The Sun. — London, England, 1833-03-13 00:00:00

SPIRIT OF THE PUBLIC JOURNALS. The misappropriation of Queen Anne's Bounty, by Bishops, Deans, and Chapters, was brought be fore the House of Lords last night, by Lord King. The object of this bounty, as every body knows, is the augmentation of small livings, which cannot otherwise be increased, to an amount adequate to the suitable maintenance of incumbents. But, according to Lord King, the Bishops, and Deans and Chapters, applied this bounty to the support of those who served the cures in parishes of which they were the impropriators, in order to avoid paying these in cumbents out of the tithes. His Lordship did not mince the matter in characterizing this offence : He knew not (he said) a more crying abuse than, that the dignitaries of the Church, who were impro priators of the tithes of parishes, and in many in • stances afforded the most miserable pittance to the incumbents, should have these livings augmented by large sums from Qucen Anne's Bounty, and the an nual grant voted by Parliament. He could call this nothing better than obtaining money under false pretences, and those pretences of the moat flagrant and unworthy character. These grants were ob tained under a plea that the livings thus benefited were poor ones, when, in fact, they were rich bene fices with poor paid incumbents." His Lordship stated the particulars of several of these grants, and specified at the same time the holders of the impro priated tithes. Our readers will see that several of the livings are in Wales, and they wilrrecollect a Oiscussioh on a petition from Chester a few days ag►o in the House of Commons, on the same subject. We have received from a correspondent the follow ing communication, which will serve to throw some further light on the subject : " THE CHURCH IN WALES. " To the Editor of the Morning Chronicle. " Sir,—l never was more surprised than in reading an assertion attributed to Mr. W. Wynn, in your report of the discussion that took place on the presentation of a petition by Lord Robert Grosvenor from the Welsh resi dents in Chester, for a reform in the Church in Wales. Lord Robert Grosvenor had stated, that there were many instances in which the fund called Queen Anne's Bounty had been applied to exonerate sinecurists and Bishops from paying the salaries of their curates. To this state bent Mr. Wynn ventured to offer a broad and general denial. ' The Noble Lord (says he) was under a mistake in some part of his statement, for he had stated there were many instances of non-resident clergymen, and of curates who did the, duty being paid out of Queen Anne's Bounty. That was not the case.' "Now, Sir, as specific facts are better than a general Idenial, I will mention a few instances in which this abuse does prevail, and in a most aggravated and disgraceful form. " Gresford, Holt, and Isened, are three parishes in Denbighshire, in which the Dean and Chapter of Win chester enjoy, from tithes and lands, 2,4001. per annum. The Vicar of Gresford, who receives from thence 4001. a year, is the Rev. Heneage Horsley, who lives in Edin burgh. Holt and Iscoed are both served by stipendiary Cu rate,, appointed and paid by the Dean and Chapter : to the Curate of Holt they pay only 201. per annum—but he receives 100/. from Queen Anne's Bounty ! To the Curate of Iscoed they pay nothing!—but he receives 1201. from Queen Anne's Bounty ! This is the case, though 1-lolt and Iscoed, apart from Gresford, pay to the Dean and t_•lrapter 900/. Towyn, and those other parishes in Merionethshire which are annexed to the see of Lichfield, are worth 1,1001., and yet the Bishop pays his three Curates only 201. a piece, and ekes their salaries out from Queen Anne's Bounty ! A petition on this subject has already been advertised in the Shrewsbury Chronicle. " One more instance and I have done. Norton Cha pdry, in Shropshire, worth 600/. per annum, is the pro duce of a lucky speculation with a sum taken from the Bounty Fund, and is enjoyed by the Rev. John Luxrnoore, an absentee, and a brother of the Dean of St. Asaph, who, though an absentee from \Vales, possesses, as very justly stated by Mr. Wilbraham, eleven sources of emolu ment, and most of them derived from that country. The fact is, that throughout North Wales the Bishops and si necurists have almost uniformly resorted to Queen Anne's Bounty, as a means of relieving themselves from ,the pay ment of their own curates. Thus has a charity, meant to provide for the decent support of the poorer clergy, been most fraudulently converted into an instrument for aug menting the wealth of the higher clergy." Lord King summed up by observing, that the two Collegiate Bodies of Winchester and Windsor, with the three Deaneries of Exeter, Carlisle, and Bangor, hail alone received 14,5001. from Queen Anne's Bounty. "It was not to be endured," he added, " that the Deans and Chapters, Registers, and all the other rubbish of Cathedrals, should take so much, more especially, too, of