The Sun. — London, England, 1827-02-27 00:00:00

tion from certain owners of mills 'near Liverpool,' praying for a protecting duty, on foreign flour, and a drawback on British ma nufactured flour.—Adjourned. . . HOUSE OF COMMONS. Several new Members of the House took the oaths and their seats. Among them we noticed Mr. Plunkett. KILKENNY ELECTION. The Committee on the Kilkenny Election petition reported that the sitting Member; John Doherty, Esq., was duly elected, and that the petition of Mr. Butler, against his return, was neither frivolous nor vexatious. THE CORN LAWS. • presented petitions from the owners and occupiers of land at Burford, and six other places in Oxford shire, praying for protection to the landed interest. Sir W. ROWLEY presented a similar petition Vol; a parish in Suffolk. . GOOCH, on presenting petitions of the same nature from Baburg, and eight other Hundreds in Suffolk, 'claimed the liberty of making a few observations in support of the prayers of the petitioners. For their justification, he had only need to refer to the famous letter published in 1814, by the Right Honourable Gentleman (Mr. Huskisson), then Member flir Chichester. On the arguments of that letter, he (Sir T. Gooch) would rest the whole case of the Agriculturists. He contended, that corn, since that period, hail not been too dear. The price hail been pretty equal, and, if any thing, below the remunerating rate. For his own part, he declared, that he bad no objection to the proposition which it was once understood the late Lord Londonderry intended to bring forward, vi7.—to allow the ports to open at 705., with a protecting duty of 7s.— (Hear, hear !) Mr. BELL presented,a petition to the same effect from the County of NorthuMberland. Sir E. KNATCHBULE presented similar peti tions from fifty parishes in the Western District of Kent, and from eighteen other different places in the same County. Sir JOHN A.STLEY presented a petition, with the same pray 2r, from the vicinity of Salisbury. THE CATHOLIC QUESTION. Sir J. ASTLEY next presented a petition against :my further concessions to the Roman Catholics, from the same district CATHOLIC EMANCIPATION. Mr. J. SMITH presented petitions from two Parishes in the County of Cork, praying for Catholic Emancipation. Mr. BASTARD presented petitions from three Parishes in Devonshire, against any further concessions to the Catholics. General HART presented a similar petition from the Presbytery of Donegal. Mr. G. MOORE presented similar petitions from the Lord Mayor and Corporation of Dublin; . from the Guild of Merchants of the City of Dublin ; and from the Corporations of Shoemakers, Barbers, Surgeons, and Weavers of the City of Dublin. Mr. CURWEN presented a petition from the Protestant Dissenters of Cockermouth, praying for Catholic Emancipation. Mr. FITZGIBBON presented similar petitions from several parishes in the county of Limerick. , Sir T. LETHBRIDGE gave notice that he should on Wednesday next present a petition from the Archdeacon and Clergy of Bath, against any further concessions to the Catholics ; and, as he now saw the Hon. Membar for Westminster (Sir F. Burdett) in his place, he would take the opportunity of putting a question to him, as to the course he intended to take when he brought the Question of the Catholic Claims under the considera tion of the House. He wished to know whether the Hon. Bart. meant to move for a Committee, or to ,bring _ in a Bill containing clauses which might embrace his (Sir F. Burdett's) views of the question ? If it were inconvenient to the Hon. Baronet to answer this question, he (Sir T. Lethbridge) would not press it ; but, if it were not inconvenient, the Hon. Baronet would oblige many who felt great anxiety on this subject, by stating generally what course he meant to pursue. Sir F. BURDETT said, he was sorry that he did not feel himself at liberty to answer the Hon. Baronet's question. He could only state, that he had every reason to think no delay would take place in the discussion of this great question ; and units any unforeseen circumstances should arise to create a fur ther postponement of it, he pledged himself to bring it forward on the day for which it now stood. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, it would her convenient to t h e House, and perhaps the non. Baronet would have no ob jection t 0 give a general outline of the Resolution be meant to propose a day or two before he made his motion, supposing the U on . B aronet roe ,:nt to proceed by Resolution. Sir F. BURIZTT was sorry that he could not at present give an answel - to the Right Honourable Secretary's question Mr. G. PONSONBY pre.sented a petition from Yougharn, praying for Catholic Emancipation. Mr. CAULFIELD presented a similar petition from Armagh. Mr. IjRUEN presented similar petitions from several parishes in the County of Carlow. Mr. GRATTAN presented a similar petition from the Roman Catholics of the County of Wicklow. This was a pe tition from a County, which might almost be considered a Protest ant County, and he was happy to say, that the Protestants of Ire land had of late shewn themselves generally more favourable to the elaints of the Catholics. Eleven out of fourteen Noblemen in that'County favoured the Catholic claims. It was the first peti tion in favour of Catholic Emancipation which they had pre serrted dnringthe last fourteen years. This might, in corn mea sure, b e accounted for, from their h av i ng no p l ace i n w hi c h a pu bli c m eeting could conveniently assemble. On the present oe _ elision a very initnerous meeting had assembled in the Chapel, where the proceedin gs het been conducted with the greatest order. He was happy to say that the Catholics of Wicklow had come to a re solution of petitioning Parliament every year, until their claims should be conceded. Mr. G. DAWSON said, that after what had fallen from the Hon. Gentleman opposite, he felt it right to say, that he should shortly have to present a petition of an opposite chaocter, signed by many thousand Protestants of Wicklow, by many of the Nobility, by a great majority of the Grand Jury, and by a very considerable number of the independent Yeomanry of that County. Considering the size of the Chapel alluded to by the Hon. Member, he could scarcely conceive the Meeting to be so numerous as had been represented. Mr. GRATTAN observed, in explanation, that with respect to the Meeting in the Chapel, the majority of the as sembly were outside.