the Morning Chronic* and other papers of yesterday, there ap peared this statement : " Sir J. Graham said that it appeared from a statement made by Mt. l'ielden, the Member for Oldham, that the iinproved machinery had thrown out of employment 85 per cent. of the hands en gaged in the mills where it had been adopted." The question he (Mr. Fielden) wished to ask the Might nut Baronet was, first,- whether he had said what he lead been reported to h ave sa id ; and secondly, if he did, to what statement of his (Mt. Fielden's) he referred ? Sir J. GRAIIA.M, before replying to the question Of the Hon. Member, would just observe .that he could not hold himself responsible for the reports of what had taken place on the oeeasion I - dem - 4 TM. Ile would make one observation in Ott*Aiti-. If. these Reports were published ; WA nn 4qy authority, but froth ex parte statentenh drawn up from the mere recollection ill' the parties themselvtt., k!ri;.. fidential, he night almost say faiiiiliat., ihterteiirse t w h h e ic c h ou a n t t p rz 7se n t took place between aqiiittitiblik 11 - lith c‘essa.:4 and the Ministers Of the t i ftiwn must ne be d e stroyed ) and it would be the duty of ...canisters in their interviews with such bodied tO prat serve a rigid, he might almost sa,y a Mille% silence: (Loud cheers.) The Honourable Gentleinhq WEI.' that he (Sir J. Graham) hind tlile (Mr. Fielden). Il e (Sir 70. 4 .? an) 46 1;a s eV certainly 1 0 y asked a question of thsi .V.lz;imtation relative to the in= troduction of Machinery into the cotton iliWiillilie tories of lath years, and as to the rlt'ts piroduted.by that Introduction. He hati certainly asked such a question, and if he retolleetectrightly h, hart wilt' :Lie lion, Aktnber fotoOlilhOlii .4tee, in his place in 'Parliament that Within the last live years new ma ohinety had been introduced into the cotton . mamithat to ra ) tha e ff ect of which had been to ilitirlhish . tho N)loyment ; - ,1 - ' manual labour thirty V.* bent., and that I consequentl y niatittal hilastlii had been displac e d •co that extent, lb had asked the gentlemen bt the Deputation if titres- eii-rekl with tilt statement of the Hon. Member for')hlhtun, that manual ldlx'tir ihtti been disphroil by machinery AI the VcifWii hAttliti r ie" .- tare during.the lust . fiV,e,Yeai* Atril oto 35 per cent. The DepittatiOYL si t That they differed from the Hon. Gtent,Mien in opinion. He (Sir J. Grulititli) . beta Ittated to the ' best of his nit ullittion what had passed. If the Honourable G e ntl e m an a s k e d hi m Graham) (Sir James to what pattitatlat ae bate he referred as the one hi which the lion. Member had made that statement, he would admit that he would not refer to the particular debate, but he had a strong impression on his mind that the Hon. Member had made some such statement in his place in Parliament. If the Hon. Member con tradicted him he was bound to bow to the lion. Member's more perfect recollection, but' he certainly had asked the question - bona fide, under the impression that the Hon. Gentleman had made such a statement. Mr. FIELD N: had no recollection of everlaYing made any such statement, either in the House . or out of the &use. It was iillpOSßible he could have d 44310 THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY EVENING, JULY 28, 1842. so, because such a statement wou ld be at variance with the fact, and With every thing he had either spoken or written on the subject. In proof of this he would refer the Right lion. Secretary to the form of a petition he (Mr. Fielden) had drawn up in 1841, when it was expected there would be further legisla tion on the factory question, and a copy of which, with other papers, he placed in the hands of Ahe Right Honourable Baronet the First Lord of the Treasury, *hen he honoured him with an interview on the 4th of October last, and in that document he had stated that in 1840, as compared with 1835, in the county of Lancaster the increase of turning ma chinery was 53: - , per cent., the increase of the con sumption of cotton 44 per cent., and the increase of the number of hands employed in the factories only 21 per cent. He would take an opportunity of giv ing to the Right Hon. Secretary a copy of this draft petition, and humbly recommend. the facts contained in it to his serious attention. Sir J. GRAHAM said he thanked the Hon.. Ge ntleman for the explanation which he had given, as it exculpated him for the charge of inaccurac. Sir R. PEEL said he could confirm what the Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Fielden) had stated, as it was con sistent with what he had said in October last. He protested against the course pursued, in reporting those interviews ; it was rather hard that, after giving two hours of most patient attention to the Deputa tion, he should be made responsible for a report, which was totally inaccurate in the general impres sion it' conveyed. Mr. AGLIONBYcIIIed the attention of the House to a misrepresentation in the Times newspaper of what he had stated last night with regard to the borough of Carlisle. He was there reported to have ! said that before the period of the Reform Bill there was hardly an election which was less expensive than the election for the borough of Carlisle, and that since that. period it had been one of the most expensive in the country. What he eid state was, that till the period of the Reform Bill, there was no constituency more expensive ; that since _the Reform Bill, the ex pense had been extremely small, and that the practice of head-money had never existed since that period until the last election. IPSWICH. The St. Asaph and Bangor PrefertneAt BM en t through Committee. Mr. O'CONNELL postponed the motion of which he had given notice -with respect to the case of the Queen against Duffy,. in consequence (as we under stood) of the absence of the Solicitor,General - for Ireland. ELECTION COMMITTEE. • The Committee met again yesterday morning at the usual hour, P. M. STEWART, Esq., ill the Chair. Mr. KENGLAK E r esu med his address. The first ease he would call the attention of