The Sun. — London, England, 1834-03-06 00:00:00

SHERIFF'S COURT, MARCTI 4. 3IITCHELL V. WHITMORE. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a tailor, residing in Southampton-s•reet, Bloomsbury, to recover from the defendant, a gentleman, residing in the Harrow road, the sum of Si. for a green frock-coat. Mr. DERBISRIRE, for the plaintiff, said the cause of action in this suit involved a very simple question. The defendant, OR the 29th of January last, ordered a green aurtout coat of the plaintiff, with particular instructions to adorn it with a handsome collar of the finest Genoa velvet, and silk linings. The price demanded was five guineas and a half, but the defendant promising to be a good cus tomer, offered 51. ready money, which was accepted. The cloth was selected by defendant, and he tried on his coat before it was finished. When taken home to him by the plaintiff he put the coat on, and expressed himself well satisfied ; but upon the question of payment the defendant raised a new point in ready money dealings. He demanded a deduction of ss. discount. This was demanding a double discount; 15.. 6d. had been already allowed for prompt payment. The plaintiff declined to make the abatement. The defendant then suddenly discovered that the cost did not fit him. One pet son present observed that the de fendant was quite an altered man in the new garment, that he was not half so handsome as in his &al clothes ; another maintained that it was a misfit in every part ; and defendant himself found out that the *colour was no longer lovely in his eyes. The jury were aware that nothing was easier than to pick boles in a man's coat when the mind was perversely bent upon doing so. Plaintiff offered to alter the shape of the coat in any manner, but the colour he could not change. Defendant then insisted upon having another coat mad,. Plaintiff refused compliance with this unreasonable de mand, and left the house. As he could not c,ll the plaintif f he could not prove those facts of which he was sole witness. He should, however, clearly prove the order and the agreed price, the execution of the order, and the delivery. The rhaterial facts respecting the order and delivery were proved by the foreman and workmen of the plaintiff. Mr. C. C. PHILLIPS admitted that his client had or dered the coat, and agreed to pay a sum of Si., but it was on condition that the coat in question should fit hint. On it being brought to him just before he was going to pay for it, he fortunately tried it on, and so tight was it across the shoulders that it was like a strait•waistcoat, in dependently of it not buttoning on him. It was true that the plaintiff 'a witnesses swore that the coat &tad him well on the 4th of February last ; and his learned friend had said that the defendant might have grown stouter since then. It was not probable that he would get stout in the space of one short month, and more particularly so when there was a tailor and his attorney at him all the while....(Laughter.) Tire jury found a verdict for the defendant. POLICE INTELLIGENCE. QUEEN- SQUARE. A GOLDEN DOSE.-Yesterday Margaret Fitzgerald and Mary Ellis, two nymphs of the pave, were charged with robbing Robert Bed, a sailor, of ten sovereigns. The son of Neptune, who had lately returned from abroad with shiners galore, had been taking his grog abroad rather teo freely, in the New Cut, Lambeth, when he espied the prisoners and made full sail towards them, and wanted them to take a voyage with him in a cabriolet. To this they gladly assented, and the party having been safely stowed, they steered their course towards Orchard street, Westminster, where they intended to anchor for the night. They, of course, put into several places, where the grog was ordered by the tar to be lib-rraiy served out. At one of the places he unluckily showed ten sovereigns instead of some silver. On their arrival in Orchard street, Dawkins, one of the officers of this establishment, saw am get out from the cabriolet, and the prisoner Eltis tried to get the other prisoner away, but in so doing Fitz2.erald fell down and several sovereigns dropped on tbe pavement, which she picked up, and they went down Union court. In a few minutes the sailor, who was very drunk, came up to the officer and asked if be had seen any thing of two girls that had got out of a cab with him, for they had robbed him of ten sovereigns. Dawkins immediately went down the court and found the prisoners, when the sailor instantly recognised Fitzgerald as the girl who had robbed him. He took them both to the station-house, and found that Fitzgerald bad concealed the sovereigns in her mouth, when she was seized hold of by the neck and she tried to swallow the money; they, however, succeeded in getting six of the sovereigns out o' ber mouth, the other four she swallowed. _ . Fitzgerald, in her defence, had come out of Brixton gaol that morning, and had met with a gentleman whom she knew and he gave her eight sovereigns ; she had spent two and the remainder belonged to her. Ellis was discharged and Fitzgerald was fully committed for trial. HAT T ON- GARDEN. Yesterday Thomas Richardson, a fellow of desperate appearance, was charged with having feluniowly entered St. Philip's church, Bagnigge Wells-road, and robbing it of property to a considerable amount. The prisoner, who said nothing in his defence, was re minded until Wednesday next. UNION-HALL. MURDER. or Mn. RICHARDSON.-Two men answer ing the description of the murderers of the late Mr. Ri chardson ate now in custody. One of them, named Samuel Cottrell, was brought to Union-hall on Saturday last, and from thence immediately sent off to Epsom after having underuone a private examination. The other ma❑ whose rt,me is John Woodhill, a remarkably ill-looking fellow, and who answers the description of the shorter man named in the placard offering the reward, was taken into custody yesterday motning by Stephen Plant, an ac tive policeman of the G division, who brought him to Union-hall, where he was examined, charged on suspicion of having been one of the parties concerned in the late atrocious murder. The prisoner said that he should be enabled to bring plenty of witnesses to prove an alibi. He was sent uff in the course of the day to Epsom. THAMES POLICE. THE EXCISE LAWS.—James Pattison, a youth, was charged on an information hid by the commissioners of excise with smuggling six quarts of scotch whisky, by which he had forfeited a penalty of 1001. The prisoner made no defence, but his fattier, the master of the Nancy sloop, from Dundee, sr ho was pre sent, slid his son was acting by his directions. Mr. BALLANTINE and Mr. BRODERIP said the offence was clearly proved, and they had no other alternative hut to pass the sentence of the law, which was that the pri soner should pay tl e fine of 1001. to the King, or be im prisoned until such fine was paid. There could, however, be no doubt that the lad was acting under his father's orders—in fact be was his servant, and under those cir cumstances they hoped the commissioners of excise would extend their mercy to the youth. The clerk to the excise solicitor said the recommenda tion of the magistrates should Ise mentioned to the board. There are now confined in the gaol of Sher,- ten Mallet 300 prisoners. During the last month 138 prisoners have been committed to the above gaol. A KNAVE IN PETTICOATS.