—(A laugh.) Mr. G. DAWSON said, he had received letters from many of the Hon. Member's Constituents, who stated, that though they had voted for him, they totally disapproved of his politics.—(A laugh.) • The petitions were ordered to be laid on the table, and to be p r i r ,ted. _ . CORN LAWS. Lord ST - ANLE. l ip7esentedapetition from Black burne, prayinfor_a Revision of th e C orn L aws. NPORT presented a pet i t i on f rom Mr, DAV S Occupiers of Land :a,ttending Chester C orn M ar k et, aga i nst any Alteration of the Corn aws• presented a simil ar pet i t i on Mr. \V. GORDO N from Aberdeen and Elgin. Mr. BASTARD presented similar petitions from Parishes in Devonshire. Mr. CARTWRIGHT presented g similar petition from Occupiers of Land in Northampton. Sir T. LETHBRIDGE presented a similar peti tion from ar neighbourhood of Bath and Bristol. M. SYKES presented a petition from Cotting ham, in the East Riding of Yorkshire, praying for a high Pro tecting Duty ; and a petition from the Merchants of Hull, pray ing for a Free Trade in Corn. Mr. G. PONSONBY presented a petition from youg i ora , against the Importation of Foreign Flour. Copts I VIAITLAND presented four petitions -in against any alte ra ti on of the Corn Laws. from Berwick Lord MAITLAND presented a similar petition from the Western District of Berwick. Sir A. HAY presented a similar petition from Lin lithgow. Lord LOWTHER presented similar petitions from a parish in Lancashire, and from Kendal, in Westmo r l an d. Mr. DUGDALE presented a similar petition from Warwick. Sir W. INGLEBY presented a similar petition from a Parish in Lincolnshire. Mr. BASTARD presented a petition from the Ship-owners of Brixham, complaining of distress in consequence of the Alteration of the Navigation Laws. Mr. W. SMITH moved for a return of the number of Gallons of Wash Distilled in Scotland and Ireland, and the quantity of Spirits Distilled from the same for the last two years. Mr. SHADWELL brought up his Bill for the further Limitation of Real Actions, and the further Amendment of the Law of Dower.—lt was read a first time, and ordered to be read a second time on the 27th of March. CURWEN moved for an Account of the Coals exported from England to Ireland for the last year.— Ordered. General GASCOYNE moved for a Return of the British, Irish, and Colonial Produce, exported and Imported be tween Great Britain and Ireland, from January, 1825, to the year ending January, 1827. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER bad no objection to the motion, except that the returns up to the year ending January, 1826, were already on the table of the House. —The motion was agreed to. Mr. H. DRUMMOND gave notice of his inten tion to move the renewal of the Scotch Creditors' Acts, on Mon • day next. Mr. G. DANATSON brought tip a number of pa pers connected with the National Vaccine Establishment.—Or dered to bg printed. Mr. C. PELHAM presented petitions from New port and Oswestry, in the county of Salop, against any alteration in the Corn Laws. Lord F. OSBORNE presented a petition from Cambridge, praying for protection to the Landed Interest. Mr. BRIGHT presented a petition from Bristol, praying an alteration in the Corn Laws. _ DUNCOIIBE presented petitions from Hampton Arden, in Warwiejcshire, and several parishes in York shire, against any alteration of the Corn Laws. Mr: A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from the Provost and Council of the Burgh of Paisley, praying an im mediate alteration of the Corn Laws. Lord E. SOMERSET presented a petition froth the Owners and Occupiers of Land in the County of Gloucester, praying that the late duty on the importation of wool may be re enacted ; and that the Corn Laws may not be altered. The same Noble Lord presented a petition from Stonewold, in Gloucester, praying that the Corn Laws may be regulated according to the Acts of the years 1663 and 1670. Mr. P. THOMPSON presented a petition from Dover, in favour of an alteration of the Corn Laws. Mr. LIDDELL presented petitions from a parisi in Northumberland, and from Darlington, in the County of Dur. ham, praying for Protection to the Agricultural Interests. 'Air. Cli R TEIS presented petitions from Winchel sea and other places in Sussex, against any alteration in the Corn Laws. Mr. HUME presented a petition from Perthshire, praying for a revision of the Corn Laws. Mr. ABERCROMBY presented a petition from the Incorporated Cordwainers of Leeds, praying an alteration of the Corn Laws.—These petitions were laid on the table, and or dered to be printed. Admiri;l SOUTHERN presented a petition from the Grand Jury of the County of Nottingham, praying for pro tection for the Landed Interest.—Ordered to be printed. Admiral SOUTHERN presented a petition from the Archdeacon of Norfolk, and the Chancellor and Prebendaries of Norwich, praying that no further concessions may be made to the Roman Catholics.—Ordered to be printed. . _ Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from the Bakers of Glasgow, againstthe Importation of Foreign Flour. Mr. A. CAMPBELL presented a petition from the Merchants and Shipowners of Greenock, complaining of the present state of the Navigation Laws.—Ordered to be printed. Lord E. SOMERSET presented a petition from the Coroners of Gloucestershire, praying an increase of Fees and allowances.