the Committee to was that of William Blythe, who was brought from Harwich to vote, and received 30s. for his expenses. He thou& that no ingenuity of his Learned Friend would satisfy the Committee that payments of this kind did not vacate the seats of the sitting Members. With regard to War ren, who came from - Woodbridge to vote, and knowing the consequences, h a d a droitly availed himself of the hackneyed terms,." travelling expenses and loss of time," to justify the payment of money to him—if this trans action were au honest one, why did he use the term travelling expenses, • when he had not paid one shilling towards such expenses ? If Blythe and Warren were entitled to 30s. each, so was every other voter in the bo rough ; and there being a constituency of 1.700, an elec tion would cost 1,1001. or 1,200/. Then Emanuel Bax ter had been promised his " legal expenses" by Mr. Bond, and Robert Jobson Taylor had received 65., while his daily wages were only 2S. Bd. Upon what plea, did this man receive 6s.'? His wages had not been stopped by the directors of the Orion, and on the day or election he had his usual work. Where then was the slightest pretekt for paying this man ? -• Did not these facts show the systeM adopted by the agents of the sitting Mem bers ? There was in addition, a systematic course of treating carried on amongst the voters. This was proved by what took plaCe at the Salutatien and the icing's Arms. On this - point tl e evidence of Bowman wa-s most important, for he was not content with what he had received at the King's Arms, but he went to the Smack, where he found, in addition to beer, there was something . more substantial, in the shape of beef steaks. Bowman . there . found the place crowded with voters, and with their wives and children, all of whom were drinking. There could not be more important evidence. That the agents of the sitting Members were cognisant of these transactions, was proved by the fact of Bristee's being present at the King's Arms, when the breakfast was given there on the morning.ef the election ; and Mr. Arthur Bott Cooke being also present at the Waggon and Horses, with a number of voters. It was shown by the declara tion. of Mr. Frewin, that his wife had agreed with Mr. Arthur Butt Cooke fur the breakfasts at the Waggon and Horses, fur 20/. ; and that Mr. A. B. Cooke paid the money, after the election. If this could be disproved, why did not Mr. Cooke come forward and deny the fact? Under all these circumstances, he (Mr. Kinglake) would ask whether the bulk of the evidence was not fully sof ficient to show that treating had gone on, at this elec tion, at the Solution, the Kiag's Arms, the Waggon and Horses, and at the Smack, and incidentally at the Globe, the Cock and Pie, and the White Lion ? Refreshment tickets were illegal, as the Judges, and every emiaent writer on election law, had laid it down that under no coneition, with no, object, pure or unpure, just or unjust, should any expense be incurred, after the taste of the writ. The Learned Gentlethan thou quoted a number of cases,. in support of his argument. It might.be contended on behalf of the sitting Member, that if any expense had been incurred, such expense had been incurred without their knowled,ge. But Mr. -Josselyn, in his evidence, deposed that Mr. Gladstone said to Mr. George- Ridley, that he and his Noble Colleague had come clown with " the express understanding that they Were not in any way to sanction the illegal expenditure of money." Now he (Mr. .Kinglake) would like to have heard a deciara-' tiun from Mr. Gladstone, that " he did not come down to expend any money at all." How could Mr. Gladstone expect that things would be conducted pro perly when he entrusted the management of a part of his election to Mr. Arthur Butt Cooke, who had before besn convicted of bribery ? At any rate this was an- act of in discretion, and showed that he was not very well ac quainted with the manlier in which electione were con ducted in Ipswich. Ile would then turn to the question -of agency. The Learned Counsel then read at great length quotations from Rogers and other writers on elm tion law. He would therefore :submit, on this authority, that the authority to pay non-resident voters was proof of general agency, This the other party would have to answer. They found, from the evidence, that Bristoe, Cooke, and Steward, had met together, day by clay, to- sum up the canvass ; that they took voters to the poll, and gave them refreshment at the different inns ; and that, after the election, they assembled together at a Committee-room, timed at previous elections, they being the only persons known lit` acting together, with the au thority and on behalf of the' sitting Members, and the latter, having taken advantage of acts done, must aiitwer for the consequence. If it had not been for Arthur Butt Cooke, Bristue, and Steward, would Mr. Gladstone and Lord Desert have been the sitting Members ? The election had not beep fair and honourable, but had been brought about by improper pi , actiecs, With regard to the smallness of the bribes, he thought that made the - case worse, as there was not half the demoralising effect in a large bribe as a small one, for the small bribe was generally given to the poor indigent voter. He had con cluded his address, - and he should sit down in perfect confidence of his hating fully made out his ease on the -part of the petitioners. ' The onus of disproving the case would be upon his Learned Friend, but he thought the facts adduced would sit heavy upon him. He might, he thought, use the old and well-known quotation, Pest evident mkt Ora wire. He apologised for having so long detained the Cominittge, but the evidence being so voluminCus he had felt it his duty to go its fully into it as he had done, and he would again express his con fidence in having made out the case for the petitioners. • Mr, AVSTIN then rase to address the Committee on 1 behalf' of the sitting Methbere, He said that his Learned Friend had spoken for six or seen hours, and had left , him to follow before a jaded