The Sun. — London, England, 1831-08-24 00:00:00

_~~ it & h i , tiiff with . hial ni l dot,, mitt — ee a f P ' ats by evidence adduced before the Select Coin_ irporation, aa, " petition Jared a PP to se of _ e .... try and determine the merits of the 'sell ; that my ial - 0 , th v eeemitlly „ _ om m pla s in b in c g al o le f tt a , n ll. ,n il , l i i v a e m e il le l , ` , C tio le n ar a y n , d an re d tt o u t t h i e f r o s :. is election, not . t ki e r , , pectfully requeet'y eze . ol Dublin 0 his Excellency theo rcised b y ti - tat official influence has been unduly u t 1 ~ . le Irish Government at the said election, and be permitted to rr p . ci ll aoriantnio u , ra c : v l y r i, fl i uence, as exercised by Captain Hart and election. Roo° , 0. the favour of tine late Membens, was in gross ition, for if nil t el . _tnate aventi _ t n privileges of the HOURC, and in direct sly circumstanc ed • Me " of the law of Parliament as laid down hi Horded to them., ci , b e re solution of this House of 1779." The Hon. 11Iem y hard and a veil ~. agreedconclusion, to he should ove for leave to bring in a Bill to take •e observed, that b r t . wil t ? the right were of from all freeholders in Dublin and not by the G ef ; the se fre , holds l e of less value than 101. a year, putting d--- , ‘ Y e .i, but yl.„ thensilttreerc(i.soeulynton the same footing with the freeholders of a and a 1augh , ),,;,1 1i eland. The resolutions been read from the chair, ty bad not beent ° n voted for the it° t " th e 'Al STANLI N th f ee l ings sir cp . rose and said, that whatever might be 'ight, however, t ° , l l , pinions of Hon. Members with regard to th e a ubject • nlieved the Loed l ' i d e - which the Hon. Member had brought under reats w hich were, Ho con sideration of the House, Inc thought that every r the influence o h d o i ng " Gentleman would agree with him (Mr. Stanley) in though he did ti et P h hd h im the • ustice to say, that in the mode in which I, yet he was t°l hhsed-nas.addeeaulptutvnitjli this case, and in the comments which he :pressing the like the evidence by which it was supported, like to make the ° of ' rit,oadrijaactuteettian strict compliance with the ordinary course For his own l'arl'bi than of stating this case on the part of the Hon. Gentle held out, ao ~ his a °. which he could complain. There was nothing in ion only by their theys coon Which nprolnabie to taki at all 1,,, d _ peat as d he had just observed, upon tine facts as 11 devia!ted from ßut while he was thus willing to give his ale that infloenet,lt theu•sFertiuen.d. theecrelit for the manner in which he had stated le should call 0110; t hat c h i. n _t_h . House, he would at the same time submit nt coal-meters. tht e made, un•Friend, both in the statement which he had communicated 4 Whiot, , and in the resolutions, with the proposition of n this case he ' lr. ' l kee' u nle n , e lr h a a n d i e d o i ncl u d e d that statement, ought to have - 2astle, requestiogi, tbiest nth r aubj ect W I 1 . •tinet, one from the other, two parts of i at the Castle. ; „ e itch had no earthly connexion with each case of Mr. Freest, t ( i l oi r ,' lvii r i l eh should bei have kept quite separate, in the resolu mtween a letter It l ii r tad proposed, two points which, in his htial person, and 8 vp • Stanley's) was (Add The latter W 1 , 1 lar ge` " fortified by the general opinion of the House at the former nil l th erinb , hotad not be considered at the same time, or made red that the coo i ge! t h ier t r is e t t t n r i t at a t u e d r of the same decision, for they were alto -I°elisa'e consideration which thernPetio different, and however mutually worthy Ling coals. that an ' d " ion of the House, they should be taken as Bill, and they to ° r ti _ n his distinct Nun, questions. Now his complaint was, have compeneatieat rtain duty whicill 4 ° st s, whinutin had Friend had mixed together those two ques resolu. nothing to do with each other. The tern to collect. Ptintlthree which were proposed by his Hon cape . .• the Custorn•h , se tt 'eat ~.., w ere to t t h m e ns effect that a direct system of fraudu tion this, .i.nrerat;i .._e;,): of fict itious freeholders had been carried on in the ridence. " led ' Inaintai Dublin ; that that - of Dublin were io ( i , each s hed b y Per.system had been supported and jury and bribery ; that the existence of xpected com P e ed ele ct - S YStern us that Mr. °°' ft Ilia the len t and that w" a gross violation of the purity of ?wishing . n it was the duty of the law-officers of nal inetage, had -41 iset t hi ng " the t pe lreland to take the necessary steps for at hie intervieteiljn the rsons who thus offended. So far tine sub ated as having t°lt.,Jt related° which npensation if thelij, i n.t was one and proposed by his Hon. Friend did his were ° the same, and the resolutions regard mentioned,' sefr , ' t wish to oPPe'eli pro_os I/00. yrien y d connected together. But to what go h 1 the next resolution which he npensation for , d ry ttiboeoPf:leidiehforwtabse:loption of tine House? Why to a clues : sustain. 11e sett Of together distinct from that relating to could not eaPe i ls' ?WteirzaritnY-anhoilliZsfreeholders in Dublin, and in which they eonded first calledeon rour. I said, l' i ,' 1111,01,1tientrn5naintorny Dublin, ..nne implicated or concerned. His Hon. more likely for 11 : f a the House to pass certain resolutions tbey could not t o t' conduct of the forty-shilling free them unless th e ci I rish tith er reso , u o l i t , o and these resolutions he followed up Ld interview b 1,0: ertune 9 nvernsne l nt i , n. condemnatory of the conduct of the k place in conreflo, in connexion with which it had no t interview, Mr' ir full y 11 "" whatev e im, ~ you will fr ti l icil :Shilli o ,.. r ! namely, the alleged bribery of the ters W i - , , , ient t fr eeholders after in Dublin.—( Hear, hear.) His meeting I held l i t t proposing such resolutions upon mat this bad ; he t in , 0 diatin whir ought i utio et heads concluded have been treated under separate and and he contessesoi leaveas h e ado _ .e. by stating that should his reso- However, th e ii .. .. . be i et,to bring House,of i n a Bill to • th e City of Dublin, abolish the forty-shilling fran rent. Shortly f li -ag at and to make the right of vot ts under w hich yi fr ee , e lection s 00 oul in that city for the future be derived from he had before Si that . of not le. s h nide P r on et, as well a • s than ten pounds annual value. Now ltman clearly in tr ini the coaduct of the forty-shilling free warrants ivere t : tod he Surely should was a subject for not have mixed it up with the charge 1 in the olii,° l fil t snt point Irish Government, which was also an impor the withdrawal 1 reteren'um that to other should be considered by itself, and without , had no hesitattty to 1: do e tnattets with which it bad nothing to be wholly tnis t3 of eke t ' His o rr, ib e . 1,, Hon. Friend said, that Inc should say that the e , tit j ute w what course his Majesty's Govern 1. He was qui te ,' 't wa s „ intend a as th e c _ n 0 m att _ o _ pursue with regard to this subject. In because the G° ri' h i, A 7 a .teSe intended f t surprise that he should be ignorant of erly thought, thatii, o be adopted, when, up to a late hour 3ustom-house, ae o n With t f l l stY's G ov : present resrunittnent themselves were unacquainted oal-meters. llej all th e e cul itions. It was not until five o'clock n to justify the I', "ad bt er Y I : 'ad been understand to him. He certainty As this, howeve, r y - 'rielci„; gL v en to that the Hon. Member for iyeomrnitteetoe h 14 tend 0 Contrary. „ars je at rinni__ to the opinion of the Committee, did p undue lune 01 „ , a n d S ..g forward certain' to the stateroe 1 , v0 1n ,,, affinuing those resolutions upon this sub gose which had been agreed to by the sid erit `o t !tte e vent into an 0 0 ;1 ; hut the the Hou r , were now brought under the con er, and Sir Job. r „ i b rAc e d i r i of e a set of resolutions which em ir, cot° ' vad far other to i amnions had • even pes than those which the Committee ~ , oobd so , s ad en decided n•rence ()I tile ) Ithe ti , u,Poin Now, he should propose to sepa n address mane ji etcn , 10 questions w • • hull had been thus mixed up, for AO, re u 'd not ' pleased to dis'", Iv gard , -o otherwise do justice to either of them. With to her 