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. CURTEIS moved that an humble Address be presented to his Majesty, praying that he would give directions that the British Comuls in France, Holland, and Spain, be re quired to state, in British money, the price that Wheat must reach in those countries, before it can be by law imported from foreign pats ; and also specifying the Duties which must then he paid upon that importation. Upon the motion being read, Mr. A. BARING, in a very low tone, asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why a similar Return which he had moved for, with respect to Guernsey (as we understood) had not been laid before the House ? The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER was unable to state the reason. He did not see any practical dif ficulty in the way of such a Return being made, and he would certainly inquire why the Order had not been complied with.— Tbe Address was then agreed to. Mr. BERNAL moved for a Return, specifying the a mount of the tonnage, the number of the crews, and whether men or boys, of all vessels which have cleared inwards or outwards laden with grain, from and to the port of London to all parts of the world, during the period from the Ist of January, 1816, to the Ist of January, 1826. The CHANCELLOR of' the EXCHEQUER suggested the propriety of altering the date to the 10th of October. Considerable diarulty had been created by making up Returns of particular portions of a year ; and as the Returns were already made up to that period,. it would be much more convenient to comply with the Order to the 10th of October, if it would suit the Hon. Member's wishes. Indeed he was not quite sure that such a Return was not already before the House.—The Return was then ordered to the 10th of October. DUKE OF CLARENCE. Mr. HUME held in his hand a petition from the working classes of the Town of Manchester, praying that an addi, tional sum of 9,0001. a year might not be voted to his Royal Highness the Duke of Clarence. The petitioners expressed their surprise that such an addition to the burdens of the people should be proposed undo: present circumstances, and they thought it should rather be the study of Ministers to devise some mode of re moving taxes, than thus to increase the sum payable by the public. If the allowance to his Royal Highness, considering his proximity to the throne, was not sufficiently great as compared with that of the other branches of the Royal Family, they proposed that the income of the other branches should be reduced—(a laugh)—by which means a due prop:.rtion might be preserved. He concurred in the sentiments of the petitioner;:, and believed the same was the opinion entertained by the great mass of t 43 people. Mr. WOOD had received various letters from Man chester, expressing the same sentiments as those conveyed by the petitioners. The House would not Jr. their duty unless they op pored the grant. —The petition was ordered to be printed. FLEET PRISON. Mr. HUME said he held in his hand a petition from a person of the mune of Pullen, who had been 18 or 20 months confined iu the Fleet Prison for debt. The petitioner stated that be had opportunities of knowing the great inconve nience resulting from the practice of confining persons for debt . (A laugh. )—The effect of it was to harden them and prevent them for ever after from making any effort to forward themselves in life. had no hesitation in saying, that the returns for tHvletil3llhel.. i. had i) moved, when produced would prove that the greatest mischief had arisen from the law as it affected debtors at pre sent. The petitioner stated that in three of the United States of America, and in some parts of Europe also, the practice for impri soning for debt had been abolished. The only persons benefitted were the attornies and lawyers. He hoped the attention of the Lad been called to a case which Right Hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) occurred a few days back in the Fleet Prison. It was that of a named Pe riort w Devenish. He as committed to prison for debt , and died, aa it appeared, actually from want of proper a ttendance. This called for the ipterposition of Government. He thought the Right Hon. Gentleman woad have taken up so important a subject. The consequence of the present. system was, that three creditors out of fonr relinquished their claims, sooner than vbject a debtor to incarceration, o r run th e risk of the ex p en ses that' must ! I be incurred. Mr. Secretary PEEL said, he had heard of the case alluded to by the Hon. Gentleman. He was not prepated at present to give any opinion on it. He had, however, transmitted the complaint to the keeper of the Fleet prison, and begged his attention to it.—(Hear, hear !)—The petition was read, and ordered to be printed. Mr. HUIVIE presented a petition from Brigg, in fora five trade in C orn . O r d ere d to b e printe d . Perthshire, praying CATHOLIC GRIEVANCES. Mr. ABERCROMBY begged the particular at tention of the House, and especlally of the Members of Goverd ment, on the subject of a petition which he had the honour of presenting. The petition was signed by the Earl of Shrewsbury, Lord Stafford, Sir Richard Bedingfield, and several other Catholic 'gentlemen. He was . sure that many persons in that House were not aware that the Roman Catholic .inhabitants of this country were subject to a double Land Tax.—(Hear, hear.)—That where they themselves paid four shillings per acre, Roman Catholics paid eight shillings.—(Hear, hear. )—This unequal tax, imposed on the Catholics in the reign of William the Third, continued to be impe rative on them till the year 1794, when it was repealed. So many Acts, however, bad been passed on the subject of Catholics, and the Land Tax, and so much confusion prevailed through them as through other Acts of Parliament, that it was hard to say whether or not the Catholics 'were still lialile to this double demand. But a proceeding which was tried lately in the Court of Ex chequer, put the matter beyond a doubt. There the Attorney- General and Solicitor-General—he did not say this in blame of their conduct, for they only did their duty as Officers of the Crown—completely succeeded in establishing this double Land Tax in a cause in which the Earl of Shrewsbury, one of these petitioners, was concerned. Now it was clear that no man ought to be subjected to a double Land Tax, merely because he did not submit to the acts of the Established Church. (Hear, hear.) He saw the. Attorney-General anxious to rise. He assured his Learned Friend that neither he nor the petitioners imputed any blame to him or to his colleague, the Solicitor-General—on the contrary, he knew that he would have the support of both in re commending the prayer of the petition to the consideration of the House. He begged leave to bring up the petition. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said it was true that he was opposed in the Court of Exchequer to some of these petitioners, when they moved that Court that they might be al lowed to redeem their land tax, on the calculation of the single tax. He perfectly agreed with the Hon. and Learned Gentleman in the principle'that no person should be subject to a double tax, because he did not hold certain religious opinions.—(Hear!)— He, however, reserved to himself to doubt whether the estates of Sir Richard Bedingfield came within the scope of the Act of 1794, as he had one estate which paid no land tax, and another which paid a double tax. _ _ - Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that maintaining in all their strength his opinions as to the political demands of the Ro man Catholics, he would riot be thereby prevented from giving his fullest concurrence in the doctrine promulgated by the Ho nourable and Learned Gentleman, that no direct pecuniary burden should be imposed on the Catholics by reason of their religious opinions.—(Hear, hear.) The petition was then ordered to be printed. Sir G. NOEL presented a petition from Rutland, praying that no alteration might be made in the Corn Laws. Sir G. HEATHCOTE presented a petition , from a town in Perth, praying that the agricultural interests might be protected. Mr. J. WILSON presented a petition from York praying the House to take into consideration the burning of wi dows in India at the piles of their husbands. The Hon. Mem ber said that the House would probably be astonished to learn, that in the space of four years nearly 3,000 unfortunate natives had been thus sacrificed. Sir J. NEWPORT moved, that an humble ad dress be presented to his Majesty, that the annual amount of the tolls of the respective roads, from Milford-haven by Carmarthen, during the last three years, be laid before that House. Mr. BROWNLOW presented a petition from a parish in Ireland, praying for Catholic emancipation. Mr. E. DAVENPORT moved, that a commis sion be appointed to inquire into the causes of the commercial dis tresses which had prevailed in the country for some time past ; also for the contracts of Greenwich Hospital for beef, butter, flour, cheese, from ISIS to 1827 inclusive. Captain WEMYSS presented a petition from Fife, against any alteration in the Corn Laws ; also a petition from certain inhabitants of the same place, praying for a free trade in Corn. Mr. W. HORTON brought up a report from the Emigration Committee.—Ordered to be printed. Mr. W. HORTON presented a petition from some place, the name of which we could not hear, against any further concessions to the Roman Catholics.—Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. STANLEY presented a petition from a re spectable body of Agriculturists at Wellington, Sornersetshire,who prayed, not that there might be no alteration in the Corn Laws, but for a proper protection.—Ordered to lie on the table. Mr. SCOTT presented a petition from the owners of land in the Jedburgh and Kelso districts of the county of Rox burgh, against any alteration in the Corn Laws.—Ordered to-lie on the table. BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS. The SPEAKER having read the Order of the Day for resuming the adjourned debate on this question, Lord ALTHORPE said, that if this question had come on on the day for which it was originally fixed, it was not his intention to have stated his views at any length, or to have entered into any prolonged discussion on a subject, the necessity of applying some remedy to which he thought had been ad mitted by all sides; but from the little that had since passed, he felt it now necessary to state the ground upon which he pro posed a corrective of the evils arising from bribery at Elections. It was notorious that many boroughs were influenced solely by bribery and corruption in the selection of the persons whom they returned as Members to Parliament. It was no torious there were many boroughs where the voters received 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, and even as much as 501. each for their votes. The existence, the prevalence of this practice was a disgrace to any country which valued its honour and credit. It was therefore the duty of the House to exercise all its vigilance in the attempt to put it down. But it was objected against the ap plication of a new remedy that there were laws already in exist ence against such practices sufficient to meet the evil. True, there were laws imposing heavy penalties upon those found guilty of bribery at elections ; but was it not notorious that the prac tice still continued undiminished, notwithstanding the existence of these laws 1 He was therefore obliged to conclude, that the general laws against bribery were insufficient, and that some other remedy was necessary. Many boroughs were exempt from the suspicion of corruption; no body would suspect Shoreham or Aylesbury; and in general counties were free from such an imputation. Nobody suspected bribery in Yorkshire, though a vast deal of mo ney was spent there, but not for such a purpose. But nobody doubted the prevalence of bribery in moat of the boroughs. The difficulty was in discovering it, that the House might have the opportunity of punishing it. The object of his motion was to meet this difficulty, and render the discovery more frequent. His Noble Friend (Lord John Russell) proposed some resolu tions on this subject at the close of the last Parliament, which passed th e House ; and, in the absence of his Noble