—A short time ago, a shopkeeper in 'Monmouth, on counting his cash in the evening, found that in the course of the day some person belonging to his establishment had taken two coun terfeit half-crowns. He made a mark on each of them, and placed them on a shelf, intending to show them to b;s neighbours, in order to put them on their guard. The following morning, being that of the market day, a re spectable farmer's wife purchased some goods at the shop, and the tradesman himself waited upon her. When she banded some silver in payment, the tradesman quickly discovered a suspicious looking half_crown among it, where upon the following conversation took place :—" Madam, said the shopkeeper, " here is a counterfeit hAf-crown." " No, surely," was the reply, " where could I have it from ?" The woman appeared quite perplexed, and ex pressed her anxiety to remember how it could have got into her possession. " But, Sir," she added, " I am quite hurt I offered it to you ; if I had known of it I would not have done such a thing for the world." The trades man, sympathising with her appare-tly wounded feelings, said, " Indeed, Madam, I ant very sorry for you ; but I am myself a loser to twice your amount ; yesterday we took these two counterfeits," taking the two he had marked from the shelf, and showing them to his fair cus tomer. " Law !" exclaimed she, " there must be some very wicked people in the country ; it is no use now to talk about the less, so I will give my bad half_crown to my children to play with, and you may as well give me your two—fur if they are left about, they may get into the hands of some unprincipled person." The tradesman readily consented ; the woman pocketted the half crowns, paid her bill, and departed. When our shopkeeper was emptying his till of its contents, late in the evening of the same day, Meader may guess his surprise and gratifi- cation, whrfilbkbefield glittering before him his acquaint ances—the tsvo!b - si : ficrowns, that he had, in token of his affection, marked the day before, and in the morning most Pliantly presented to Lila fair casoiner ! !—Hereford Times. . IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MA ACV 5. The house met to-day at half past twefite o'clock. Prayers were read by the Bishop of HE/LEYORD. The Duke of RICHMOND, in the absence of the Lord Chancellor and the Earl of Shaftesbury, took his seat on the Woolsack. The NOBLE Dutra presented a petition again , t the Sculcoates Small Tenements Bill. No other business was brought before the house, and their Lordships adjourned till to morrow. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Mises 5. The SPEAKER took the Chair at a quarter past five. Sir J. WROTTESLEY moved for an account of the Rums due to the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty by John Paterson.—Ordered. The hon. member then moved for a new writ for the borough of Paisley in the room of Sir J. Maxwell, who had accept: d the Chiltern Hundreds. Mr. GILLON moved for an address to his Majesty, praying th tt there be laid before the house a return of the number of parishes in Scotland, in which fish tithes were paid, with the amount paid in each of the years 1831, 1832, and 1833. BOROUGH OF CARRICKFERGUS. Mr. HALCOMB presented a petition from the freemen of the borough of Carrickfergus, complaining in strong terms of the report of the committee appointed to inquire into the franchise of that borough. The petitioners un dertook to prove the falsity of the charge of bribery which had been brought against certain parties, and prayed that an opportunity might be afforded them of establishing their case before the House. Mr. O'CONNELL said he had got very positive in formation that scarcely one of the persons whose names were attached to the petition but bad been bribed.•-- (Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He understood that one of the persons who signed this petition was John Legg, the High Sheriff of the borough of Carrickfergus. He was the principal agent in bribing at the election, and they had made him high sheriff as a reward for his valuable services. —(A laugh.): Mr. GOULBURN said it would be scarcely fair to have the claims of these persons prejudiced by an assertion with out proof; because an hon. and learned member had as , erted the parties whose signatures were attached to the petition bad been bribed, the house should not place implicit reli ance upon such statements. Mr. HALCOMB thought that enough had been said on the subject, and would not, therefore, provoke further discussion. The petition was laid on the table. Mr. LITTLETON presented a petition from the con gregation of an established church in Staffordshire, praying that the religious liberty which they had enjoyed might be preserved, and handed down unimpaired to their pos terity, in the prayer of which the right hon. gentleman cordially concurred. Mr. LITTLETON, in answer to a question put to him in a low tone of voice by an honourable member whose name we could not learn, said that the returns adverted to by the hon. member, and which had been moved for at the end of the last session, had been made by the• principal part of the diocese of Ireland, but they were not complete, and therefore had not been laid before the house. Mr. W. ROCHE understood the right hon. Secretary for Ireland intended to propose some alterations in the Irish Reform Bill, when the English Reform Bill came to be amended ; and he wished to take the opportunity of suggesting to the right bon. secretary the absolute ne cessity there was for introducing a clause to ob viate the necessity of Roman Catholics being compelled to take the oath of allegiance upon registering themselves as freeholders, a thing that was not imposed upon any other class of his Majesty's subjects, and which often afforded a great advantage to popu'ar candidates, because many Roman Catholics would not take the oath on such an occasion. Mr. O'CONNELL rose to move the second reading of the Carrickfergus Di•fr:nchisement Bill. In doing so, he was exceedingly glad to congratulate the house on know ing that those who objected to some of the details of the bill, did not object to the principle of the measure, and, therefore, that this reading of the bill would not be opposed. This obviated the necessity of his tresp issing at any length on the attention of the house. This much he desired to say, he had not volunteered this task, as he had not sought for the contrary, lie had desired to avoid it, but it had been forced upon him as an imperative duty, in consequence of his having bee❑ the chairman of a committee which decided that Mr. Dobbs had been returned as the representative of Carrickfergus by bribery and corruption. In the course of this duty he entertained not the slightest party feeling. The bill he brought in was simply for disfranchising the borough of Carrickfergus, without proposing any substitu tion.