31ajestYlopi , a , nos, the conduct of the forty-shilliug freeholders, it ri with, notwith'ol 'ste t ! . in which the Government were not at all in:l though there was another branch of the subject, P'- 1 a resolutioo thl A p t ‘‘'iti respect t to, which he was prepared to admit that the fr. Lloyd, the / 3 '' were . deeply implicated. The House t because it s e r o d ~,e ti then that would , it would be impossible to mix the - A had acted, al r ” is j '''at • Govern . ..g$ ~ 11,1 1 with the contamination ofthe forty-shilling f r ng resolute:tea "v r t . , , 0 It,: e- "}stem, its fraud, its • ee perjury, its corruption ' 'he House a had i a -4, e to io? 4,11, Called he trusted, would bear in mind, that they . The and so they and d on to act judicially ; and if, upon full were rer, trouble 0 9 1 ,1, 1 ;;Unation a ull ex inquiry, it should be tine opinion although be hel l ( re b "ae that of A bst i y theHonourable those forty-shilling freeholders re the cases, he bat , ° i of b f nod to variably preisv,Jr• te a Lou be proved to have nrument and its ,i,i i c, an., guilty of the charges brought against them, t, either the p r e r (hi ”I •' ! "con lp i e i l° ,Ug , would afford every lent for three° c 3,,. te leas:, 'skiing their punishmelit But he would here difficulty in e"e b .orint r A ' , l et such so ask, did the Hon Member suppose that con ,n •" otr ,,4 ' ed 'a' that f i• i . ,uing a oviu, bei he ra to the county of the city of Dublin ; and that it sad were wise °' yet s 4 ed fo e _ t efore, to be inferred,that any remedy to be pro bey' e ` ' lie , I PPos e `it should be sure that t co nfined to that locality ? Did he n the •ourno ls * iiesa er e 0 th at such • j ,f t not f ort . practices were confined to Ireland ' . ropose n o res t " fl t e le "gland Y .- sidling freeholders created in every part ice. He thotir (tot th st landed whenever it would serve the purposes of the he evidence di d ,j, li on 0 Rupri t • j 0 ,, on p pos ,_ i. e ois of the place ? With out,however, iron Twyll hs . f fr a u • I',i e '%, or even cam , - ' assmg the propositions of his lion for the 7 th loeh t " ( I, he should some just observe, that he entertained be should Pr°tl i)o,, ouid b, vest remedy might be devised; and he feted not to 10 e , h ile•-•-a Bit] glad to ate a Bill introduced for that pur was or was no t e . ' Ar a to li r Low e " which, el he hoped, would extend nut, for in eith e 'p i f 44 - „ et .ice , u gland and r, l r and. The prevalence of the canine within t i g ie 't'' A ; I lehi -Q „„ l ".ch complained of was as extensive and 1 It was the io" u , it ,7Y a tu ev ti l e la England as it could well be anywhere. eon Twyll d :ill° of ° ,l, s•ng and r e . 001 „ o 5 vr von t , markable instance was recorded . propose a r ti , f Deputies en Re Popular eli ctions MEI. I • la ng am , written unduly exerci se r S' l. g en tleman—n ot . t he a u nember of the Chamber him in what it t e o l . ,• Seth'isil bat ---with whom, this country, he (Mr. of di,ffe,ret .Pl' 4 1 6r. att (I th e good t w fortune to form a friendship. The te o tr 1 . 1 gav end ed f Lord Lieu o ta d e a _ an election f the r,i t h et, an a ce or the county oneml, vorld, bad • et , on that "unt of the examinati on of of tine free - ;lesea's milit' d t, inti ti '0 pi a , Occasion, it was, of course, impossible the policy °I to ? ' ) Ili' . el 'ee of an a French gentleman could be under the ad. Let him, / 4 coun t ' th y Part soil et 0 Co uld " o f th Party feeling whatever, and certainly s to be fe el I i e b e , e exatnination was as happy a descr;ption if the in tl° ' Nioetning fiver, of a the popular election. The freeholder blin electio o e '' \ % ,"er e i u P to floe .pf t i h et s you r f Pull, was interrogated thus • sed sim e x e rcise d I, v e f _ lint er _freehold ?" "It is situated s . o and a had ofr Ye shot roe, c ,_, it ? ,',t hav e you in 't r. F ___ y 8. .. - 7 --what income do you de s fact i t , t est` ,' , lt? , ,ut it ? , Lotl ‘‘ Lor " d " hillings."—" From whew do ries and rn34''o,br k •t44 Lansdale."—.'c Who is your motives'ten seta' re u , 1 .04,, ,( Lo o ,d. i i , -tent V tly o gale s ,es steward."—" What are you ?" the highest 4 e pc ~. (c i n you livery se " mt e „ n 13ill die ° fel 'tie; , 'ee l ., e f reehold ?" ' ' Have you been re the if 11. All " Never was there in life." my ed ? Elie ° I V 'at •With „, a ughter,) L e , • ! t.ing the House to deal ju use to act of t ° Or ilf sh e uere .de _present ' , . otiho 00414. °win uci,„ question, lie merely mentioned p their jour cen i ti, wi sed g th at r!9440 that uotati T pti for the purpose ' such influe n o i c 1 0 , . tough O f w 1 t•te had and bie i:etit vatioa . not Confinedeorrupt eystero so justly coin rive the P a " rising:is Parts of Enl to Dublin, but extended ce was objectirtaa,:olsgvt.4B tg and as well. Idis chief ob. disqualified e i ,,, ~l' :,,'°o % ; ' , B nsiar a be h ail , he trusted, fully accomplished —it ttions; and s/70r.arttpereh b each a d e nts °V , "N • tie-, at i been other the two parts of tine sues r uepen ? ~, t Irish ,, can submitted ' 1 H live rranc hise ie jr , 04, but q uve le h e show b ro tle —ouse. When the be fully' prepared to defend into that Ill' u re f e id h it gli t th at rintrient, and tu justify their conduct through , who tce jr eeti e,.., was asty , and A 0 Oll. ' t() be subject with which the ma • tter which at elections wa n d .. Ai e 6 t lin r JA s discussed and disposed of had no con and Excia-- - t lo e h.-s e it He did " 0 f il i t 'tt If rest dut; ' GR ATTAN i Os ° fi t't ° n. ii on s Iv _ , hoped the consideration of se resooti de t qth ti lt _ . t d ati ouid h e. po s t Polled W 130 future day, as , e ,,,, r5 , try t hat e 0 0 Ot 44 '' te his ve, whom they Ihe s hould j a ti i a .t'hlia t liat,, _ Place. Thee so much concerned, was There was no doubt, lie believed, moderate r e ' 4 oo o , C t 'h ,'''''')l4," 250 voters t he ,rI y,f I. e......,,, a , were made of out a place in entreated ~.d eg, ~, ,rn eans ea there derived the' • interests from a few of the priv' .o A,Mr, I , of h u i , esi tuate--.a n d n that that object was effected of election! f r isi i t li i : ae l r Sli ( i i " o ldierp ) 0 - ' • cttingi. inutilPl ia , tO.Protte„'°4s, V eeti tuen use tved, that to 1' lio , c an y 00 001 , t i t,,i kti, i l y 411,1 whet ore: deep! • i nun it appeared that the triplicated in those trans gSl means , 1 . 0 0 ° ,4, ve,„ at ldr e , t ,' it came under 1 which ft t ild e b. pla;-' the „Ouseu considerati on, he should Lege i trih e if 'l3l express bra it with perfect freedom, louse farther:, ri,o,‘l s opinion. II Wit h tine _ e should not e wa s th is' I subordinatts•-...he should pursue ' nobler game, for he thought that the head of the Irish Government was deeply implicated. Mr. RICE fully concurred with those who thought that all which relatt d to the forty-shilling freeholders could not be too strongly censured ; but it surely woul-1 be most unjust to put an end to the forts shi ling fran chise in the city of Dublin, merely on account of the frauds practised in particular quarters—in Coldblow-lane, for example. A Bill might be introduced which would prevent a multitude of frauds, but which, he hoped, would not he framed with any tendency to destroy the rights of bona fide freeholders. He made those observations mealy to protect himself from the imputation of supporting an attack upon bonajide freeholders in voting for some of the present resolutions. Mr. R. GORDON intimated his intention, when the resolutions were agreed to, that he should move for leave to bring in a Bill for the purpose of disfranchising the forty-shilling freeholders of the city of Dublin. Mr. STANLEY observed, it was assumed that there was evidence of gross bribery amongst the forty-shilling freeholders of the city of Dublin—that surely was not true of the great mass of the forty-shilling freeholders of the city of Dublin : there were as many respectable, upright, and incorruptible electors amongst the forty-shilling free holders of Dublin, as amongst any body of electors in the empire. They were fully as deservinetf the trust of the elective franchise as the ten-pound freeholders. There were frauds no doubt, but what was the remedy pro• posed ? To abolish the forty-shilling freeholders a l toget h er . Me would say, abolish the abuse, but go no further. Be fore he sat down he wished to