Friend, at the beginning of this Session he proposed to have them re ewbutthebeing n obedience e moret theo s g t e r l oz a l l y w t i h s h a n.; of the e e ri x p o e u c s t e e . d , Thebe withdrew them now on the table, he proposed to submit to the House instead. The principle upon which he went in these resolutions was, that when any petition was presented to the House, complaining of bribery at an election, such :petition should be referred to a Select Committee of twenty-one, appointed for the purpose, to examine, and ascertain if a prima facie case of bribery were made out, as would entitle it to be referred to the considera tion of the House. This course was exactly analogous to what Grand Juries did. The Committee might be appointed in the usual mode. It was suggested to him that instead of a Select Committee, these petitions might be referred to a Committee of privileges ; but composed as that Committee was, in the way most likely to preserve its purity, yet the House had decided that it was far from securing partiality. He thought it would be so far de sirable to submit such questions to them, that it would be a serious evil. The House would observe that in his resolutions there was no limitation of time to the presentation of petitions, nor was it the general principle of our law that lapse of time should relieve persons from the punishment due to crime. He was aware there were exceptions to this principle, but he did not see why gross bribery at elections should be one of them. However, if the House should feel this an objection, he would not be unwilling to meet its wishes, and amend it. The Noble Lord concluded with saying, het he w ° 14 0 1 above not effect, detain fur aint the a the House longer, and moved resolu tionsppointment of a Select Com mittee. Mr. L. FOSTER said there could be no differ ence of opinion upon the necessity of putting down bribery and corruption, where it was found to exist ; but all were not equally agreed upon the 1110 . 4 by which such practices were to be re -I:;l4C.ot4illd'penaorl pressed. Ou the fullest consideration, be mkt say, there was no measure which should be received m"-itli more caution, or viewed with more attention, in all its bearings, before the House, how upon a Committee than g h a:e il i t t: p t; y 7probation. A more iii evNi-deiroeuxscdtiteinnte this, or a more painful duty and odious task opou the House than its .4 44-,:ion. He doubted much if any Members would like to be the objects of cli9jela op such an occasion ; and if there were any, they, of all others, wer e l e a s t fittedffj the appointment. A more embarrassing question_ a combination of more tinpleas4nt eircin stances-,:-could not be presented to the House than the choice of such a Committee. 1:: the appointment of a tribunal upon which so much responsibility devolved, ..;. great many objections might be taken to almost every Member, and yet, who would have b o ldness to - give them utterance ? If i they were to adopt the principle of selection pointed out n these resolutions, they ought to retrace their steps, and no longer choose Elec; tion Committees by chance. The Noble Lord said, there was an analogy between this measure and Grand Juries. He owned he was much surprized to hear this statement from the Noble Lord, for the only point of resemblance he could trace between them was, that the proceedings before both were ex-parte ; but there was- this distinction—that in the case of Grand Juries there was a corrective of the ex-parte statement ; the proceedings were pri vate, and were immediately followed by the investigation before a Petty Jury. The proceedings before the Committee may conti nue a week or a month ; and before the final investigation by the House, all that took place would transpire, and get into half the newspapers of the country—he meant into that portion of them whose-politics were opposed to those of the sitting Member. In the course proposed by the Noble Lord this disadvantage would arise to the accused, that he had not the right of objecting to those who would be placed on his trial. The Noble Lord attempt ed to defend his proceeding on the ground of analogy between it and the Committee of Privileges. But between the two there was the reverse of analogy. One was, from its very nature, free from the objections to which the other was peculiarly liable. It was so large and vague in its constitution, as to admit of no ana logy with a Select Committee.—The Noble Lord having failed to make out the shadow of a case resting upon facts, he should feel it his duty to give his motion a negative. Lord JOHN RUSSELL would endeavour, as far as he was able, to answer the objections of the Hon. Member. He stated his surprise at the proposition of his Noble Friend, as a sufficient remedy against bribery was to be found in the House, and the laws already in existence. In contending against the ar gument of the Hon. Gentlemau, he only asked the House if they were not aware of what passed at almost every election—if there were not numerous places which sent Members of Parliament upon no other consideration than the more or less money they received ? He need only appeal to what was stated in the public papers to have occurred at a recent e l ec ti on , w h ere b an k- notes were open l y received by the voters, and boastingly placed in their hats, as the wages of their iniquitous conduct. While such practices were notorious, will it be said that the remedy now existing was sufficient ; and that it was not incumbent upon the House, if it valued its honour and reputation, to supply a more efficient remedy than now existed, for the suppression of such an evil. The only part of his Honourable Friend's pro positions which he objected to was that which related to the instruction to be given to the Committee. These, he thought, would materially diminish its efficiency. Yet allowances must be made for introducing such qualifications, because he knew, from experience, how difficult it was for a Member on his side of the:House to carry his intentions into full effect.