what did not be long to, or never was intended for them. For his part, he could only find one language in which to address them ; he could only say, Get you gone, give place to honest men—men who really work, who are really a pattern, as well by their lives as by their precepts—who know their calling and act up to it.'" The Bishop of London some time ago advanced a justification of the Church, to which the homely phrase of helping a lame dog over a stile might well be applied. He told us that the Church had suffered all such abuses as those specified by Lord King to exist, because the attention of the people had not been called to them ; but that now that they had received an impulse from with out, they were setting their house in order. It never occurred to the Lords Bishops and Deans and Chapters, that there was anything wrong in paying their own curates out of the sums intended for the augmentation of poor livings. But now that the people have enlightened them on the subject, they will set about the Reform with all conceivable vigour. " Before 1831," said the Bishop of London last night, "at which pe riod the Right Rev. Prelate introduced his Bill, they could not legally saddle their estates with any payments except out of the reserved rents, which were very small. The Bishops, therefore, were not able, before the passing of this Bill, to do what their feelings would prompt, without im poverishing themselves, and improperly touching those resources which were absolutely necessary to maintain them in that respectability, station, and dignity, which was becoming the heads of the esta blished religion." There was a lion in the way be fore 1831—their Lordships felt intensely all the while for the poor clergy ; but they buttoned their breeches-pockets close. Charity begins at home, and when the question is, whether a Bishop who occupies two or three palaces, arid keeps a little army of menials, shall keep two servants fewer, and give 201. in addition to each of two or three curates starving on 201. a-year ?—The answer must be easily given. Our readers will, therefore, clearly see the powerful reasons which existed for inducing the Bishops, and Deans and Chapters to allow this abuse to be continued as long as the public would suffer it to be continued, and give them due credit for the deference which they showed to public opinion in 1831. As the Bishop of London well observed, why should Deans and Chapters show any more concern for the souls of the people of the parishes of which they hold the tithes, than if they were lay-impropriators ? " The Noble Lord (King)," said his Lordship, " was not warranted in the language he had uttered about Deans and Chapters—language which was not then heard for the first time." And then followed an allusion to the rebellion—the great rebellion, as it has been termed—which was begun by people " who loved the poor clergy ;" a significant hint to Ministers, that all who wish to relieve poor clergy at the expense of rich clergy, are little better than rebels. The state of the Church in Wales, the abandonment of the people, the violation of an ex press article of the Church of England, which enjoins the service to be read in a langua ge un d er stood by the people, - the appropriation of Q ueen Anne's bounty to livings of which the clergy them selves are impropriators, all proclaim that the very best of men (and we assume' the clergy to be the best) are apt to be biasiiid, when interest calls one way and duty another; and that, if we wish to see the Church effective for the object of diffusing reli gious instruction among the people, other than clerical hands must labour at the task of referm.- li/ermine, Chronicle. IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT. HOUSE OF LORDS, MARCH 12. On the LORD CHANCELLOR taking his seat at five o'clock, Lord KINNOUL presented a petition from Perth, praying for an alteration in the Cuurts of Law in Scotland. - On the petition being read, The LORD CHANCELLOR said that he thought hardly any alteration was necessary in the present system of law proceedings in Scotland, where, be sides many advantages not possessed in England, the Sheriff of each county was a kind of local judge. Us. fortunately many alterations were requisite in the English law, and in a few days he should present a Bill to their Lordships for extending local judication. The Bishop of DURHAM presented a petition for the better observance of the Sabbath. LORD SUFFIELD presented a petition from the Baptist Congregation in St. Mary's-street, Norwich, against Sunday trading. Also another, to the same effect, from Princes street Chapel, Norwich. The Bishop of GLOUCESTER presented a similar pe tition from the parish of Hanbury, in Gloucestershire. Lord STEWART DE ROTHSAY presented a peti tion against the Beer Act. The Earl of RODEN presented a petition from the town of Killaloe, in Mayo, imploring their Lordships to interfere with his Majesty's Ministers, who intended to take away