—(Hear.) He did not, however, think it would be doing Ireland justice to take away one of her small portions of representatives without substituting another in the place of that abolition ; and, in his opinion, if a substitution should take place, that substitution ' ought to be given to another part of the province of Ulster. He had understood it was the intention of the hon. member for Donegal to nominate another part of that province to which the franchise should he given ; should that hon. member do so, he should feel it his duty to support such proposition. At present his bill was purely for disfranchisement without regard to any substitution. In stating the grounds for his motion he should be very brief. In that election to which he had alluded,it was proved that the practice of bribery was rooted in that borough, and that it had been of long standing. The contest appeared to be between two noble families, who sti uggled for the supremacy, and it appeared, that whoever suc ceeded, did so at an enormous expense. After the passing of the Reform Bill, there was in most places a strong contest between reformers and conservatives, but in Carrickfergus there was nu struggle of that kind. In Ireland there was generally a struggle of a different kind, namely, upon the subject of religious differences ; but at Carrickfergus there was neither a religious nor political distinction, for it was generally a mere question of pounds, shillings, and pence, and whoever had the longest purse carried the election. He took this opportunity of totally acquitting the electors of Carrickfergus of allowing any political or religious opinions to influence their votes. There was one family, in order to increase their interest, made fifty-three tenements, with three potato grounds, ' worth someA, 41., or 31. a year, in fact as tenants at will, hut apparently in perpetuity, although it appeared that at the last election only seventeen of those persons voted for the person who gave them subsistence; therefore there must have been a very strong reason for the others voting against th- interest of the person who gave them bread to eat.—(llear, hear, hear.) If the prac tice of bribery were confined to the poorer classes, there might possibly be some amelioration of the crime, but it extended itself to other classes. One man, it was proved, took the bribe, and promised to vote a certain way ; th it promise was alive until the man went to the poll, but when lie was offered the bribery oath, he refused to take it. Those who tendered the bribes were men of rank and fortunes, and to what a condition did they reduce a man when they brought him to the wretched alternative of either not taking the bribe, or of sending his soul to everlasting perdition ? To show how far the public mind i❑ Carrickfergus bad been contami nated, he would appeal to the evidence of Mr. Brierly (or Burley), a magistrate, an active partisan, and one of the committee of a candidate, who was examined before the committee appointed by the house. —(Hear.) That gentleman denied every thing, but in the course of the investigation a letter from Mr. Brierly was read, dated from the election committee, referring an elector to the agent, Mr. Legg, which agent offered the man a bribe of 61., and it also appeared that Mr. Briefly accompanied the agent to the elector.—(Hear.) He was sorry to be obliged to mention the name of an individual who was, through the nature of his education, a gentleman—Le meant the Rev. Mr. Cheyne of the esta blished church ; but the house could estimate what was the state of the public mind in Carrickfergus, when that reverend gentleman held in his bands a sum of money which he knew was to be distributed in bribery ; there was no doubt that it was for such purposes. Plow contami nated must have been the public spirit when no species of shame Wii3 attached to such proceedings, even in the person of a clergyman ! The words of the witness before the Commissioners proved that the only feeling which existed was one of regret on the part of those who bad not the means of being corrupted, because they had not a franchise to sell. After the first examination that took place before a commission of that house, in which he (Mr. O'Connell) was Chairman, the corporation demanded a re examination. That was granted to them, and what was the evidence after all ? Why, by the report of the committee, it was pronounced to he a case of the most just disfranchise ment.—(Hear.) He would trouble the house will one fact more. The corporation of that town actually wanted to take the franchise into their own hands ; and he (Mr. O'C.) would prove that the sum of 450/. was subscribed towards disfranchising their own freemen. Mr. David Legg, who was the acting man at that moment in London to prevent the disfranchisement of this borough, was the agent of the corporation upon the occasion he alluded to. The same Mr. Legg swore that he only bribed five persons ; but Mr. James Legg, his brother, concurred with a Mr. Cohen in the bribery of 14 persous. That gentleman, who was so active in the work of corruption, instead of being tarnished for so doing,' was rewarded by being appointed to the office of High Sheriff of the county of the town of Carrickfergus. The same gentleman would probably be mayor in some few years hence, and on a future occasion that house would have the pleasure of seeing the gentleman take his seat as member for the renovated constituency of Carrickfergus. He (Mr. O'C.) had to apologise for having troubled the house at such length, but he considered it his duty to put a firm hand on bribery, and seek the only remedy that was left to purify a corrupt constituency. Mr. EMERSON TENNANT said that so far from op• posing the motion of the lion. and learned member, he should give it his most cordial support.—(Hear.) He was prepared to visit, to the extremity of severity which that house was authorised to exert, every and any individual who might be convicted of violating or abusing his elective franchise. He was as anxious as the hon. and learned member could be to see every individual who had been guilty of bribery at the late Carrickfergus election disfranchised. It was for the purpose of carrying that into effect he was willing to vote for the second reading of this bill. But he did not hesitate to say that he differed altogether with the hon. and learned gentleman, as to the extent to which be wished to carry his propositions. He was willing to admit that bribery had been carried on to a certain extent by one class of the electors, but it did not therefore follow, that that bribery had extended among them all. He was prepared to show to the house, on the committal of this bill, that the Carrickfergus con stituency was a constituency unimpeachable. The hon. member for Dover had a motion, he believed, with rega rd to that business before the house. He hoped that the hon. member would see the propriety of withdrawing that motion, as he (Mr. Tennant) should, for one, oppose it, and he should oppose it on the same principle as he voted for the second reading of the bill befure the house. Mr. HALCONIB, in rising to propose an amendment, would only say, that with regard to whit had fallen from the hon. member who had just sat down, and who was un known to him, it appeared to him (Mr. H.) that hon. member had taken an extraordinary course in declaring what his vote should be upon a proposition, the merits of which be at present must be perfectly unacquainted with. it was inconsistent with his (Mr. H.'s) notions of legisla tion, that any hon. member should state that he should give his vote against a proposition to be submitted to the house, before he bad condescended t o attend to a single observation, or before that hon. member had had any opportunity of addressing the house. With regard to the amendment he bad now the honour to propose, he could assure the house that he made this proposition to them after much and anxious consideration—after full examination of the course which had hitherto been pursued by the house in furtherance of just objects, when they were sought to be enforced against boroughs alleged to be in circumstances that entitled the house to deal with their elective franchises.