—(Hear, hear. ) The Hon. Gentleman who had spoke last, seemed to recommend, that upon each particular case, a Committee of Members should be appointed. Such a course, however, would be more invidious than that proposed by his Noble Friend. These went to appoint persons of sagacity and integrity for the whole Session to settle disputed elections. This he knew would place them in a very delicate and responsible situation, yet he was convinced no man of learning and honesty would have any objection to accept it. The Honourable Gentleman remarked, that the analogy drawn by the Noble Lord between the proposed Committee and a Grand Jury, was not correct, both as regarded the general challenge, and the judicial powers of the Committee. If the Honourable Member contended, that this Committee would have a judicial power, and act independent Of the House, he must have formed a very erroneous idea of it. Agreeing as he did with the plan of his Noble Friend, he was sorry that he had added the instruction to the proposition he intended to make. It would be better to allow the case to go before an Election Committee unshackled by any such instruction. If that were not the case, the remedy would be neither good for securing to the rightful owner his property in the borough, or checking bribery and cor ruption. He well knew, from experience, the difficulty which any Member from his side of the House had to encounter in bring ing forward such a measure.--a(Hear, hear !)—Well might a Mi nister of the Crown, in the goodness of his heart, and after me ditating on his plan for months in his closet, bring it forward in that House without difficulty or opposition. Secure as he was, that it would receive calm discussion, and that he would be backed by a great majority, and even by those Members who, but ten years ago, had been denounced as Jacobins, for attempting ,to improve the cruel and barbarous laws of the last century.—(Loud cheers.)Praises had been heaped upon him from all quarters, and even a distinguished Member of the adverse party appeared to have ransacked the Dictionary for terms of praise and congratulation—(Hear, hear !)—But far different was the task which Opposition Members had to perform when they brought forward any proposition they had to submit, to culling and trimming of those on the other side. The Minister of the Crown rejects:what another has approved.—(Hear, hear !) —Members pn the other side, were strong in the consciousness of their power—in the assistance which they received from all those who would put an end to abuse and corruption, as well as from the co-operation of the Crown Lawyers, in removing technical difficulties; but all prospect of amendment coming from his side of the House were nearly hopeless. Members were obliged to make attempts again and again, without effect, till at last, baffled and tired out, they gave up the task in despair, to the great in jury of the country, the continuation, the increase, the triumph of l i bribery, and the destruction of the best parts of our Constitution. —(The Noble Lord sat down amidst loud cheering.) A MEMBER below the gallery, whose name we could not ascertain, said there could be no doubt that corruption and bribery were carried on, in many instances, to a great extent, and that it was the duty of the House, when such cases were made out, to visit them with severity. He had just received a letter from a r es p ec t a bl e i n h a bi tant o f the borough which he had the honour to represent. It stated that, from his own knowledge, the system of bribery was openly carried on, and that a g rea t - lumber of the voters received sums of money for their votes. Four teen days after the Member had taken his seat the miller of the place went round to a great majority of the householders, and left 201. each for his vote. A great number made no secret of this, but readily admitted that they had accepted the favours of the miller, without any scruples of conscience ; and had not hesitated to take the Bribery Oath, because it had not a prospective tendency. Many of these voters were day labourers, and others so poor that with great difficulty they could he kept off the parish, for the purpose of enabling them to v ot e at the election. Whet her this statement was corr e ct o r n ot he could not say , b ut p roba b l y the other member for the borough might be able formation—(Laughter.) He would submit aiat to this give was plan proposed )) the Noble Lord would lie effectual or not he could not d ec id e , b ut certainly it woul d have a tendency to cheek such abuses.—(Hear, ‘a some n a le ca which required investigatio n. in se Whether - hear.) Mr. WYNN said that whether suc h or such a borough was corrupt and wheth er th e l aw was defective were very different questions. He believed th e l aw was quite efficient, and persons only were wan ti ng to put i t i n effect. The penalty ' probably might be too low. He would not say that a fine of 5001. was quite sufficient. If it should, however, be found too small, make it 1,0001. The great difficulty, however, was, in getting persons to come forward as informers. For his part, he should wish to see these laws much more frequently called into action than they had been. Sir JOHN NEWPORT considered some altera tion absolutely necessary to put an end to the present system. Fourteen years ago he had proposed what he considered an effec tual remedy, that was to administer an oath not to the electors, but the elected.—(Hear, hear.)--An oath administered at the bar of that House, whether by themselves, or through others, they had given money, made promises of offices, or e mployments, or any offers of any kind, in order to obtain a seat.