audience, upon points dull, or chillness itself. If he (Mr. Austin) occupied their attention a day, so much the more would be. the merit of the Committee, - but he trusted they would not listen in train. ne it first of all ask upon what ground of law did his Learned Friend support the petition? He did not for a moment quarrel with the course taken by his Learned Friend ; what he. complained of was that his Learned Friend had not given the Committee a principle on which to ticijiidiCatt% They would find it to be im portant to the sitting Members. It Would also be found important to the constituency . of Ipswich with reference to the charge preferred by the petitioners as well tia with reference to the fact that the vacancy occuring at the last Wend election in that town had been filled up. It was important also, particularly to the Chairman, with. reference to the circenistance of his having presided in 1835 upon a former Ipswich Election Committee, us well as to his not - having sat as Chairman on the last Ipswich Election Committee. The former fact rendered him of course unavoidably acquainted with the names introdlictd Mimi this occasion, and which would render him liable to have his mind biassed by the mere repetition of those names, What the Committee had to do—and every member would act accordingly—was this, not to consider the fact that the election of' Mr, Weson and Mr.. Bennie was the other day set aside on :he ground of' bribery and corruption, nor would they have .- to consider the fact that Mr. Arthur B. Cooke had, according to the memory of the Hon. Chairman, been formerly sent to Newgate for disobedience of the Speaker's warrant, but they would alotie cohaidet the terms of the petition lying on the table—the charges • it contained—the evidence ad duced—and confine themseltes altogether to the leeris of the case. The only question wits as to the va lidity of the election in June last. He (Mr. Austin) believed that there never was an election in the town of Ipswich which was less subject to the imputation of cor ruptitiii: He believed that their opponents knew this perfectly well. he sidd the election was not obtained. by bribery and treating. Whether they were to look at the conduct of Mr. Bristoe with reference to two or three votes,. or whether they were to go into the Count ing-house where the directors of the Orion at once car ried eti the business of plying by steam between London and Ipswith and solleiting the votes of their dependents, failing as they did, and as they deserved to do, inasmuch as the offence of intimidation was a ten thousand times worse offence than that of bribery and treating, he said the election was not obtained either by bribery, or by treating, .or by intimidation, and there fore could not be set aside upon those grounds. Bribery was of two kinds, Authorities on the subject said that an election might be made void by a general system. of corruption, though the parties returned were not cognizant of the system that was going on; and if no general bribery was committed, yet • if particular acts of bribery were committed the sitting Members might lose their seats. The Learned Counsel then went at consi derable length into the law on the subject of bribery, and cited several cases to show that travelling expenses were legal at elections. and had been allowed by former Comfiaitteem. Why, he would venture to say that if the payment of travelling expenses were considered as bri bery There would not be found in the House of Commons seven Members to try petitions against the other Mem bers. Why, on their own Committees on election peti tions had not the Members to pay the expenses of a witness il Suppose he were a physician, who came to give evidence respecting a man who had hung himself, I and thus rid the world of a nuisauce.—(Laughter)— they would have to pay that physician a guinea a day for his services,- even though that man might never have earned a guinea in it day in his life.—(Laughter.) How then could they say that the travelling expenses at this election were given as bribery. He said that to consti tute bribery there must have been a contract either direct or implied. There had been no such thing proved, because no such thi n g ever existed. It being now four o'clock the Committee adjourned till eleven o'clock to-day, MERCHANT SERVICE. Captain FITZROY rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to require and regulate the exami nation of all persons who wished to become masters or chief masters of merchant vessels. The Honourable Gentleman said he would ask the House in the first place what was the present con dition of our mercantile marine ? Since the peace our merchant vessels had increased exceedingly in number. . The - cessation of war had been followed by the spread of our shipping .over every part of the globe. During the war the merchant ves sels of this country sailed in oonvoys, or in com benies of two or three. At present they found them bearing singly to every quarter of the Flobc, and it became additionally necessary to ascertain the quali fications of the commanders. The East India Com pany's marine was the last mercantile establishment in which an examination 'of officers was insisted upon, In our immense mercantile marine, numbering up wards of 20,000 vessels, of about 50 tons burthen, there was lib • examination .of any • kind, with romped to the • qualification of officers, and how ever able and trustworthy the majority of Commanders might 'be there were too many. instances in which the indignation of Englishmtn was roused at the conduct of those who were intrusted with the command of vessels. He hoped that in a future session the attention of the Government would .be directed to the subject. His present object was to introduce a measure which had been prepared by a great number of practical and experienced persons connected with the shipping interests. He would remind tee House that One. of. the most marked recommendations in :the Report of the Committee which had sat hi 1836, for - the 'purpose of investigating the causes of • shipwreck, - was