—(Hear, hear.) He would be per fectly satisfied it the house would allow him to stare to them the great and important steps which were taken in reference to any borough accused of m's conduct in the exercise of its elective franchise. By pursuing such a course, the parties would have an opportunity of defending themselves at the bar of the house, and he thought that the house, and not the com mittee, or the chairman of the committee, or the council, should decide on the merits of the borough to be disfranchised. Where five or six committees were sitting at the same time upon different boroughs, one might take one view, and another another, and the proceedings of the house would be involved in contradiction and absurdity. Looking at the report of the committee on that borough, it was ad mitted that the parties bribed were the lowest class of voters, and if the freemen we re disfranchised, there would still be a sufficient and respectahie constituency. There were similar cases ; fir instance, that of Liverpool, where the house eves proceeding by a distinct bill, not to disfranchise the borough but the guilty parties. It was not for him to say which would he the proper course. He had no right to dictate to the house, but it was imperative upon them to consider what was the course they ought to pursue. He thought that when parties were accused they should form themselves into a committee of the whole house. They should hear the e vidence, and give the accused parties that which by law they were entitled to, an opportunity of answering the charges brought against them. He was sure the feeling of the house was with him in this suggestion, and it was under this feeling he proposed as an amendment that the house should give the parties an opportunity of being heard at the bar, before they proceeded to disfranchise them. It would be shown that the charges against upwards of forty of the freemen could be satisfactorily refuted.—(Hear, hear.) Whether that was the case or not, was it not enough that he was addressing those who were the conservatives of English liberty and rights—was it not enough for him to say, that the parties said so? Out of re spect to the house, be would not think of trespassing for a moment upon it—(Hear, hear)—unless he had well looked into any case which lie brought before it, and was satisfied of i:s justice.—(Hear.) In every bo rough that had been disfranchised before the great measure of reform, the reason most relied upon was, that no party should be declared guilty without being afforded an opportunity of proving their innocence. He called upon the house to pause before it committed itself to a step which would inevitably involve it in a series of judicial inquiries—it was not with re spect to the five or six boroughs that were now before the house, but with the fifty or sixty which would unquestionably be soon in the same state. They were now proposing to do that which had never before been done by any House of Commons befure the Reform Bill.—(Hear, hear, hear.) How stood the case? Why, upon the petition of two or three individuals, a com mittee was appointed to inquire into the general charge of bribery; a report was made, making serious charges upon individuals that had never been before it, nor in the nature of thingscould have been,yet theywere to be punished without at all being heard in their defence. He then held in his hand a bill introduced by the noble lord the Paymaster of the Forces which would show the opinion of govern ment upon a question of such a nature, and to that opinion they were bound to defer. He was glad to see that noble lord in his place, as, if he acted at all consist ently, he (Mr. II.) might calculate upon his vote. The house might not have perused this bill, they might not be aware of the intention of his Majesty's ministers and the noble lord, but he would tell them.—(Hear, and laughter.) Tbe bill allowed parties to come to the house for the appointment of a committee, with a view to examine witnesses, and if the parties were not satisfied with that examination, they had the liberty of coming again. The noble lord also proposed that the power of the house should be delegated to tree barristers, to be paid three guineas a day.—(Hear and laughter.) Ile was not to be deterred in consequence of that--(Hear, bear) —from offering ob servations to the Louse which he was sure were well worthy the attention of a deliberative assembly.—(Hear , hear, and laughter.) No cheers or laughter would prevent him from pursuing that course which be felt it to be his duty to adopt.—(Hear, hear.) He offered no opinion upon the bill.—(Hear, hear.) If the house would not take his caution, he thought they would soon become a refuge for the destitute. The lion. member, after adverting to the parliamentary history of the country, mentioned the opinion of the late Mr. Can ning who had forewarned the house not to tamper with the electoral franchise, lest they should be urged on by party spirit to deal unjustly with it.—(Hear, hear.) He concluded by moving as -an amendment, " That this house will on the 19th day of March instant, resolve itself into a committee of the whole house, for the pur pose of taking into consideration the reports and evidence of the two select committees respecting this borough, and that, in the mean time, the further proceedings upon this bill be suspended." The SPEAKER inquired who seconded the amendment? After the lapse of a short time, an Hose. MEMBER. (we believe Sir R. Vyvyen), seconded it. A discussion ensued between ti e SPEAKER, and Mr. HALcoms, in which the right hon. gentleman intimated his opinion that Mr. H. was irregular, and could not make a motion so worded. At length the amendment was thus formed : That this house will, on the 19th of March instant, resolve it self into a committee of the whole house, to tike into its consideration the reports and evidence of the two select committees respecting the borough of Cat rickfergus." Sir JOHN BYNG congratulated the bon. member who had just sat down on becoming the legal champion of boroughs that had been convicted of bribery and corrup tion.—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Chair, chair.") The SPEAKER was quite sure that the right hon. gentleman did not mean to address any thing either personal or offensive to the hon. gentleman who had just sat down, and he would, therefore, no doubt direct his observations to the Chair. Sir J. BYNG hoped the hon. member woull excuse him in not following him through the speech he baJ made. It was impossible for him to support the amend ment which had been moved, but he felt bound to give his unqualified support to the second reading of the bill, as a case more imperiously calling for such a measure had never before been brought before the notice of the house. _ _ Mr. TODD made a few obeervations which were per fectly inaudible. Sir R. PEEL felt the house was now called upon to discharge an impartial duty, and for his parthe could not satisfy his mind that he ought to concur at present in the measure now proposed. He bad no interest in Carrick fergus more than in any other town that might be named which ought to induce him to oppose its disfranchisement.