—(Hear, hear.) —lf the House were in earnest, they could soon put an end to corr u pti on by adopting- such a course. In the measure which he proposed formerly, so much had been altered, so much cut out, that his object was entirely defeated. That object was to put an end to all bribery, either by giving money or offices in order to obtain a seat. If the motion of his Noble Friend were, however, rejected, he pledged himself to move, this Session, for leave to bring in a Bill exactly of that description which he had proposed fourteen years ago, and which he considered absolutely necessary for the purity of that House and the public good. Mr. PEEL, after what had fallen from the Hon. Baronet, respecting a better proposition which he had in view, could not do less than refuse his assent to the proposed measures of the Noble Lord—(Hear)—and would, on the ground of public benefit, vote for their rejection. Before, however, making any remarks on the general merits of the case, he would say a few words in answer to what had fallen from the Noble Lord (Lord J ‘ i s the me t e a6 r say2 o{ ti avi t . 1 1: 1 i e nht C ios r o ve w f r n eye p t o, r p o p p 10 0 pn s e e e a s me sure, t e en assis tt Russell.) ! ed l . task r e i sa i was n lii covmhpena carryingr aat o latter part of this statement he cordially agreed, and thought, as he said formerly, nothing more honourable and gratifying than the oblivion of all p the approbation of the Noble Lord , and arty on such an occasion as that alluded to. loifb3diqeeive4 Gentlemen on the o pp os it e s id e o f the H ouse. He wad even proud to think that this was the case, as he might thus count on the co-operation of all parties in effecting the proposed changes. Although he Va s qu i te di spose d to concur with the Noble Lord in his approbation o f th ose w ho ac t e d with him, yet he could not admit of the justi ce o f th e censure p as sed upon those whose views coincided with his (Mr. Peel's). He could grant that there was a disposition at that side of the House to resist whatever proposi tions proceeded from those Hen, Members whose general politics were of an opposite character. The Noble Lord had referred in the course of his observations to two individuals, to whom he (Mr. Peel) could also refer as instances of the absence of the feeling imputed to him and his colleagues—namely, the Noble Lord, the originator of the present measure, and the Hon. Member for Westminster. When the Hon. Member for Westminster sug gested the inexpediency of Officers of the Crown interfering in the appointment of Special Juries, so far was he (Mr. Peel) from resisting the measure because it proceeded from the other side of the House, that he did actually himself bring in a Bill to prevent any such interference being exercised.—(Hear, hear, hear !)---And when the Noble Lord brought in a Bill to facilitate the recovery of small debts, which met with a good deal of opposition, he (Mr. Peel), instead of rejecting the measure from the motives asiigned, supported it ; and the Noble Lord having complained of ,the difficulties he encountered from the want of official information and official aid, and requested him (Mr. Peel) to undertake the measure, he gave no proof of a de sire to oppose it on the ground of its having emanated from a Member at the Opposition side of the House; for his answer was, that though unwilling to deprive the Noble Lord of the cre dit of the Bill, he was quite ready to afford him any assistance in his power for its advancement.—(Hear, hear !)—Therefore he could not join in the censure conveyed by the Noble Lord upon those who co-operated with him (Mr. Peel). But while he con tended that it was most unfair and unjust to attribute to him and , those whose sentiments he shared, a repugnance against measures brought forward with a view to the reformation of abuses, on ac count of their having been brought forward by Honourable Members at the Opposition side of the House, it would be equal folly and equal weakness to suppose that they were bound to admit detailed propositions of which they did not approve, merely because they proceeded from the other side. The House was called upon either to confirm or to reject the appointment of a permanent Committee. It was painful to him either to oppose or to reject it,. but he thought the latter the safer course. The Noble Lord on the second bench said, that the tribunal would partake of the nature of a Grand Jury that it was merely to represent facts upon which the House would then exercise its judgment. But how was this proposition borne out by the resolution itself? The resolution concluded with the words— " And that the said Committee shall report their opinion thereon to the House." If the Committee were to report their opi nion, must not the argument of his Learned and Honourable Friend behind him have great weight ? The House must in that case come to the consideration of the question with their minds biassed by the opinion of the Committee? And how was this Committee to be constituted ? Ie was to consist, according to the words of the resolution, of "Members the most remarkable for probity, sagacity, and intellect." This, he must say, was a most invidious distinction.—(Hear, hear.)--He would appeal to every Gentleman in that House, whose constituents sent him, not as conceiving him to'be endowed with peculiar faculties, but consi dering him upon a footing of equality with the individuals most eminent for their talents, and as capable of exercising the privilege of free debate, and of asserting their own unfettered opinions. Again, lie was desirous to know whether it was proposed that the proceedings before this Committee should be carried on at the expense of the public or of the party—for this point, too, was left unset tled. Nor was any period of liability specified. What ! was every Member to be exposed, for five years to come, if Parliament should last so long, to the accusations of any man who should choose to prefer charges without incurring any responsibility, or subjecting himself to any penalty ? For any thing that he (Mr. Peel) knew, the investigation might be conducted wholly at the public expense. He was left in ignorance on this head. He re quired information. If the Noble Lord had proceeded by Bill, he would have been obliged to enter into every neces sary particular. He (Mr. Peel) could not concur in the mea sure in its present form. He would rather wait for the propo sition of the Right Hon. Baronet. The Hon. Member for Berk-- shire had tendered an express invitation to him (Mr. Peel.) If that Hon. Member would tell him that there was a borough in which, six months after any election any' party went about with 201. notes, to pay electors for their votes, imagining that because the 14 days were not expired, they could practise these arts with impunity—if that Hon. Member would cite the Mayor and Cor poration of such borough, he (Mr. Peel) would take upon himself to assert the privileges of the House, and, if a prima facie case of corruption should be made out, he would consent that the miller himself should be brought to the bar of the House, and would institute as rigid an inquiry as was sought by this Resolution, against which he now expressed his determination to vote...