state, that his Hon. and Learned Friend, the Attorney-General, would move an amendment to one of the resolutions, which he trusted would have the effect of promoting all the ends of public justice. Mr. LEFROY contended that prosecutions ought to be ' instituted ; a double perjury had been committed by those so called freeholders. Colonel CONOLLY said the whole proceeding ought to be subjected to the most accurate and minute investigation. Mr. SHEIL objected to those resolutions, amongst other reasons, on account of the ulterior objects said to be in view. The constituency of Dublin was made up of freeholders and freemen. There were 6,000 freemen and only 1,500 freeholders ; thus the Corporation en. joyed a great ascendancy in that city. There were re spectable men amongst the freemen, no doubt ; but it was true of many of them, that they were brought up in the Foundling Hospital, educated i❑ a charter school, and gra duated in the Corporation. At the time the Emancipa tion Bill was under consideration, it was proposed to abolish the forty-shilling freeholds in Irish towns, as well as in Irish counties, but they were preserved in the towns on account of the necessity which there existed of main taining a counterpoise to the influence of the freemen. Much had been said of the delinquency of the freeholders of Dublin, but were there no others in the emnire whose cases demanded a remedy? How many years had passed away since the Liverpool election ? 'Were not the very sources of freedom polluted there—were not largesses openly given in the streets ? With those facts before the eyes of the Hon. Members, he confessed it did appear strange to him that Dublin should have been the only place selected. On the question being put upon that resolution which declared that the Irish Law Officers of the Crown should prosecute, The ATTORNEY-GENERAL, in moving an amend ment, said that the alteration which he meant to propose would, he trusted, fully attain the objects which the Hon. Member for Cricklade had in view ; but in point of form, be did not think that the House could go beyond merely affirming a breach of privilege. Public assemblies, and especially that House, should be extremely cautious how they pronounced upon the guilt of any person, or how they gave any opinion as to matters of fact, or the nature of the evidence by which those facts might be verified. The Hon. and Gallant Officer on the other side of the House had said that all blame lay at one door; he confessed he thought the House ought to carefully avoid making itself a party to any such assertions; and, - further, he felt satis fied the house would agree with him, that no vote of theirs ought to convey any opinion respecting the guilt or inno cence of any parties whatsoever. I3esid,s, there was this formal objection to the motion, namely, that it assumed that the Law Officers of the Crown were bound in duty to prosecute, whereas they had never yet been called upon for that purpose. He should therefore move, " That an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying tha he would he graciously pleased to direct that the Law Off cers of the Crown in Ireland do make inquiries into all matters relating to forty-shilling freeholds in the city of Dublin, and take such steps as the necessity of the case might seem to require." Mr. R. GORDON expressed his full concurrence in that amendment, and his readiness to support it. Mr. C. W. W. WYNN said, that the present was a case of breach of privilege, and the House of Commons, cnstead of addressing the Crown, should act for itself. Sir C. WETHERELL—The Committee bad tried the question, and had made a report, and he saw no reason why that House was to delegate to two gentlemen on the other side that which the House ought of itself to per form. He objected to the amendment of the Attorney- General, because its effect was to nullify the resolutions of the Select - Committee on the election petition, and because it would he a mere mockery to undo their proceedings. Mr. CRAMPTON apprehended, that the Committee having made its report, all the rest of the affair was in the hands tithe House, which could direct proceedings or not, as it pleased, With respect to the perjury of the forty_ shilling freeholders, however, he apprehended that the case was different, and that the House would not direct pro ceedings, unless the Attorney• General of Ireland found ground sufficient on which to institute proceeding.. He would be the last man in that House to defend bribery, but he never would support one of these resolutions, if he understood that either he or the House was thereby to be pledged to the truth of the evidence that was adduced be fore the Committee. In taking up his stand on this ground, he was only occupying the same position as that of his Hon. and Learned Friend (the Attorney-General.) He begged likewise to observe, that with respect to the evidence, only one instance of a fictitious freeholder had been brought before the Committee, and only eight or ten of bribery against the forty-shilling freeholders of Dublin, while there were full as many cases against freemen as against freeholders.—( Hear. ) Mr. HUNT explained. Sir JAMES SCARLETT thought that if the evi dence given before the Committee on oath had been laid before a Jury, a conviction would have been cer tain ; but with respect to any future prosecution, he must say, that as far as the matter of form went, he should prefer that of an Address to the Crown to that of a direction of the House.—(Hear, hear.) With res. pect to Mr. Grattan, he did not think that there was any blame attaching to that gentleman ; for, having been ill advised, he had had the prudence to refrain from using the voters whom he had made ; and it had remained for the liberal Members of Dublin to do that which the person who had created the voters had been ashamed to do.— (Hear, hear.) With I espect to referring the question to the law officers of the Crown of Ireland, he thought that that would be absurd, because it weal,' be calling upon them to do what the Committee had already done.—(Hear.) Mr. STRICKLAND felt bound to complain that they were going to inflict an act of severity on a few wretched individuals, who were to be crushed because they had not any persons to stand up to protect them.—(Cheers.) If he were able to t - ,te in this proceeding anything like equal justice, it should have his support ; but he thought that its principle was just the contrary—(Hear, hear)—and when. ire remembered how the case of Liverpord had been passed over, he felt bound to protest against the proposition that was made in the case of Dublin. Colonel TORRENS said, that in the borough which he represented, there had been fictitious voters, including Clergymen of the Church of England, from time imme morial ; and while this was being done with impunity, he could not consent to proceedings in the Dublin case. Dr. LUSHINGTON would have the amendment limit the laws of fines to prosecutions against those who had been guilty of bribing the voters.=(Cheera.) The ATTORNEY -GENERAL then framed his resolu tion anew, remarking that the general feeling appeared to be that he should confine it to persons who had been guilty of acts of bribery, and of using fictitious freeholds. Mr. GORDON—And of creating those freeholds. The ATTORNEY -GENERAL—That is no cr i me ; the crime is in using them, He then proposed his amend ment as follows :—" That the law officers of the Crown in Ireland do take immediate measures for the purpose of bringing to justice such persons as may have been guilty of bribing the voters at the late election in Dublin.". Mr, Alderman WAITHM AN objected to such proceed_ tags, on the ground that such transactions. prevailed gene_ rally througl;itut the country. Mr. WYNN preferred the amendment as it stoat] bef re the last alteration. Mr. G. BANKES thought that those who gave the bribe ought to be punished ; but he also thought that the other party ought to he punishe I al,o, though he had no objection to leave to the discretion of the law officers of the Crown in Ireland the question of who should be sei lected for that purpose ; and as the givers of the bribes probably could not be reach'ed without the evidence of those who received, cage of course would be taken to ex, dude those who were to give testimony from indictinatt A very material part of the evidence, however, appeared to him to have been overlooked—he'illuded to that which went to implicate the Irish Government in what had taken place ; and he was the more surprised at it when he remembered the way in which the Irish Government had, in the early pert of the Session, been defended, and particularly when he mentioned what had fallen from the Right Hon. the Irish Secretary on the subject.