—(Hear.) He looked to the measure simply as regarded its principles; and he had to ask those who were about to pronounce an opinion upon the principle of the measure which was to destroy for ever the right of voters in a respectable town, had they that informa tion before them upon which they could satisfactorily decide this judicial question? If it were a question of private right, would the house feel itself in a situation to pronounce its judicial opinion ? Here he felt bound to remark, that if the hun. gentleman behind him conscientiously felt he ought to call the attention of the house to this question, he surely ought not to he open to the sarcasm of being denominated the cham pion of corruption and bribery.—(Hear, hear, hear.) He was of opinion that if corruption prevailed to such an extent as to render that borough incapable of discharging its franchise, he would ronstnt to sacrifice it altogether, and make a public example of that borough. Certainly there were some of unimpeachable character, and who were entitled the more to praise from being contiguous with corruption ; there were those who would suffer a private wrong, yet he (Sir R. Peel) would overlook the injury done them, in ccnsi deration of the public good. He (Sir H. Peel) wished to ascertain in what proportion corruption and honesty existed . Mr. O'CONNELL—There were 885 freemen and 10i freeholders in that constituency. The freemen were uni versally allowed, with few exceptions, to be all corrupt. Mr. EMERSON TENNANT said, there was evidence of 240 having been bribed out of 885; but of the rest, with the exception of seven, there was not a tittle of evidence against them. There were 140 householders, and, with one exception, there was no evidence of corruption against them. Sir R. PEEL said that statement would guide them in the course they were bound to pursue. The house was called upon to affirm that gross and scan dalous bribery prevailed at the late election for the town and county of Carrickfergus, and that a great part of the constituency were influenced by bribery in giving their votes. That gross and scandalous bribery did prevail, he (Sir Robert Peel) could with a safe conscience affirm ; but with whom did it prevail? He thought the parties who offered the bribes, and not those who received them, would be the just objects of punish ment, and he for one did not object to any punishment that could he inflicted upon them. But the house was called upon to dispossess the town of its elective franchise. He should like to see the opinion of the committee upon the whole of the facts of the case, the extent to which the bribery prevailed, if the evidence appeared to warrant the conclusion that it did prevail, and there being two classes of constituency in that town, whether the charge of bribery applied to both ((pally, or whether any one portion of that constituency was corrupt. Mr. O'CONNELL made an observation by way of ex planation. Sir ROBERT PEEL—The house should pause before it proceeded to make a great public example of a whole community. An election committee had reported that bribery bad prevailed at an election for that borough, but that the members were not implicated in the corruption. —(Hear.) The house then appointed another committee and, without meaning to cast the slightest imputation upon that committee, be thought they had taken a tnis taken view of their duty. They had reported, that after examining the whole of the evidence, they had come to the conclusion th it the borough should be disfranchised. He would wish his Majesty's ministers would give an opi nion upon the bill. Thee house was not in the habit of setting so light a value on the franchise, as to deprive a whole people of the privilege on the recommendation of a committee. They in all cases reserved to themselves the power of personally drawing the conclusions upon which they founded their decisions. The hon. member then alluded to the case of Sir Robe-t Walpole, in the proceed ingo upon which the house felt so strongly, that it induced them to pass the Grenville Act. He feared that if the house pr , ceedeal to act in these cases without sufficient authentic evidence, they might be guilty of great injustice towards individuals with regard to particular terms, and they would give the public very little confidence in their decisions. He wished his Majesty's government to give, not the details of the case, but the principles which it in volved, their fullest consideration. Public time had too many demands upon it to allow them to examine wit nesses at the bar of the house. He therefore urged upon them the propriety of establishing some competent and efficient tribunal which should inquire into the details of these cases, and report authentically their opinions to the house. He desired only that justice should be done, and if it were necessary to make an example, let that example be made ; but no example could operate advantageously upon the community, which was accompanied by indivi dual injustice. Sir JOHN BYNG, in explanation, denied, that in the language be made use of, he meant to call the hon. and learned member for Dover, the " Champion of Corrup tion." Lord J. RUSSELL did not think that his Majesty's Government should, in these individual cases, take part as a Government, so as to influence the votes of the members of that house. He certainly thought that if they did so, the evil of giving party votes on these questions would be a very serious inconvenience.—(Hear, hear.) As a member of that house, he had for some time attended a good deal to questions of this kind, and had gone into laborious in quiries respecting them, considering that few subjects were of greater importance. The right hon, baronet complained that there had been no examination at the bar of the house, and that the examination before the committee was not upon oath. With regard to the first point, the right hon. baronet had said truly—answering his own objection— that the time of the public was too much taken up to allow of such an examination. That the evidence taken before the committee was not on oath, he admitted to be a very grave and serious objection, but it was the misfortune and not the fault of that house.—(Hear, hear.) He had for several years past proposed bills to that house which they appeared most willing to adopt, for giving power to com mittees of this kind to take evidence upon oath, and to summon all persons whom they might think necessary to examine as witnesses, thus enabling the house to come to a satisfactory judicial decision.—C Hear, heir.) A bill of this nature was passed by that house only two years ago, but was rejected by the House of Lords —(Hear, hear.) He also brought in a bill of the same nature last year, which underwent a very lull discussion berme the select committee, as the hon. and learned member for Dub lin well knew. The committee approved of the bill, and he only refrained from proceeding with it in consequence of the number and importance of the question then before the house. The House of Commons, it appeared, were then in this situation—they had passed a bill to enable them to have a grave and serious inquiry, and this bi.l having been rejected,they were placed in the dilemma of either having an inquiry in some degree imperfect, or taking the alternative of sitting still, and allowing all these cases of corrupt bo roughs to pass unnoticed. To this they had been driven by the decision of the House of Lords.