the recommendation the Boards should be constituted, for the examination of officers in the merchant service. It might be thought perhaps by smile that it' was sufficient, if the ship owner or merchant himself was satisfied with the commander's ,capacity, but let the House bear hi mind, that passengers • who went out in ships and the• country generally were interested in the capabilities and qualifirations of captains of vessels. The length of a passage depended almost en tirely upon the judgment, skill in navigation, and practical seamanship of the captain, and from the time the vessel loft the shores of our country until . • its arrival in a foreign port, the lives of all on board were in his Iraids. He once met a ship in the Pacific Ocean, which was six or seve n d e grees out of her longitude, and upon his asking the Captain how it was, he replied, " why, . Sir, 'we do not come here to navigates we come here to fish." What he would prOpose was, that Boards of Examiners should be appointed in England, Scotland, and Ireland, consisting of three , examiners each ; that there should be a principle examiner; and tt Secretary.; that that principle examiner should haVe the choice of the executive management of the whole system, that system to be approved by the Trinity HotiSe and put under the contrOl of the Board of Trade. These examiners to be all of them practical seamen, having commanded ships in the merchant service ; a certain number of years one of the three should have been in the northern hemisphere, another employed in the coasting, and the third have been thiplOybd iii 6thaiti. vessels, This Was in order that they should combine practical knowledge and experience. The expenses to be defrayed by moderate fees, and be paid by each officer examined upon re ceiving his certificate of qualification: The fee for a master to be flir a certifitate entitling him td gO to any part Of the World ; the master of a coasting vessel, going short voyages, 21., and mates 30s. ; and the mates of coasting vessels 1/. No one could complain of these fees when they considered. that the pilots in the river Thames paid three guihats for a less time, it being three guineas annually, and in other parts *of the kingdom they paid three and two guineas annually for their license, therefore no one could 'complain of a fee of three guineas fbr a lifetimes This Bill would not apply to persons now in empl o yment they would only be required to ihrnish a certificate of exa mination, fin* which they would pay 10s. and mates ss. ProvisiOn would be found in time Bill for meetinkf as much as possible all the objections loved by practical men on the subject, and he thought he might go so far as to sto that , some who were averse to the mum* hid ; in tuntetinenee tit the ttnittiltatitilis that had taken place, and the plans proposed to meet the objections, they had removed all their former opposition. They all felt it was not a measure that should be dealt with by any private indiuidual, but one that ought to be taken tip by the Government. The lion. Member concluded by asking leave to bring in the Bill to which he had referred, not with a view to proceed with it further in the present session ; - but that it Might be printed and ciretilated through the tenntry, in ortiet that the objections entertained to it Might be fully tobsicio•etb_ _ _ . . Mk' A, Nal i ttAN seconded a the introduction of the 13ill, but in doing so he begged to be untlergtood - , v not to pledge himself to the details of the Meattite: I m i ,a e s A ti V e OU tti i i d i t b a r k o e ug it i s it t f t o o r t w is a i r o d hs h i e nto w c o o u i l i d sid st e a r t a e t e i . o hm n ieisa t: ott li pt d ie. in tht Ootitte of the next session, when th i itikt said it Ntiis de ci,:, : aite l t f fervi d: re l e some measure the preknt should be passed n jut 1 1 . ti ihein; k 1 4; ' 1 4i. ii.atin t 16 ( :ji: n t a i i 1 112 t b t s b f t i b l i r u u a considered o ou t n o t ti d a t e d r i e h u cl: pursue; d e ; Was tile isea t e. Hblast enni4 tpjebt: .thbp`ght the rhiitse plreposed by the he therefore, most • cordially con cur in ,tti At s itqj Orlfis s 11§h: Friers:. T: ttuunttnio,,apimoved tit tofirse pro posed pursued by, the Ilon. 3lember. (If, 110111 thetight would derive great be nefit from the experience of the Gallant Officer, and he giaddi therefore, gire thp ineastire his support. fit ter COCKEtitii said it itioidd 190 necessary to go fully into the question, before giving any &vision upon it. 1f the Bill was brought in, printed, circu lated; arid read by those interested in,.printed, it, he should haVe ho objection, but 6luittitl he quite prepared to consider it, and ; in another session, give his decision upon it: tiea4 eras the kill, ELECTION COMPROMISES, Air, ROEBUCK rose to move the resolutions of width had giVeli notice on the previous day. He Aid he should are been glad, if possible, to have avoided having to aunts forward on this occasion ; 111.MOintely necessary, after the course NA been taker', that . some steps should be taken at the close of the Session. When he '0:1: that first stated in the'llouse • that he had heard certain rutneurs respeeting einlain individual in that House. The House believed those stutemcnts to be so extraor dintall so remarkable, and so important in their char acter, that it appointed a Comattee of inquiry to ascer tain whether they were well founded or not. The House had further passed a Bill givii4 some extraordinary powers to the Committee so appointed. He conceived the House would not have taken that course unless it had believed the inquiry , vas an important one, and he felt when they came to the close of the proceedings that .he ought not to shrink from it necessary duty. (LEFT SPE.II:INC.) LONGEVITY. — burials at ILedbury Church, during the year 1840, the ages of 20 amounted to 2,323 years, averagng t- , 0 and a fraction. The ages of 13 ttverag, d 92 years; fpurteen, 75 1-sth; pad our, a woman, Was 97. W,orcesicr- Aire Chronicle. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. I'lO USE OF COMMONS, July 27. The STEAKER took the Chair shortly before Four o'Clock. Mr. B. MATES presented a petition from Car naryon against the St. Aso,ph and Bangor Preferment Bill. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS BILL. • Sir R. FEEL thought it was better to leave out the words altogether, and to make the proof of the existence of the usage proof of the existence of the offence. They should not, because they could not, remedy all the • abuses, refuse to cure an ad.• mated evil. When the Bill was brought forward by the Noble Lord, be said that he thought any attempt to discourage it would be. ineffectual, if they left the law as to treating as it then stood, and that if they could during the present session, without unnecessary interfe rence with the liberty of the subject, throw impediments in the way of treating, they would be effect ing- a greet practical good. One of the greatest abuses connected with the present sygtent of elections was by corruption of voters by means of treating. In the first plsro it corrupted Ow constituencies, end iutroduccd -most immoral habits, the effect of which was much more permanent than the duration of the election. In the second place, it gave a most unfair advantage to the . man of wealth, who was able, if dis posed, to corrupt a constituency. He knew nothing more likely to deter a man possessed of the necessary qualifications for fulfilling the situation of a Member of Parliament, even if he had the command of money, than the necessity of spending money four or five weeks pre vious to the election in encouraging habits of drunken u:..•Ss. If it was possible, therefore, to prevent treating at elections he would not oppose an attempt to discou rage the practice. Under the present system it would seem as if they practically gave a legislative sanction to treating previous to the testing of the writ. A law had been passed to the effect that treating would be illegal after the testing of the writ ; and the result of that law, although it was a result not contemplated by the framers of the measure, was, that parties considered they might lawfully have recourse to treating before the writ had been tested. It appeared to him that the establish ment of such an impression was a great evil, and one %Illicit they should endeavour, if possible, to remove. He confessed that if they could deal satisfactorily with the system of head-money, and of treating, they ought, hi his opinion, to make the attempt, and take precau tions against that which lie believed to be of all species of bribery the most degrading and corrupting—namely, the spending of immense sums of money, which led, in many places, to the must brutal scenes—(Hear)—and the immoral effects of which tended to disturb the opera tions of industry, to corrupt constituencies, and to give an undue advantage to wealth over means comparatively Mr. HARDY. said that it was most des'rabl to pre vent any improper expenses at elections, however they might be incurred. He hoped the Hon. Gentleman who had .the conducting of the Bill would persevere in his attempt to suppress illegal treating and the practice of distributing head-money. It was encouraging a prac tice tending to maize elections expensive, and ther'by precluding men of small fortune from standing as candi dates, He thought that candidates should be prohibited from giving head-money on - account of any preceding 1 election, argil with that alteration h 3 hoped the clause would pass. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought it essentially necessary that this clause should not be expunged. He thought that the practice should be set forth in the clause, that it should also be stated. that doubts had pre veiled as to the nature of the practice, and that it be declared to be bribery. He thought it would be inexpe dient to introduce into this clause any thing relating to flag-men, for if Hag-men were engaged for their votss, there could be no doubt but that that was bribery. B e thought it would be a great improvement to do away with the distinction which subsisted at present between treating taking place before the test of the writ, and after it. lie would be very happy . to render his Hon. and Learned Friend any assistance in his power, between this 1 and bringing up the Report, for the framing of a clause to meet this purpose. • . Mr. C. BULLER sail he would be happy to withdraw the clause under discussion for the present, in order to bring it forward at a later stage of the Bill in an amended state. Me O'CONNELL regretted that the clause was to be postponed. He so much valued the enactment it pro posed, that if the clause were not withdrawn, he would withdraw his own amendments. Mr. C. BULLER said that his only object in post poning the clause was to prevent any obliqueness in their legislation. • Mr. ESCOTT would not oppose the clause, because it wes, in his opinion, not only the best clause in the Bill, but was the most effectual to put an end to bribery and corruption.-L--The clause was then postponed. • • On clause 2 being proposed, . Mr. BERNAL wished to know how far this clause gave a power to Committees to compel agents to dis close matters touching their clients ? The - ATTORNEY-GENERAL . said that the clause was intended to give the Committee power to examine the sitting Members, or any of the candidates, in cases where they- would not otherwise have any control.