--(Cheers.) Hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House had al luded to the case of Liverpool, and bad regretted that that case had been passed over while it had been proposed to visit the Dublin case so heavily. But he begged to ask whose fault it was if the Liverpool case had been passed over? That case had been in the hands of the Hon. Mem ber for Wiltshire during the whole of tl,is Session ; and it certainly was no fault of the Hon. Gentlemen on his (Mr Bankes's) side of the House—(Cheers)—that that ques tion had not been brought on. They had come down se veral times in the full expectation that the question would be brought on ; and one night. when it actually was on, it was stopped by the House being counted out. Lord J. RUSSELL liked the resolution as it was now worded ; because to punish the fictitious voters when they could not reach the maker of these voters, appeared to him to be the height of injustice; and, indeed, if the re solution had remained as it was at first, he could not have given it his support. With respect to the Liverpool ques tion, he begged to state the postponement attached no blame whatever to the Hon. Member for Wiltshire, as that Hon. Gentleman had consented to that arrangement at the request of the Ministry, who thought the question of general Reform was of more importance than the one individual case of Liverpool—(Cheers).—but as to any de sire of screening Liverpool from the consequences of the election that had taken place there, he begged leave to protest against such a supposition, both on the part of his colleagues and hirnself.—(Cheers.) He had already ex plained the only motive the Government had in desiring its postponement ; and, indeed, they would also have been desirous of postponing the Dublin question also, but for the attempt made to implicate the Irish Government in the question.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. R. GORDON thought that the original motion which he had proposed was better than that of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, which was confined to those only who gave the bribe. He should therefore move, by way of amendment, " That the law officers of the Crown in Ireland do take immediate measures for the purpose of bringing to justice such persons as may have been con cerned in such illegal anti unconstitutional practices." Sir J. SCA RLETT thought that it would be bad for that House to word a resolution for the purpose of screen ing any particular offenders, though it might be another question who were the proper persons to be prosecuted.— (Hear, hear.) Ile therefore preferred the amendment of the Hon. Member for Cricklade, because it appeared to him to meet the justice of the case. Mr. J. WOOD would not have addressed the House but for the allusion which had been made to him, he being the person who had moved the counting of the House when the Liverpool question was under discussion ; and if any defence for such a course was necessary, he thought that it might be found in what bad taken place that even ing -4 Hear, hear)—for since the beginning of the Ses sion it had been the object of a certain party to occasion delay, cost what it would.—(Cheers, mixed with loud cries of " No, no.") There were thirty-three of them who had generally voted against Reform, and he mis trusted their new-born zeal. He had stopped the Liver pool case, because he thought that was a paltry case, compared to the great cause which was then before the House, and lie did not wish to see the time of the House occupied with the discussion of a trifling cause, while they neglected that which absorbed the whole at tention of the people. He objected to the resolutions, because he thought the whole Liverpool case nothing but a farce. They were called on to punish a few poor men for receiving bribes, and at the same tune it was known that Lord Lonsdale had created a great multitude of fictitious voters in Westmorland, and bad driven them up to the poll at Appleby like cattle.—(No, no, hear, hear.) Wherever there was a small county, and a con test6cl election, votes had been made, and the voters driven to the poll. It was a miserable waste of time to inquire into petty, paltry cases, while Peers and Com moners received thousands of pounds for seats in that House. It was right that the people should know in what manner their representatives were occupied, with quibbles, with paltry prosecutions of individuals for re ceiving a few pounds, while Lords and Commoners dealt in seats fur thousands of pounds. It was a mete pretext for delay. He could not congratulate his Hon. Friend, the Member for Cricklade, on the new alliance he had formed with the Anti-Reformer:;-..;;Hear, hear)—nor on the mischief he bad done to Reform. His Hon. Friend, he was sure, did not mean it; but the Anti-Reformers had found no more useful ally, nor the cause of Reform a more mischievous friend.—(Hear, hear.) He spoke sin cerely what he meant, though he hoped his Hon. Friend would take no offence. He would not object to enter into the ease of Liverpool and Dublin at a proper time, but he objected to it then, because there v.as important busi ness before the House—because it would be used as a pre text to delay the Reform Bill—and because it would also be used as a pretext to injure the present Government of Ireland, which on account of its liberality, was obnoxious to all the Anti-Reformers.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. BENETT reminded the Hon. Member who spoke last, that it was on Wednesday night when lie brought forward his motion, and that it was the act of the Hon. Member who counted out the House which cause,l the delay. He was chargeable for that and fur whatever delay it might yet occasion to the Reform Bill. His own dia. ratter was now implicated, and lie must again bring for ward the question. He was now attacked both by the enemies of the Bill, who were his political enemies, and by the friends of it, who were his friends.—(No, no.) His motion must be brought on at the proper time, though it should stop the Reform Bill —(Hear, hear.) Mr. J. WOOD explained. He was afraid the Liverpool business teas to be like the East Retford business. That had occupied Parliament four or five years, and he thought it was very likely Liverpool would be as long. Lord STORMONT reminded the House that on Wed_ nesday, when the Hon. Member for Wiltshire's motion relative to Liverpool was to come on, the Ministers en deavoured not to make a House. A House, however, was made, and then they saw the Members of the Govern uren t ch ari whippers u etlrei r character,(Alaugh)—and u g a h n ) d — instead t whipperso ,e f tfiv became e Mem bets were whipped out of the House into the lobby, where out remained ttbeHotise ‘hile the . v lieap lo p l e r: i . er re t nbe to the for e House Preston counted ouseifhisstate _ rnents were not correct ; and yet the gentlemen on the other side, who were thus guilty of causing delay, who withput offd delaying abgo thesin e s b s u , s i s n i e b s: e o q f u t e l e i c o h u a s r e g , charged andtb the stopping ° PP °sit h m e z Reform 13i11.