—(Hear.) He should at an early period re.introduce this Bill, in order to avoid the very great inconvenience, for inconvenience all must allow it to be to which they were now subject. He hoped that after the sanction which had been already given to this measure, it would now receive a more favourable consideration from the House of Lords, and that that House would no longer endeavour to impede them in their endeavours to fulfil one of the first duties which they owed to their constituents—that of preserving purity of election.—(Loud cheers.) The committee had made all the inquiries which it was in their power to make, and he agreed with the right hon. baronet that it would be better had they made a digest of the evidence, and stated prominently those points on which they carne to the conclusion that the borough of Carrickfergus ought to be disfranchised. Nevertheless he thought no member of that house was entitled to say that be had not read the evidence, and therefore would not vote on the subject, it being the duty of every member to read the evidence which had been published. However, to avoid any doubts on the subject he would refer, at the risk of being tedious, to a few particulars which would, be thought, clearly one of es tablish the case. The noble_ lord here read several portions fwroitnniestshe said d inte h d e report. ht oug th In re uf w as as much corruption among the 101. household ers answers the as amongst the freemen. — (Chee r s from the O pp ositi on.) It appeared, however, that many of th e 101 . householders these who were bribed, were registered al-o as freemen. The question appeared to be, whether, considering the whole of the circumstances, there would be, after disfranchising those who had been guilty of corruption, a sufficient num ber of qualified persons to return a member to parliament. If that were the case, it was the duty of the opposing party to make it out, If it was thought they could prove this, they were bound to offer it, and the house ought to g ive them the opportunity; but in the absence of such an offer, he thought it was the duty of the house to carry that bi l l up to the other house of parliament. He should cer tainly vote for the second reading. Mr. O'CONNELL explained, that the course intended to be pursued was, if the house would read the bill a see coed time, to consider this point in committee, in which the bon. member for Belfast would move the introduction of a elawie for continuing the franchise to those who were innocent, leaving the franchise in the hands of the house holders, as if no freeman had ever existed. to disfranchisbreeifbraacr: Mr. TENNANT was understood to say, that there was ‘ te v oi sse make great universal—(Ole nvt e e re a s on omf t n h . e Carrickfergus, ta s e o m f e op h fr o o lion , iat e ffilg a i ;petitionthe disfranchisement. f r r tu o s m ldo f t m h c a e oekrne. t. householders T hr e be 3 f o i u r. n d J t A o s f l o E r form a w p o u u s af o ir i an t (c o oh b i: e e li l b elieve ethxtaetnasivseuffiacsietnot render u i tn du b pr e i r obn w . o: v dii constituency. t consent ituency. impossible.—(Hear, he ) a — r. pure d e and then there would be end of bribery, for no man bad a purse long enoug h to bribe a whole community.—(Some membe r h ere sa id , r " Liverpool.") He was certainly aware th at most extensive bribery had been carried on at Liverpool for some years past. It was carried on in 1812, when the present Lord Chancellor went there.—(Laughter.) The freemen of Liverpool were certainly very corrupt. He was a freeman of Liverpool himself.—(A laugh.) A bill of disfranchisement was, in his opinion, a partial and unjust measure, because it confounded the innocent with the guilty. Mr. AGLIONBY was a member of both committees. In coming to the decision which he did, he asked himself two questions; first, whether the infliction of a case of individual hardship would be justified by the general good ; and secondly, whether there was anything to bring him to the conclusion that a full and honest constituency would be left after disfranchising those who were guilty. The conclusion to which he did come was, that too much of the leaven of corruption would remain to permit the continuance of the franchise.—(Hear.) The evidence on which he came to this conclusion, was evidence given before the first committee on oath. Still if any one thought that a case to that effect could be made out, he should be sorry to refuse permission. Mr. LITTLETON had given very close attention to the examination before the committee. He certainly re gretted that they had been so long deprived of the means of obtaining that species of evidence which would be most satisfactory, viz., evidence upon oath ; and he hoped that his noble friend would not delay his re-introduction. He certainly had some doubt as to this bill, and he bad not hesitated to express that doubt in private. But on the whole, from what appeare&in evidence, he felt himself bound to vo.e in favour of disfranchisemen.. Still, if any means of ascertaining the number of 101. householders who were free from corruption, could be pointed out, he should not raise any opposition. Colonel LEITH HAY said the evidence taken before the second committee was the same as that taken before the first, which was on oath. He supported the second reading, but should be happy to find that tbere was no necessity for disfranchising the 101. householders. Sir 11. PEEL begged it to he understood that he did not stand there as the champion of the corrupt practices of Carrickfergus ; but he thought it right to ascertain the extent of the corruption before they were visited with dis franchisement. He did not seek an inquiry for the pur pose of delay, but he thought is desirable that a committee should define the limits and extent of the bribery that had been conunitted. S r EDWARD KNA'fCHBULL contended that the preamble of the bill had not been proved, and, therefore, the bill ought not to pass. Even if the preamble of the bill had been proved, there was no evidence to impeach the lion , sty of the la householders. The persons who had been found guilty of corruption ought to be found guilty hy name, instead of disfranchising the whole borough. Lard JOHN RUSSELL maintained that there was quite enough of evidence to warrant the house in reading the bill a second time. It subsequently a further inquiry were required, he should not be disposed to resist it. Sir R. PEEL, in explanation, observed that under the circumstances of the case, he would not object to the second r ading of the bill. Lord SANDoN and Mr. KENNEDY each said a few words. Mr. O'CONNELL, in reply, stated that he had un dertaken the conduct of the bill with the greatest reluet ,nce, and that he was at any time prepared to give it up with the greatest delight. As long, however, as it re mained in his hands, he was hound closely to prosecute it; and to declare that he was ready to give evidence of the grossest corruption existing in the borough in question. The bill was then read a second time, and ordered to be committed on next Wednesday se'nnight. STAFFORD DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL. Sir THOMAS FREMANTLE, in tnoving the second reading of the Stafford Disfranchisement Bill, entered into a detailed statement of the corruption of the borough, and contended that there was no nucleus of purity left on which a fa'r representation was fountitd. If they permitted so notorious a case to pass without con dign punishment, the example would be in the highest degree prejudicial. Mr. HALCOMB