— (Hear, hear.) It left the question of the rules of evi dence untouched. Mr. BERNAL said, the reason he put the question was, that when an attempt was made, to compel Mr. Mr. Lamb to disclose circumstances entrusted to him by his client relative to a Cornish borough, he was com mitted to custody in consequence. of his refusal to an swer. All he wished to know was, whether the subject was left as it was at present ? Sir R. INGLIS did not see why the ordinary privi leges of professional agents should be withdrawn from them in this case. Every crime seemed now to be cen tered in the sin of bribery. He objected to the latter part of the clause. Mr. O'CONNELL regretted to hear the Hon. Mem ber speak with levity of the crime of bribery ; it was unjustly obtaining a power over the lives and properties of men, and it was essentially an enormous crime. As to the question, of examining an attorney, the privilege waif the client's, and where the principal could be examined, there could be no doubt but they might examine the agent. He should .support the clause. After a - few words from the ATTORNEY- GENERAL. Mr. SHEIL said the subject on which the attorney was to be examined was not a breach - of confidence, as their intercourse must he.ve been a criminal one. Sir R. INGLIS explained what he had said of the crime of bribery, in referenco to what had fallen from the Hon and Learned Member for Cork. He had not underrated the crime of bribery, but it appeared to hint to be considered that if Members avoided bribery they were open to every other political offence. But he was not of that degree of political purity as to think it was the only or the greatest crime ; there were other political offences as well worthy. the attention of the lion. Meinhers for Dungarvon and Cork---that of inti midation for instance,—(Hear, hear.) Mr. C. BULLER said that - the candidates being gene rally found quite • ienorant •of the practices .of _ their agents, it was necessary to examine the latter. He did not .believe they had any professional privilege in such cases, as they were not in communication with their clients. • The •SOLICITOR- GENERAL said if : he thought the clause would have the effect which had been stated by several Members, it should not have - his support, but being convinced that it would have a different operation, he should support it. In supporting the clause, how ever, he must be understood as not pledging himself to assent to all the other clauses in the Bill. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in order to show the Committee his opinion of the clause, would move, as an amendment, that all persons whatever should be ex amined as witnesses, touching all the matters in question. Mr. DARBY deprecated the new powers given by the Act for the examination of-agents. He should propose to leave out all words compelling Members to be examined. Mr. C. BULLER was of opinion that the amendment of the Attorney-General would answer the required purpose. Mr. ESCOTT disagreed both with his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Solicitor-General) and . the Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. O'Connell). If this offence were as bad as murder, they had no right to resort to illegal and unjustifiable means to find it out. He should give his most strenuous opposition to anything which would provide that, because they were about to endeavour to put an end to a mischievous practice; they shbuld resort to a practice wholly illegal and still more mischievous. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL defended the legality of the clause, which he said gave powers to inquire into the terms of compromises—whether they were bona fide, or were entered into for the purpose of preventing in dictments for bribery. That was the object of the clause ; and he contended that it would be impossible to carry out the clause without examining the sitting Members and the candidates. He should, therefore, Vote against.the proposition of his lion. and Learned Friend, the Member for Sussex (Mr. Darby). Mr. AGLIONBY was afraid that if those technical objections were constantly raised they would shelve the Bill altogether. - His object was to prevent bri bery altogether, and to punish those guilty of it, and with that view he should vote for • ,the exami nation of the Members, the candidates, and the agents. He had no idea of the agent being . allowed to escape tin examination on-the ground of privileged com munications. If a professional man chose to undertake such dirty work, and to go about attempting to sully the purity and honour of his neighbours, he deserved to be submitted to a most rigid examination. Mr. DARBY regretted that the Noble Lora, and the Hon. and Learned Gentleman whose names were at the back•of the Bill were not present, because he (Mr. Darby) had always understood both now and " up stairs." that it was not intended to alter the clause as far as related to privileged communications, which had always been held sacred. Mr. BERNAL said they ell knew the great incon venience which had occurred, owing to questions being put before Committees in an indefinite manner, This was a most important clause, and he wished to know whether the Hon. Member (Mr. Buller) acquiesed in what had been-suggested by the lion. Member for, Cock ermouth, and provide that eolieiturs and - agents should be protected in giving evidence before a Committee. Mr. ESCOTT hoped the Hon. and Learned Member would discuss this clause on broad principles, and tell the committee what eases these new rules were to be applied to. The ordinary rules of evidence must be altered altogether, inasmuch as the offence was entirely new. Bribery could not be tried by the ordinary rules of evidence ; if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman thought that such was the case, he (Mr. Escott) could assure him that he was mistaken. Mr. C. BULLER would reiterate what be had said before, that this was not the proper time 'to discuss the question of bribery—the subject then under discussion was that of compromise. When the 26th clause was proposed, then would be the proper time to go into the question of bribery, but at present they were confined to the subject of compromise. Mr. HENLEY said he objected to this clause on prin ciple, and on account of its consequences. To prove the offence of bribery they were to adopt mean's they did not use in'high treason, murder, or felony. But if they chose to do this let them not do it by a side-wind. By this clause they placed Committees in the situation of being obliged to report black one day, and white the next. He would wish to see the clause erased altogether. Mr. SHEIL said it appeared to him that they had to consider the. distinction between what evidence could be