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. SPRING RICE only wished to bring hack the House to the question before it. He believed it was cus tomary, before ordering a prosecution, that the parties to be prosecuted should be named, and not entrust the law Officers with a roving commission to prosecute whom they liked. But the Hon. Member for Cricklade had not named any one person. It was said, too, that the law officers should select some for punishment, and allow others to escape. There were both an undefined offence, and unnamed persons, and these were to be prosecuted. He wished his Honourable Friend to reconsider his reso lution, and before the House proceeded it ought to con. cider well what it was about. Sir ROBERT INGLIS objected to the amendment of the Attorney-General. The Committee had reported against fictitious voters; the House, by its resolution, had adopted that report. The Committee had also reported against bribery ; and if the House adopted the amend ment of the Learned Attorney-General, they would leave these two offences untouched. The House would not dis charge its duty if it did not adopt the original resolution. Mr. O'CONNELL wished that the resolution should be large enough to embrace all the offences committed at the Dublin election. If the law officers undertook to prosecute all the bribery, he would engage that they should have evidence enough. The evidence given before the Committee was confined to one side, and if the law officers looked to both sides, they would have enough to do. With re spect to fictitiou s votes, it was true that the Corporation had created 4,000 voters in one day, though the Board of Aldermen would admit only fifteen or eighteen hundred out of th e 4000 ; they never seemed to doubt that they had the power; and the men whom they created voters never seemed to suppose that it was wrong, or they would not have done it. He objected, however, to these triging proceeding s at that moment, it Was busying themselves catching Hies when .hey ought to be striking down vul tures. The lion. Member eulogise 1 Mr. Perrin, the late Member for Dublin, and described hint as having lent his nam e and high character to proinote the gool cause of Reform. Il e was a mar. nniverstlly esteemed, both in I profession and out of it. A more disinterested man did not live. Ile was rather astonished at the language of th e lion. Member for Montgomery, who ,d e scribed himself as having been for.thirty years an opponent of br ibery, and as having been always ready to punish it; and what was the consequence ? Why it had got to such a height that the whole nation no .v called out for Reform. The Right lion. Member was always ready to prosecute when th e curtain was drawn aside, but that was seldom. Such boroughs as Corfe Castle iyere not often unveiled. —( Hear, hear.) There were some proceedings of the House which would put an end to bril ery ; he alluded to the motion of the Noble Marquis, the Member fo, Buckingham, who had separated voting from tenure, and that separation would infallibly lead to the vote by ballot, which would put a stop to bribery.—(llear, hear.) Mr. LOWTHER spoke from under the gallery, and was scarcely audible. We understood hint to deny that Lord Lonsdale had created votes and driven freeholders to the poll, as mentioned by the Hon. Member for Preston. If he had so conducted himself, he would have been liable to be impeached. The votes the Hon. Member alluded to were legal votes; and the practice to which he alluded had been begun by the opposite party. Sir ROBERT PEEL wished to recall the attention of the House to the question before it, which related to or dering the law officer to institute a prosecution ; and in discussing that he should not, like the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who deprecated delay, suffer himself to be se. duced into discussing the general measure of Reform, and the effect of the amendment of the Noble Lord, the 'Mem ber for Buckingham. He would apply himself strictly to the question before the House. The House had agreed to a resolution, that the system which had prevailed at the Dublin election was an infraction of the law of the land That resolution had been passed. It was then proposed to follow that up by another, to institute a prosecution; and two resolutions hid been brought forward for this pur pose—the original resolution and the amendment of the Hon. and Learned Gentleman. An objection had been raised to the whole proceeding, which would be of some weight, were the course of proceeding without a precedent. It was stated by the Hon. Member opposite, that no pro secutions were ever ordered without naming the indivi duals. He believed that objection was not well fout.ded. In one important case, at least, the House had proceeded without naming any individuals. When the House agreed to address the Crown to prosecute the rioters in 1780, the address was vague and indefinite. No individuals were named, but the Crown was addressed to order the prosecution of all concerned in the riots. That was a precedent; and he considered the objection of the Hon. Member of no force. Passing that by, he should object to the wording of both the resolutions. One said, prose cute the guilty ; that was settling by that House that the parties were guilty before the prosecution. He suggested that the words " charged with bribery" should be sub stituted. The Right Hon. Baronet made some further observations on the verbal meaning of the two resolutions, and suggested that the resolution should be—" That the law officers he directed to prosecute such persons as appear to them liable to prosecution." Lord ALTHORP admitted that certain resolutions had already been passed ; but it was not a necessary conse quence of those resolutions that the House should direct a prosecution. There were two distinct offences; and ac cording to the resolution of the Hon. Gentleman they would punish the lesser offence, and allow the greater offence to go unpunished. That was an inconsistency, and on that account he preferred the resolution of his Hon. and Learned Friend. As to the word guilty, he con ceived it of no importance. The law officer might be instructed to prosecute the guilty, as guilt was always im plied in all prosecutions, without inconsistency. The creating of fictitious votes was not a legal offence, but it was a great moral offence. If they were to direct the law officer to prosecute, they could only direct the prosecution of the legal offence, and the greater moral offence would escape. He should vote for the motion of the Attorney- General. Sir ROBERT PEEL observed, that the Noble Lord de scribed the fictitious votes as the greater moral offence. It was perjury; and if the House consented to the resolution of the Attorney-General, it would order a prosecution for bribery and allow perjury to escape. Sir JOHN NEWPORT said the creation of fictitious votes was not an illegal offence, and using them was not punishable by law. He should oppose the amendment of the Right Hon. Baronet. Sir ROBERT PEEL had not proposed, lie had only suggested an amendment. Sir CHARLES WETHERELL supported, by a few words, the view taken by Sir Robert Peel. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL had framed his amend ment in agreement with what he thought the sense of the House, and had confined it to those acts which had been illegally done. Mr. C. W. WYNN defended the course he had pursued as to boroughs found guilty of bribery, and in this ease re commended inquiry at the bir. He objzcted to the present proposed Reform Bill, that it did not contain one word against bribery, while it created a large constituency among that class of men who had on all occasions been most guilty of hribery.—( Hear.) Mr. O'CONNELL would vote for the largest prosecu tion, for his object was to prosecute, while that of others was to protect. the Which eii:aetUst treated t et t dh n eewa Hon.ni t t to g r speak ei‘ ai te tsncboe o r r n : a thisfor dr cKo s tn. u 7 b ey j m e c ia, t nt .id_n_s(ptiiteea Preston,ro and a laugh.) The lion. Member for Preston charged other people with creating delay, but in what he said and did he denied the imputation.—(Hear, hear.) He rose to put the House to rights.—(Great laughter,) He was one of the Committee, and had no doubt of the people having bees guilty of bribery ; but he did not think that any Jury in I , eland would find them guilty. The people acknow ledged, when they were asked, that they had received money ; and those who gave the money acknowledged that they had given it. While such cases were brought before the House, whatever might be said by the friends of Deform, the House must notice them. It was said, that such notice was only taken to create del ty ; he denied the imputation with scorn. If the friends of that mea sure thought it would prevent bribery, they were mistaken. When the Reform Bill was passed, bribery would take place to a greater extent than ever was known.—(Great laughter. ).