argued that the house would be placed in a strange predicament by agreeing to this bill, for how were they to expect to maintain their character for purity if they were to disfranchise the voters on the score of bribery, and )et allow the sitting members to retain their seats ? Captain CHETWYND submitted there was no evi dence which would warrant the house in proceeding to such an extreme as disfranchisement, and that the. better way would be to extend the franchise to two towns (Stone and another), distant only six miles and a half from Staff.a•d. He should, therefore, move an amendment, " That a select committee should be appointed to inquire further into the extent of the imputed prevalence of cor ruption in the borough of Stafford." An Hose. MEMBER, whose name we could not ascer tain, seconded the motion. Mr. ORD said the gallant mover of the amendment had totally failed in his endeavours to impeach the credibility of the evidence. By disfranchising this borough the house would set an example which would have the best effects. Mr. FRYER hoped the House of Commons would pause before it left the county town of Stafford without a member, more especially if they could make the consti tuency just and pure. It Ives the county town.—(A laugh.) If Stone and Eccleston were added to it, there would be a most healthy number of voters. It was the county town, and there were innocent men in it. Why punish them with the gu Ity? By the addition of Stone and Eccleston, they would not reduce the members of their house. There were independent men in those towns, and for their ir.corporation with the county town—(Laughter) in erasing a member of Parliament, he (Mr. Fryer) should give his most cordial vote. Mr. CHARLES BULLER was well acquainted with the borough of Stafford, and perfectly concurred in the opinion, that equal weight was not to be given to evi dence not taken upon oath, as to that which was sworn to ; but be could not agree with the hon. member for Newport, that the witnesses were reluctant ones. The fact was, that Stafford was the very hot-bed of di.eension. They were there ready to tear each other to pieces, to inflict death blows, for the gratification of their personal animosities. Warwick and Stafford, it was admitted, were equally guilty. Then, why should it be treated with greater forbearance? Treating and bribery, he con sidered, were equally criminal. He saw no difference in the shade of guilt of him who gorged himself with ale and hot suppers, and those who felt the gold and spent it at home. One, indeed, might be considered more brutal than the others. In Warwick, 4,9901. was spent in 28 public-houses. Ought that to be passed unnoticed ? Was it, indeed, because there was a noble lord in the case who looked proudly from his castle walls on the scene of so much corruption? who came, like Jupiter, in golden ttnihooetn be ee f weddedgiiLeamingtonbau r h ot neighbourhood dt the e with e Stafford,r i e t p , i ti decrepitude ewshhoi should u h al h e e .p e p v (o i Ls n ea c u e hs shoi.versupon it---(Hear)—who objected to the adequateincorpora of gentlemanta frdw. constituencybo had ea dargui just. taste and charity, for youth, beauty, and health should finding g hon. thata n e o d r m i . s n ) e . In conclusion, he (Mr. Buller), considering there would t i s ffi At c rß u eDa l ttymseiannidt the franchisement. b t r e a A s t ni e ro cl spoken alluded to the borough of Warwick, and con trasted he framed from such contrast might be ingenious, but then it made against himself. He agreed both towns were as bad ; but then, if the house had not acted with proper severity towards Warwick, it should improve in its proceedings, and deal out a due measure of punishment in its next decision.—(Hear.) When they looked into the case of •the borough of Stafford, and saw so few of the voters untainted with bribery, he thought that this cir cumstance afforded the house an excellent opportunity of making one of those corrupt boroughs an example, which would not fail to have its due effect on others. The fact of its being a county town, was an additional reason why the house should not be lenient towards it. He gave his hearty support to the motion for the second reading of the bill. Mr. FORSTER rose to oppose the motion. The name of Sheridan was associated with this borough, which ought to be a reason that it should find some favour in the eyes of the house. He concluded by saying that he could not tote for the second reading of the bill, and by The house then divided— emzeportesosfingthheishroeng.reatodthgaat he couldllaotmezt u member jprpsortat ffthoredcmodd For the motion .............................. 167 For the amendment ........................... 5.„21 Majority .............................. . l' elusion o bi f ll st w ra a n s ge t r br f r 0 ( n a s , t w h e e u g a n i d l e e r r y s t , or o e rl a ) a , g n 1 . ti tim e.!et WARWICK DISFRANCHISEMENT BILL- When strangers were re-admitted into the galtileroy,a his Sir RONALD FERGUSON was discovereta a com. legs, moving that th- house do resolve itsel f i o n , w ar eeick p inittee on the bill for depriving the electors I liameot. ld be surprised ee r. al . HALCOMB said, that the house wou which was of the right of voting for the return of weathers to pa" Ito learn some facts connected with the petitions ex tend found. He understood it to be a fact, and proposed to said to be so respectably signed, the franchise! to Leamington. Out of 418 names wheel, a du see rin e were subscribed to it, 280 were not any where t._10% who were stated to have signed it, not only h !c l not h : es. 'o, hut had put their names to the petition again st t 65 tension of the franchise to Leamineton. No less than . of the petitioners were lodgers, Is were renters wises 101. a year, and there were only 35 who rented prernnee, above that amount. Out of 850 householders, 750 had signed the counter-petition. The mot prominent person , . ‘• n uch bad been in getting up the petition, of whin" 5- ni p i; ' al 'J ai ' said, wl were two members of the Leamington Y 0.3 1 c . . 0 He woutei to were journeym , n median' in mechanics the tow • ask the hon. and gallant officer if this report bad not beea drawn up by Mr. Joseph Parkes, the Secretary to the Birmingham Political Union ? Sir R. FERGUSON said he bad nothing to do with the petition. Mr. HALCOMB said it must be owing to the hon. and gallant member's deafness that he bad not understood him. k I li t e bad not talked of the petition but the report. FERGUSON-4 know nothing about that Mr • HALCOMB thought it very extroardinary the hon. and gallant member, though chairman of the CO mittee, knew nothing about the drawing up of the re' port. The rental of the parties who signed the petitioo . for the extension of the franchise was only 6331. a-yea r ; that /7 ind.oole the rental of the parties who signed the counter-petit loo was not less than 47,0001. a year, the total rental of Leamington bring estimated at 67,0001. a year. The contents of the petition were simply to the effect that the in 4 habitants of Leamington did not desire the electivefranchi set because their town, neing a quiet place, and totally free &too the excitements attendant upon elections at present'' ofttimes resor!ed to as a place of refuge by those Wh o wished to get out of the tur moil of an election, and t l4l . extension of the franchise to them would totally alter their present quiet character. The committee which sat on 111 borough of Warwick petitions, had stated the co ten the petition to which he just referred to be merely that tliS. inhabitants of Leamington did not desire the frenchise or Warwick to be extended to them, because, as they alreadi had votes for the county, any further elective privilege was unnecessary. Now, this statement was perfectlY 0 ?: , true, for tl e petition contained no such averment bad a nd Di representing the petition in the manner which bad bee° done by that committee, he could find no other terms t° desigport than as a fraud committed o n thi! nate their re House of Commons.