received from an agent, and what could not. . With re spect to what was done by an agent, gentlemen oppo site could not object to that agent.giving evidence. If what he did was by the direction of his client, that al tered the matter. That was the protection given to the agent. With respect to this question, he thought the words proposed by the Attorney-General would meet the difficulty complahled of, as the proviso proposed pre served the pres,mt, nth s of evidence. The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said he was quite ready to agree 'to any words which would remove a doubt fecm the clause. He Utijectec. u , this (Joust., as he did not think it would- the cice.itcti e&et. \Via: re gard to the euses of bribery referred to by the Lion. Member for Sussex, he would find that they were pr. 9 vided for by the 26th and 27th clauses. If this claus were agreed to, he' thought that some words ought to be introduced, providing that no alteration should 1) , 3 roack in the present rules of evidence. After a few Words from Mr. DARBY, -which, were., , inaudible, , sake Mr. HARDY wished to know if they intended to mas, compromise a crime, because if they did not, - and he did' not see how they could, they were nesting time by ins quiring into the compromise when they ought to inquirna into the acts of bribery. • Mr. O'CONNELL was apprehensive that the Dora and Learned Gentleman who had the care of that . endeavouring to oblige certain parties - by omitting cer tain parts of the Bill, would make- it, as he state". simple Bill indeed, and inoperative. He thought he kJ. wrong in merely inquiring into the compromises rot inquiring into the great question of bribery. An HON. MEMBER here moved that the HouSe be. counted. The House was counted, but there being more - than forty Members present the Committee resumed. Some verbal amendments were proposed in the clause , which were agreed to. Mr. I)ARBY proposed an alteration in the clause, the purport - of which would be to confine the i n q uir y -to the tact of a compromise having taken place. Mr. O'CONNELL said that would render the inquiry perfectly . inoperative. It would be better to give up the Bill at once.. ' Mr. ESCOTT would not support any inquiry which should Le incperative. He wished to know why the, were to alter the rules of evidence, in order to make en& this new offence. Everything done ou i y:ht to be dune in a judicial manner. • • Mr. DARBY withdrew his amendment. Mr. C. BU in , the moved some verbal amendments n; the clause, %Aft!' were agreed to. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved the insertion of words to the etfeet - that these witnesses should be e, examined, subject to the ern; Lary rules of evidence. the House sanctioned the 26th dn e se, sv Melt he did nets anticipate, the Heuse, weuld then, of course, 'strike the o words out of the clause. Mr. AGLIONBY objected to this amendment of the! Attorney-General. He (Mr. Aglionby) would certainly• take the opinion of the Howe as to the exam inatioj .y! professional agents. He would certainly do his utinq's to prevent persons taking advantage of these comanal canons being professional and confidential to avoid aid ; • closing their to the Committee. He hoped that, in cost' of compromise, ComMittees would enter into an ing4o4 as to acts of bribery having been committed. Unlesil i inquiry was instituted. into acts of bribery, it wouldbe.' childish to inquire into the compromise. Mr. O'CON NELL said •the amendment would &stioy entirely the effect of the remaining words of the e l p l t Gentlemen - seemed to have soma sort of enthusiasts/ favour of the maxim of preventing u man from nating himself. The 'rule was a bad one ; it te nded.lf prevent the uiscovery'of truth, and was frequently nincie'; use of as a mere excuse. But if the party w ere i nden.l . stifled, the maxim became of no effect ; and by g etting' rid of the power of indictment, they got rid of the ru le ' and ought to get.rid of its effects. In reply to the 1 0 '; Baronet he would say, that he considered intimidati: )ll crime equal to bribery, and he (Mr. O'Connell) would r. to any extent with the Iron. Baronet in preventing- knew ill/ midation. He of one way of preventing that was by granting the Ballot. He moved that t ° words—" subject to the ordinary rules of evidence , ' 136 omitted from the amendment. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said that in the C O4 rt an of Chancery it was constantly the practice to ortiori issue to be tried, and the Lord Chancellor would s)ru, the parties in that suit to be examined subject to th e laws of evidence. He could nut consent to permit * • words to be struck out. Mr. ESCOTT said that the Hon. Member o , l ' Cockerniouth stated fairly enough that he wished to nc! away with the rules of evidence in these cases, wbcrciles,. the Attorney-General wished to examine these w itness — t according .to the rulbs of evidence, when, accordins el the rules of evidence, they ought never to be e xamin. at all. The amendment proposed by the Attorney - Ge ier ' a was then put and agreed to. Other verbal amendthents were agreed to. On the question that the . clause as amended stand I'° 4 of the Bill. .AGLIONBY said that from the conciliator)" spirit evinced by the Hon. Gentleman who ha d elle % of the Bill in admitting the amendments proposed, I'd, (Mr. A's.) interest in the Bill was considerably lessene He would recommend to the Noble Lord who h ad intN i duced the Bill to cut the Gordian knot at once, and ne session bring in a Bill for the Extension of the Franey'' and Vote by - Ballot. Mr. C. BULLER denied that he had admitted all alterations in the Bill but one, of which those who P r° posed it pointed out the necessity. On the 26th clause he should be as firm as a rock. been Sir R. INGLIS said that three hours ha d now f consumed in what was virtually but the first claus%l:- the Bill. He put it to the House if there was a Fr s tit i on able prospect of bringing . the subject to a this session, and if there was nut they she waste the public time. t had been Sir IL PEEL observed in reference to v , " rii , that the said relative to compromise, as bein,,, , r C- . 