—On the Hon. Member resuming his seat, there were loud calls of " Question !" and T in he confusionordered e b n e n t a l e e l a u r cleared consequent fora a t d he ivi w si i o t n h. ; ' drawal of strangers, Mr. R. GORDON said (as we understood), that he appr ove d o f the verbal amendment recommended by the Hon. Baronet, and was willing to adopt it. The word " charged" was then ordered to be substi tuted for the word " concerned," and the House divided, after some further diseussion,while strangers were excluded. For the Attorney-General's motion ...... 224 For Mr. Gordon's a m e n dment.............. 147 majority ................................. --77 On our return to the gallery, we found Mr. STANLEY observing, that the time was now arrived when, without mixing up the question of the ex tent of the bribery which had been committed, they were at liberty to enter into the promised discus s i on on t h e con duet o f the Governme nt, of which, wh a t ever m i ght be said, it was clear to him that the language of the resolution contained a strong expression of disapprobation. The lion. Gentleman had observed, that he (Mr. Stanley) was prob a bly th e only person in the House wh o th oug h t there extraordinary was anything or a m bi guous i n the language made use of in the report of the Committee. He must say, h oweve r, foil • it did appear t o hi m , t h at i n the report of a Committee of that House, appointed to inquire into the proceedi n gs of an election, there was something very ambi guous the declaration,'cthat certain p ersons h o ldi ng officials ' s i tua tions in Ireland, or supposed t o h e connected guon with the Irish Gove r nment , did tiFs undue influen ce , an d 'teonon," But lithe report contain e d any am bi gu i ty, and in tional ambiguity upon the part of the Committee, which, while it spoke of und ue i n t er f erence, di d not designate any ° particular individual, nor could it be presumed that any particular individual was intended t o b e d es i gnated, he c ould not avoid observing, that even a greater degree of ambiguity existed in the report as to the persons it pro posed to designate. He was then in the very disagreeable state of doubt that in rising to defend individuals attached to the Irish Government, he knew not who were attacked. Th e Hon. Member who introduced the resolution, as he said, with great pains, distinctly stated tha,t 1 did not me an to bring f orwar d any charge against Lord A ng l esea ; b ut t he other 'i on. M eMber of the Committee who se- Contled the motion, On the contrary declared, that lie was of opinion blame did not attach to Lord Anglesea. The upon himself to 'Say Who Were the resolution of the Committee decided, that officia,l influence had been used from some quarter, it was not stated what. The Hon. Aler..;ber who introduced the question did not That there was a strong opinion on the part of the Go guilty persons. tiernment in favour of the Reform cand;4atea had never been disguised—for the T r :et - Atk a then pending was consi dered not cril:( as involving the existence of the Govern ment, but of the country itself. One thing, he main tabled, was quite clear, that up to that rinment there take never was a Government which ;icon more clear of inter ference with FAecticr.s :hail at present.—(A laugh.) The course of proceeding adopted by the Committee on the pre sent occasion was, he contended, a singular one, and if it was , as he maintained it was, a singular case, he trusted lie could show the Hou.::to they ought - not to found a pre cedent upon it. ta.‘ the first place, he obj ec t e d t o th e Committee's having gone into the question of interference upon the part of the G overnma - .it at all, because this in terference could not vitiate the return of Members. This was the law laid down this t h y; and in a particular case to which the fl.on. Member alluded, he stated that it had been decided, that, although cornipt practices had occurred between a Noble Lord ~4d the 'Corporation, and although it bad beel proved that the candidate had gone down with a letter from the :Noble Lord, that, nevertheless, the return had not b.en vitiated. He knew it might b said that this allegation of undue interference on the part of the Government had Keen made part of the matter of the petition, and that, therefore, the Committee were or this account bound to consider it ; but as the words se the Grenville Act expressly d'-cla rtl the Committee wet, only to consider such matters as shauld affect the election, and as undue influence on the part of Government did not affect the election, he submitted that it should not hay, been considered. As a matter ofequity, he submitted that per sons should not he condemned upon evidence taken in theit absence, and upon the allegations of witnesses whom they had not the power to cross-examine. He did not deny that individual cases might not arise in which undue in fluence might be alleged, and which it would he necessary to go farther to investigate. But this was not one. On the first day the Counsel for the petitioners announced 'hat he did not intend to go into a scrutiny, but deter mined to depend altogether upon the bribery and undue in• terference. If he had insisted on the scrutiny, the ques tion of undue interference would have come in as an essen tial matter, as regarded the vote of each individual ; bur having abandoned this, there was no ground upon which undue interference could be considered at all. Now, touching the evidence of the first person who was brought forward, and who had been brought forward on two sac cessive days, he was a gentleman who had voted for the peti tioners, and to whose vote not the shadow of an objection had been taken. He was accordingly placed in the dif ficult position of being obliged to argue upon evidence which had been improperly taken by the Committee. He was not afraid to argue the case, because, if he showed that the evi dence was not such as to affix the fact of undue influence upon the Government, it would be sufficient. The first wit ness was a Mr. Long, who stated he had a conversation with Captain Hatt, whom the Committee did not know to have an official situation in the Castle at the time, and who actually had no situation whatsoever. It was not denied that the Marquis of Anglesea had expressed 'strongly the wishes he held on the election; and if any person would look to the state of the country, and to the state of the Government at the period, he could not shut his eyes to what the wishes and the strong wishes of the Government must have been. Mr. Long stated, that Captain Hart had called on him, and said, "that if I did not vote as he required, I should be discontinued coach maker to his Excelleney. I said, I was sorry for it. asked him if I was to understand that I was thencefor ward to be discontinued ? He said, yes, I waS, and he took his departure, first having stated that it was not to me alone he was to go, but to go to all the tradespeople." It came to the ears of Lord Anglesea that such a report had gone abroad ; with a readiness that did honour to his feelings, he desired that the assertion might be contra dieted ; and to explain his views and feelings, had other and private documents, in which lie had set down the sen timents and line of conduct by which he intended to guide himself, communicated to Mr. Long. This might have been indiscreet, but it certainly resulted from the impulse of a manly and generous mind, which was incapable of resting quiet under so foul an imputation. Now what did Sir John Byng say upon this subject, when Mr. Long hail a conversation with bins upon the subject ?