-. (Hear, hear.) Lord JOHN RUSSELL shortly explained. Mr. RICHARD MARTIN said, that in confor mity with the course which he pursued, when the borough of Gram pound l c alledpre sent subject. If upon t furnished an express hisentimen ts occasion for on discussion , the he had no alternative, he would certainly vote for the resolution of the Noble Lord, not because he considered it totally free front objec tion, but only because no better course was open to him. But he called upon Hon. Gentlemen at his side of the House to pro pose some amendment, or bring forward some counter-resolution, embodying such a measure as they would be willing to support. But why, he would ask, confine this inquiry to boroughs? Why should it not be extended to counties ? He knew a county in which a Secretary of State, three days before the late election— a Secretary of State—he was an under Secretary, though— (Laughter.) Opened a bank in the entire county, to defray the expenses—of whom ?--of his nominee. He (Mr. Martin) called him his "nominee" because the Under Secretary called him " his man."—(Laughter.) The person to whom he alluded, as having acted thus, was the Marquis of Clanricarde, and he there denounced him. In twenty days he would have an opportunity of proving his charges before a Committee, and of applying for a special report against that individual. The Members of the 'Go vernment, in concert with whom he had acted for forty years, had, he conceived, been guilty of as objectionable conduct as the individual of whom he complained. He would conclude with begging of the Noble Lord to withdraw his resolution for the present. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said, that if the Hon. Member was entitled in his case, as he had just brought it forward, to complain of the ingratitude of Minis ters in having become parties to the transactions against which he protested—after his forty years' service, the Noble Lord opposite could have but little reason to be grateful for the sort of support which the Hon. Member had thought fit to lend to his proposition founded upon such grounds. With regard to the representations made by the Hon. Member, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) knew nothing of the manner in which the Galway Election had been conducted; but he trusted that the House would do the Noble Lord referred to, the justice to suspend its judgment upon a charge, h from which lf he had not at present the opportunity o f d e _ fending Lord MILTON said, that the Right Hon. Secre tary appeared to have totally mistaken the object of the resolution. The effect would not be to prejudice the party whose election should become the subject of inquiry, and he was surprised to hear it argued that there was no similarity between the functions of this body, and the office of a Grand Jury. L the absence of any bet ter proposition, he (Lord Milton) would support the resolution of the Noble Lord. Mr. C. PELHAM, as we understood, supported the motion of the Noble Lord (Althorpe.) Mr. WYNN said, that the motion of the Noble Lord would be a very great invasion of the regulations at present existing. Ile was certainly aware that there might be cases in which the operation of the law proposed by the Noble Lord might be applied in a salutary manner. But the principle went to at tack a large class, which, in his opinion, would prevent the pro per distinction being made. The Right Honourable Gentleman begged leave to move the following resolution as an amendment.— " That all persons who may question any future return of a Mem ber to serve iu Parliament, and, in a petition to the House, shall bring forward any distinct allegations of bribery and corruption, and who shall in such petition allege the payment of any money in furtherance of the election, and with the privity of such Mem ber, since his return ; then, in every such case, it may be lawful to question the election of such Member in twenty-eight day* after such payment, by petition to the Howie, or, if the House be not sitting, in fourteen days after it shall commence its sitting.. Lord MILTON observed that the Resolution of the Right Honourable Gentleman would be even a great improve ment on the present system, and very beneficial. Lord JOHN RUSSELL made some observations in support of the motion of his Noble Friend (Althorpe.) Mr. WYNN said that the question was, where a case came w i t hi n tne scope of the present law respecting contro verted elections, the House should be left at liberty, where. byib evx has been proved, to act as It thought proper, and . give a decision should be final. Mr. ABERCROMBY said that there wgs no dif ference between the Right Honourable Gentleman opposite and his Noble Friend. It appeared to him that the House were una nimous for his Noble Friend. —(No, no, from the Mini s t er i a l s id e. ) Mr. BARING suppor t e d the motion of the Noble Lord. He was convinced that when party feeling ran high in that House, an impartial Committee could not he appointed. Lord ALTHORPE, in reply, said, that the parti cular object he had in view was to afford a facility to the dis franchisement of corrupt boroughs. The Resolution 'of the Right