13 1 e -the pro fact of compromises acting as impediinents sufficient secution of inquiry into alleged bribery, formed .1 ground for the introduction of that subject in ti e %%rah respect to the value of public time, no one cell!°. be more sensible of it than he : but it was not lost ill ultedritioint thus discussing a measure, which would have the most bend" vial results in the casesoof elections occurring during th e recess. He knew of no better tribunal than that sag" gusted by the present Bill, fur the purpose of defeat' in: compromises. Mr. I)ARBY said that, after this session, there would be very little in the way of compromise resorted to. fle believed that this Bill would do more to prevent babel, than any other measure which had been enacted '` the subject. The clause, as amended, was then agreed to. The third clause was agreed to, with some araendule ,n ts . proposed by the Solicitor-General. Clause 4 was agreed to without discussion. .'n clause 5 being put, Mr. DARBY opposed it. He objected to the po've r gave to sins-political partisan to present a petition imeae diately after the heat of a contested election , checked, which petitions were to be prosecut ed at tt°' public expense. Mr. BULLER could not admit the object ion. ii election petitions were liable to the same charge, anu„i• was met by compelling the parties to enter into recog,::f ' zances and saddling them with the expenses if t' turned out frivolous. almost 0.11: After some observations from Mr. Darby, Mr. liqral' and Mr. Henley, Mr. ESCOTT thought' if the clause passed th e r a e , would be no end to the presentation of petitions fr° malicious motives d art site. Strangers were an then p or y der p ed to withdraw, and the Committee divided, when there appeared For the clause Against it Majority in favour of the clause -47 • The clause was then agreed to. Clause 6 was agreed to without any amendment. On clause 7, with respect to the amount of Vim ; ninuces, being put, The ATTORNEY - GENERAL suggested that the recognizanees in certain cases should be increased fr ° 1001. to 2501., and in others from 2001. to 500/. Sir R. PEEL thought the suggestion worthy of c°l3. sidcration, and one that ought to be adopted. The clause, as proposed to be amended, was th eo agreed to. Clauses up to 13 were agreed to without any at-ac meats. Clause 14 having been put, t he Mr. O'CONNELL objected to the proposal in clause of constituting a Commission of Inquiry e c r; posed of Members of _both, Houses, in the case c"' l , o borough suspected of bribery. He should divide,. t" House against the clause. - . Iselited Mr. IIAWES thought that if the House cons , o f to the appointment of a Commission composed 0/1 Members of both liouses, . they would be yielding their own privileges. Mr. ESCOTT also objected to the . clause. 44 a,' Mr. AGLIONBY stated that she object of aPpoi., -- , , e f a mixed Commission was, to facilitate the a d o patul 0 , any measures which it might be thought advisable' s , t take against a delinquent borough. No Bill for dish ° , chising a constituency could be passed without - • sanction of the other House; and it was felt. tha,l-,:' sa n c tion could be more easily obtained, if Peers well' 1; lowed to be members of the Commission. He thowl„- • that that consideration was sufficient to justify the rr' ' posal in question. _ •ht Mr. MACKINNON: oppOsed the clause. He tho ti g that the powers of both Houses should be kept distitO be % Mr. ROEBUCK hoped the clause would 110 4 , f -a pressed. .11e should feel great repugnance in voting, its proposal that that House should devolve any 01,t powers to the other House. He entreated the Houma - 0 1 to decide . hastily on such a subject- Let them sul c o o theirjudgment for the present ; and let Ministers prel', ~ a well-considered measure to settle the whole. (141:fs in the next session. He believed that those tribo.o, to which the House now left the decision of election ve'..v Lions were inefficient ; and be did not think that tril inefficiency would be remedied by the calling in b e es number of Members of the other House. -.die Mor ri , y Il of the other House were as liable to be biassed batoi considerations, as they were themselves. His wish w ° , , c ., be, that they should commit the power of deciding -e't tion petitions to one or two high Judicial functiona rie : , Sir R. H. INGLIS said that he coincided in e '_'-;', north that had fallen from the Hon. end Learned INlc',,, .her fur Bath. In his opinion it would be advisablehey transfer to an external authority that power which t i , c . had 'Atha rto reserved to themselves with respect to e .:th tion petitions. If the Hon. Gentleman procee ded ‘ l llO the clause he should propose as an amendment that_ ." 0 ., Commission should consist of three Judges o f the b'tl, rier courts of law. Sir R. PEEL felt an objection in principle to s'y eit't , course. It could nut be said that he was not anxir',, maintain the privileges of the House of Common7.ot (Bear) —but the disfranchisement of a boroughwiLi,,, a matter relating to the special privileges of of Commons, but was at subject ence ; and they could nut the 11 (, :',"..... the concurrence of the House of Lords. They 1 00 11 _,, j right to determine the issuing of the writ, but they , tu_ r concurrence o, not disfranchise a borough without the qle, the other House of Parliament, and'therefore when 1 f , the es, prtni,etilltra ltgigttsitte•epiiTici.9..ll,,,e;ot called in the aid of the House of Lords in cr'a'p dun of tie Commission, it seemed to him they , sc i e lli re i t ' si ti o r n . rendering no rights. The object of the rt''Snuch facts was that they should have power to discover guiltY as would enable both Houses to disfranchise' ~,.,, Inf. „ bortughs without acv further ine.ti:;yi; r-- 'l'.g.A.lagPh‘t)iiiittmwc.onttildGl - be t‘ (Hb''enittorlidis:ountakeyt tite Crow '7111 1 4 -41b11: ~ ....•~ The The tt ruek fern at i ( '' re tltst. 4 t t r , A s j , I) o. "4FitQ lib k~hF, d ay . ~~li,; of Vi 2