—" Sir John said he had seen Lord Anglesea on the subject; he was glad to tell me that Captain Hart had exceeded his instructions, and he said Lord Anglesea, fearing he might have been misunderstood in the directions he gave, took the precaution of making a memorandum of the orders he had issued at the time of giving those orders ; and he said, ' To show you that these orders were exceeded, he has given rue a memorandum to show to you,' and he handed me a paper." Now the Hon. Member (Mr. Gordon) had said, that but for this paper, there would not have been the shadow of an imputation on Lord Anglesea and he (Mr. Stanley) asked if it was riot hard that a communi• cation made with motives so generous and manly, should be turned to such account ? He objected also to Mr. Long's remembrance of the contents of this paper having been taken in evidence, and remarked that he had rattier strangely forgotten the last sentence of the communication in which there was an important qualification. He likewise remarked that it was on Wednesday Mr. Long had the conversation with Sir John Byng, and that it was not until the Saturd iy, alter being so advised by one of the candi dates, he took down from memory the terms of the Lord Lieutenant's letter. It was also to be remarked that Mr. Long had admitted himself to have been a partisan of the Recorder of Dublin, and to have been concerned in getting the witnesses together to appear before the Committee. lie considered, therefore, that Long's evidence should be taken with suspicion. The next witness was Mr. Kimpton, a glover, who, it appeared from his evidence, was in his heart favourable-to Reform, and who, when relieved from the apprehension that he was to suffer by his vote, yet was glad to make the promise which, on the first intimation of the Lord Lieutenant's wishes, he had given the Lord Mayor a pre text with the Corporation for voting as his inclinations did really lead him. The case of Mr. Baseigeo he dis missed as altogether ridiculous—he supposed it had been only introduced by the Hon. Gentleman to soot!' the pain ful feeling which affected him in bringing forward the motion. He next came to the cases in which Baron Tuyll appeared, and here he was under a great difficulty, for he really knew not whether the charge was brought against Baron Tuyll as an individual or as an agent of the Lord Lieutenant. He contended, however, that no act of Baron Tuyll's could implicate Lord Anglesea, for whatever he had said or done was as a private person. It was true that Baron Tuyll happened to lie Lord Anglesea's pia vote secretary, but he had been in Dublin on a former oc casion, anti had many acquaintances there—and moreover entertained a personal friendship for oire of the candidates, and had, therefore, a perfect right to canvass in his behalf, and this without in the least compromising the Govern ment. Much stress, he remarked, by the way, had been placed upon Baron Tuyll's letters having been dated from the Castle; but the fact the Baron had no private house in Dublin, and lived in apartments ut the Castle. The evidence he had to refer to in this case was that of two police Magistrates—Alderman Tynclal, who was unfortunate enough to fail in the wine trade, and was afterwards made a Police Magistrate by the corporation, and Mr. Studdart. The whole of the evidence here, he begged the House to remark, rested upon vague statements of conversations hold by the Baron with a single individual ; and lie observed that he (Mr. Stanley) triad recently been in communication with Baron Tuyll, and had been informed by him that there was just enough of truth in the statements to prevent him from absolutely meeting them with a charge of false hood, though they were in sonic parts misrepresented, and in others most highly exaggerated : so that they were made to convey a meaning which had never been intended upon his part. Mr. Tyndal said that he Was anxious to vote for the person through whose influence 7,,,psea s ap_ pointed, but he feared that if he did he chould be- dismissed by the Government. In fact, the questia a with him was. whether he should otLnd the Corporation or the Govern roeot. In expressing that doubt to Baron Tuyil,, the latter answ,red, that on that subject his lips were. sealad. He now came to the evidence of geo,rge Studdart. That person said that he was appointed by the Corporation. It was clear that they were strong upon the Anti-Reform in- tercet; they declared the interest they felt in the question and exercised their influence; they weate generally very liberal in the use of it (that vise undeniably true), and witness stated that be slsoahl be voting in this instance against the Corporation, if he was to support the I:l,efam Car,dicia'4es. To that statement Baron Tql:i answered, that he was Lware that the witness ad been elected to his situation by the Corporatio;: ‘ , Cut that he was paid by the Government. 7' \ - cw a great deal of obsaerva,tion had been mad.) upon that answer. But tukeli tinere was ,an who could call it a threat, sat: 44 attempt unfairly and improperly to inflitenee t,,e vote of an elector; it I was merely a stetement of the exact position in which the witneaa stood between the two parties. All thia aaan - vereation was perfectly possible; but sure : ly, is seid not form a ground fora serious charge of exercise of Go. vernment influence. Upon croaseexamination, this wit ness was asked whethee he bath ever said that the conver sation bet , .7eera bins and Baron Tuyll hail made no Lin ; pression on his mind as to the consequerseea that would result if he had voted any tithes- -Io said that he did think a good deal uzine i e He was asked if he had ever spoken akTsat it ? Ile answered, that he had ,A ;a he could nof :suppose, that if he had gone the ntsisse way, it would have had the effect of producine- i t his dismissal. Ile was asked if be had ever said that more than once? He answered, that he tl'at not think the Marquis of Anglesea would tw.•,cs visited dismissal on him fin- en sluing ; but he did not'like to try the experimeref,....ear, hear.) H e was then ask e d whether h ; , - ;,ilew Mr. Jackson and r. Horn, and whethate these twin gentlemen, who, seteee as sistant tat risters, had not voted at the last eleati,on against the Government candidates? Ile said he was not aware of the fact of their having ea - siased. The truth was, that those gentlemen, • l arnei voted against the Reform candifAares; yet thy had apt been dismissed ; they hat', slat incurred the displeasure of the Governmerst ar indeed was there any individual who 110, been so visited, On the eont.;ary there was er, order sent out through him (le.. aritardrY) to the constabulary of Leiuster, .74i:fig that tine Lord Lieutenant had . been ph!,:.:.ed to direct, that any person connected with that body, who had a right to vote at the election, and who wished to exercise that right, should be allowed the indulgence of rbsence for that purpose, There was a second order efterwareis issued, upon) the Government coming to the knowledge that some of these persona had abused the in eulgence thus given them, and had become partisans in the contest. This second order declared, that althou g h they were permitted to give their votes according to th -ir eonseience, yet the Goa eminent did not mean to allow !hem to :let as oertieans.—(Hear, bear.) This was the sort of influence which the Government exercised over a body of men, over whom, in fact, they had the right of isiingine into operatien a positive and active controul.— (He r, hear.) He came now to the last case , w hi c h w.s that of Mr. Oultman. The evidence of that witness tv..s itterly incredible in many points, and in many others it .vas demonstrably false. After an attentive exatninafon if Mr. Oultman's evidence, he had no hesitation in say ne, that he would net believe the statements contained in ir, e n the unsupported testimony of that person. Mr. Oulttnan was at the head of the coal-meters of Dublin, end B iron Tuyll had written him a letter in the follow i‘nig r. t o er u m it s n : ,a — n, " an ß i a i rz ll T i u ) s e l g l lapdreoefenatsfot minutes' .ation with hi m at t h e C ast l e to-day, before three o ' clock. " That lett er h i d b een mac h commented on, but i t did not appear t o hi m o f very great i mportance. In that conver sation Mr. °Libman reeresented that th e y s p i k e a b ou t th e (Urtnitespli..ments to conver coal-meters, and that Baron Tuyll said he believed that they bad, on a former occasion, supported the Govern ment, and be wondered why they would not do so now, particularly as the Corporation was supporting them. The witness said the coal-meters were not under the go vernment of the Corporation, but under the Guild of Mer chants ; and the majority of that Guild were opposed to Sir R. Harty and Mr. Perrin. He sail he believed he had some influential persons supporting Government, and one of them was Mr. Latouche. The witness said he be. lieved Mr. L. had not the smallest interest in th . Guild of Merchants. He asked who had ? Witness said Sir Abra ham King. He said Sir A. King had been written to, and they expected him over to support the Government. He must say, that after a statetnent of that kind, he dis credited the whole of the witness's assertions; and he thought the House would do so too, when they found hien thus pretending that Baron Tuyll had told him, a Dublin man, that the Corporation and Sir Abraham King were supporting the present Government.