—(Oh, oh.) He, howev er, could trace the matter to the proper quarter; and when „: mentioned the name of Mr. Joseph Parkes , h e di" —S e • think he was far wrong. The cute, however, W as °, O „ which certainly d: served the attention of a s elect CO`" . n fo a r m t e h t e ho a se pp w oi h n o tm i e le n appointment mittee, and he could cite several precedents, if needs w ere ' g o li n t e ;vere lle the sh fi o t e te l s d ; form that committee, of whom the chairman of t spar',,i wick committee wa one ; the humble individual who h tn e e_ . addressed the house another—(A loud laugh) --the _en, members who presented the respective petitions fronaveL, Lea tnington, Viscount Eastnor, &c. He b e gged to r t r ed to .n amendment, that a select committee be ePP °lfl ac t pee inquire into the circumstances attendant on the P_ r iiitan ts ment of a petition purporting to be signed by the inha „„,i„. O of Leamington relative to the extension of the ei'v franchise to their town. Mr. HARDY seconded the amendment. ad the The SPEAKER put the original queet hm a amendment. the b° ° ' Sir R. FERGUSON said that to the speech of if so and learned necenb r for Dover, as far as he w hatev er'h ee personally concerned, he should make no reply ~e b oo. The house soul,' nut but see that the object of n ew to tnember's amendment was to obtain delay, with 0 view defeating the object of the bill upon which they we re _e t he to obtain delay, with a view to defeating the object o.ttee; bill upon which they were about to go into nom the and he would therefore leave the matter entirely t°oo, c insideration of the house as to whether they w eek' . 0. sent to suffer such a proceeding to obtain their woo „ a Mr. HARDY said, that he had been induce d t° 64° b e eit egre the moil , n in the belief that the houses d the c 0. piously impo-ed on with reference to the p on, 2 ber tents of w hide h eel been just stated Icy the boo. me w peltstbrseornsoeo far Dover.—(Loud cries of " Divide.") ; but t he The gallery was th e n clear e d far a divisor', r return public were, after a short time, re-admit ted ; oil ou we found 0 0 juutee Mr. GOULBURN had been speaking for soul : , al oud" to the effect that the house ought to agree to tbd at o de went of the hon. member for Dover, and proc to appoint a select committee. ht that the Lord J. RUSSELL, on the contrary, thought to hon. and learned member had stated no grou 0g j a w which the house could be justified in postnoninf,F,e,: for the committee ou the Warwick Disfranchisement.Delealajoge purpo e of appointing a select committee on O._ a ray fit ton petition. The question might certainly 7 .a d w ith. , one for examination before a select committeoe d eman d over out denying the right of the hon. member t demands ' or even the expediency of acceding to that Andsgal 's bon. p e ed should certainly vote for the motion of hi „ 0 lant friend, leaving it at the option of the hon. an e. 7 ... e de member to bring forward his amendment in the ne/' motion at a later hour of the evening. for DoVet Mr. TANCRED said that the hon. membersvc. ether ought not to lose sight of the fact, that there 4 7_„ e to petitions from Leamington besides the perticul .." t " the found t" t which be had referred, and it would be ~.. eagh , 0 0 Warwick committee treated them all alike. It , elec. com e' to he forgotten, however, that in case the bsecome th mittee was appointed those petitions would ticular 00e fair subject of investigation, as well as the par • s td referred to at present. air. Squire , Lord EASTNOR knew enough of the re turn vouch for his credibility, when he stated_ I h that fLealOington, made by him, as overseer of the pans - o and the were correct. it dra wn, a Tee amendment was ulti nately withdrawn, k Disfranchise house went into committee or the %Venet . the cbatr.the ohoseo ment Bill, Mr. BONHAM CAuTart in Tree CHAIRMAN baying gone through all reed t° ' put the question that the preamble of the bill be ag be w as Mr. GOULBURN rose and said, that although . 0 tbe not prepared to deny that bribery had existe d 1 g nat borough of Warwick, yet it was by no mean s to 9° re an extent as to justify the house in agreeing to the F tte , sent bill. He had read the evidence before the e03,f,61 ore • with great ears, and he bad not been able to n°,.",.. - ne than 21 cases of bribery, of which 10 had voted je;,:ted side, and 10 for the other, the odd one not having w ho at all. It was also in evilence, that the Per t h tots o f were thus convicted of bribery were not in he " - eerteh l Warwick, but only veted in riht of their holding - fa i r to disfranchise tenancies within the borough ; , and it was too un w bo i franchise the whole borough for these peren n ;' ht be ~ alone ought to be the sufferers He kn ew it ineriberf said that although thet .1 21 cases of , ~ .e were on y • IA have bee" directly proved, yet hundreds more cases tnig h did th e , ''. brought forward ; but if this were the Coe, sv b y .., were P ° : house appoint a second committee, and ” e the' t. luced before those additionalproofs of corruption pro( . 1 taking ail committee ? He entered his protest agai n ' bor oug h ' further proceedings in the disfranchisement of the endo w; Sir R. FERGUSON said that the right bon. g was t he opposite seemed to think that the crime of bribery only one which, when .proved, could ope rate . again ir! borough, leaving out of sight altogether the fae c t . l. :o agd, the case of Warwick, the grossest practices of tr 0 4 0 ; e u it 1 ) 1 pres . ent.making had prevailed up to the very differe d ' ll testing the writ. He, however, totally " .0 0e03 104 „ opinion ore this subject with the right bon. g`„„ t hree' ~ and considered that even in the absence of so' dope' house cases of bribery, enough was on record to jostl e ha eoug h .; in proceeding as it was doing with respect to t di ffi c ult ' Indeed, when it was recollected how extretnelY er iberYt 11 ,, e , was to obtain proof of even a single case of u th e bin would put it to the houses, whether, even t 3 k ing bad be er ' r es c ot on. gentleman's own admission, that ten eas the pre , b fairly established, the evidence did nut warrantov oroiden bill. The hon. member had, however, w hichoet efe j w e a l going into the collateral proofs of corruption soteln,:#, t,, be found in the evidence; for instance , the.,(arteiril- intimidation which had been pursued by Lor aisfroo• agent. He should, therefore, vote for the c o l a Lo w to t chisement of Warwick, and thought that , i _J o g th e cl the house and the Country, that was the only to nine. 11 should be adopted. Leamington was averse to Loo s 1 't, , tion with Warwick ; but it was the duty of the P oe sba ; 1 act independently on such a question, and tak e p a d, l ia ' eech scenes of corruption should not be repeafrani the i would only add that he had received a petitieu I