—(Hear, hear.) That witness had asked Baron Tuyll about putting the coal meters of Dublin on the same footing with those of Lon don. The Baron refused to make any promise on the sub ject ; in fact, he could make none, fur thr Irish Govern ment possessed no power in the matter; but be (Mr. S.) helieved, that haul such a promise been made, they should have heard nothing of Mr. Oultnian's evidence. The Committee had asked the witnesses whether those persons who voted against the Government candidates had not suf. fered fur their votes? and they were told in answer, that A part of the coal-meters had had their warrants with drawn from them. Now the fact was, that the war rants in question had been withdrawn, not from some, but from all—had been withdrawn by the Board of Cus tonlB in London, because the reduction of the coal duties had rendered the labour performed under those warrants unnecessary ; and had been thus withdrawn, too, by an order issued from London before the Dublin election began.—(Cheers.) On this part of the case, therefore, there was not the slightest evidence to support the impu tations cast by this witness on the Government.—(Bear, hear.) The House had always been tender in its proceed_ logs against Peers on cases such as these. What were the proceedings in the famous case of the Bishop of Worcester in 1702 ? That case came before the House on the Report of a Committee of Privileges, and the enormity of it was such as to require strong proceedings if they were ever adopted. The person who brought the matter under the notice of the Ilouse said " He sent to me to desire me to desist from standing as a candidate for election as Knight of the Shire; and he said, that if I did nut desist, he would speed against nee to his Clergy. He'sent letters to that effect; among them—h e aspersed we to his Clergy branding me and my ancestors with vices, and at his Con firmations and Visitations he threatened his flock with his displeasure if they should give me their votes : in the same manner he threatened his tenants with his displeasure, and said he would not renew their leases if they voted for me, and that he would prevent them num getting their leases, renewed afterwards by his successor." Now in that ease, thus brought before the House, and supported by evidence which made out these allegations, what had the House done? They had interposed with an Address to the Crown to remove the Bishop from the situation of Almoner. What was dune in 1779, in the famous case of the Duke of Chandos? That Noble Person was the Lord Lieutenant of the (',aunty of Southampton, and he was declared by a Committee of Privileges guilty of having concerned himself in the late election of a Knight of the Shire, and of having committed a breach of the privileges of that House. What was the mode he had taken to do this ? He had sent three or four hundred letters, in which he called on the freeholder,. to vote for a particular candidate. In that case what had the House of Commons done ? The question was put, on the motion to confirm the report of the Committee, that that report be confirmed that slay four months, and the amendment was carried by 87 to 34. Again, in the Nei stun case, nothing had been done. The House had been almost entrapped into a vote, and his Right Hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire, with the skill which on these points always distinguished him, told them that if they had been entrapped into confirrniug the resolution of the Committee, they would have been obliged to take ulterior Incisors, as the consequences of that confirmation. —[ll'''. C. WYNN denied the word " entrapped."] In that case the Committee resolved that there had been a corrupt agreement betweea the Duke of Leeds and the Corporation of Helstuto If the House of Commons had adopted and confirmed that resolution, it would have been neces sary for them to adopt ulterior proceedings. In the same manner, if the House should now confirm the resolutions at present submitted to them, they would put themselves under the necessity of taking ulterior tessasures, which, in this case, slight and trivial as it was, if indeed it could be considered as having been made out against any body, would be certainly objectionable. It could not be disguised or denied that the Government had been naturally anxious that the views which they took of a groat political question should be supported by their de pendents; and he thought they had a right to expect the support of their dependents. It might not be very dis creet for him to express himself in that manner, but he would trot disguise the truth, which was, that all Govern ments whatever thought they had a right to expect from all persons immediately employed under them the support of their measures as far as those persons could support them.—(Heae, hear.) He said that, not only fur the sake of the Government, but for the sake of those persons, themselves, for otherwise there could be no stability for the Government, and consequently none for those em ployed by them.—(Hear, hear.) The Government would indeed he @very moment in danger of being undermined. All Gaverements whatever had acted on the same prin ciple, and he would venture, without fear of contradic tion, to assert that they had all carried to a greater extent than the preaent the tight be was now claiming for them. He repeated, that no case had been made out against that Government, and nut the shadow of a case against his Noble Friend personally, and he should therefort meet the rerolutiona with a flat negative.—(Cheers.) Mr. HUNT defended the Couunittee for all t'aey had dons in this case, and asserted, that had they done less, they would not have yeti:mused their duty. As to the Right lion. Secretary, he (lid not deny The facts, but man fully said the tonduet of Government was defensible, and that all " 1 , - .Sesvernments had done the same. Mr. Hunt here referred to that part of Vet evidence which showed that ' the Government had sent round to influence the votes of their tradesmeo, whoa' he strongly distinguished from the persons etvOoyed under them ; though even with regard to those. he said, that the defence of the Right Hon. Gen '', dew.an, was the introduction of a new doctrine into that 1‘ iliasatl said ioepdueLsatoeirrel,—ddt tradesmenLci( n H i:e u)ettatialert%ien,,naalnenieeta;er., Hart e dHal pie,ae l dr i bis e iu:eot k xlaic n onge e ndhe d w ity:ev t dw l eu i nh a nt t edhnete i hr l t t i tu r inhe : e f ti e s artruec. mattercii withinstructions i:o:y_df stances, a strong cam of the exercise of undue influence was fully made out. Mrs STANLEY explained respecting the non-arrival of witnesses, and particularly to the refusal of the Committee to receive the evidelme of Mr. 11I`Causten. Lord UNIIRIDGE contend:el that the report of the Cominietee did not deserve touch respect, if it were true, as the Chairman of ii had said, that it was difficult to de termine whethee the Committee or the witnesses had been most beeieiklered. He had it under the hand of the lqatvis of Anglesea, that he had not wished a single in dividual to he coerced; sad although it might excite a sneer, he (Lord 'Uxbridge) believed that the city of Dublin was dissatisfied that so little influence had been used dur ing the election. As to. the Marquis of Anglesea not dar ing to turn out Polioe Magistrates, he would only say, that the Marquis would dare to do whatever was his duty.— (Chee.o4) Having known hien from his youth, he bore teetimony to the unimpeachable character of Baron 7 . 1. 7 . 11„ who had acted at the election only as a fressnan be had n ut ,: •Ind had stated from beginning to end, that . li . t had, and eyelid have no communication with the Marquis of Anglesea. The Baron was not tia . * agent for the Afar lois; and if he had thought 5.t to dnmrthute 500/. am ong the voters, it would be most uninst that hia conduct should implicate the Lord Lieutenant. Common kietlSe revolted at. un argument to the contrary. Baron Tuyll had distinctly told hint (Lord Vabritlise) that he had never used the 11410 t