from them their Bishop, from whom they had received so much benefit. The petition stated that the town- was rapidly improving under the fostering care of their Bishop, and the exports yearly increasing. Lord KING presented a petition from a parish in Cork, for the abolition of tithes and Church cess. Also, a si milar one, from the Protestant inhabitants of a parish in Kerry. They stated that they paid a great sum of money under the Composition Act, and received in return neither church, chapel, or pastor. Also a petition from Ashbur ton, in Devon, praying for the abolition of slavery. The Noble Lord said, as he had given notice yesterday, he begged to move for a return of the application of Queen Anne's Bounty. The more he looked into it the more he saw the gross misapplication of that fund. He was glad to see so many of the Rev. Prelates present ; he could not now be accused of bringing forward a question concerning the Church without notice. He hoped to make out such a case before he sat down as to show their Lordships that it was necessary, not only to redress, but that the parties should be obliged to refund. lie would show that many of the heads of the Church, as well as Deans and Chapters, held places of preferment, in which the duty was done by curates, to whom they allowed only a miserable pittance, while they were in the receipt of very large sums collected as tithes. They were told that a very large addition had been made, within a few years, to small benefices. No doubt such had been the case; but where bad the money come from ? Why, very large sums had been taken for that purpose from the fund called Queen Anne's Bounty, and from the Parliamentary grant. That money had been taken under false pretences ; for it had been taken pro fessedly to augment poor livings, while, in fact, it was applied to augment small salaries, not those that were paid to the curates, but to parishes where the impropriators of tithes were drawing large sums. It was taken from that fund, and applied in such a manner, in order to save the pockets of the Rev. Gentlemen, who themselves ought to have paid their own servants. He must say a word or two upon the avoanner in which that fund had been raised. The returns showed that, since the Act passed, only about four millions bad been paid in as first fruits and tenths ; while, if the spirit of the Act had been complied with, ' upwards of thirty millions would have been paid in. Yet the dignitaries of the Church, who had thus avoided pay ing their due share into that fund, drew large sums from it, in order to pay their own curates. The Noble Lord then read from the returns a long statement of the aug mentations made to parishes of which the Deans and Chap ters of Winchester and Windsor were the impropriators. " Dean and Canon of Windsor, impropriator of the following parishes, received from Parliamentary grant and Queen Anne's bounty :—Plymsted, 1811, 6001.; 1812, 400/. ; 1815, 3001. Plymp ton, —, 600/. St. German's, 1811, 800/. ; 1814, 4001. Wembury, 1817, 2001. ; 1816, 1,4004 Northam, 1764, 2001. ; 1812, 4001. South Moulton, 1813, 600/. " Dean and Canon of Winchester, impropriators of tithes of two large parishes in Wales :—Holt, 1725, 2001. ; 1733, 2001. lseoyd, 1749, 2001. ; 1757, 2001. ; 1798, 2001. ; 1818,200/. " Dean of Exeter, impropriator of tithe :—Landkev, 1 77 5, 2001. ; 1810, 2004 ; 1415, 1,400/. Swimbed, 1 7 5 0 , 20(4 . ; 18 - 11, 400/. " Dean and Chapter of Carlisle, impropriators of valuable tithe :—Hesket,lBl3,6oo/. ; 1815, 2,000/. to purchase land; 1816, 300/. ; 1817, 300/. " Dean of Bangor, impropriator of tithe (curate paid 32/. is.) : Gyffin, 1767, 2001. ; 1810, 2001. ; 1816,1,4001. Bishop of Bangor, impropriator of valuable tithe (curate paid 30/. 125.) :—Llandegar, 1812, 2001. ; 1815, 1,6001.; 300/. ; —, 300/. " Bishop of Lichfield,impropriator oflargc tithes in Merioneth shire (curate paid only 271,) :—rallylyr, 1808, 2001. ; 1816, 1,4001. Penal, 1810, 2001." Thus, he said, these returns proved, that for thirteen parishes these Rev. Gentlemen had drawn 14,5001. which ought to have been paid from their own pockets. He was of opinion he had stated enough to show that it was most improper, that so much of the public money had been so misappropriated, in order to save the pockets of Deans, Chancellors, Prebends, Canons, and other rubbish of the cathedrals. The public were willing to cry to these gen tlemen, " Begone, give place to better men, and eat us not up in this manner." They were frequently told that the labourer was worthy of his hire—that he who served the altar should live by the altar. Such were his opinions. He would willingly pay the real working clergyman, but he must say the money was grossly mis :pplied when paid into the bands of those drones of the Establishment that he had named. The Noble Lord then moved for an account of the poor livings in the different dioceses in England and Wales, which had received grants from Queen Anne's Bounty, and from Parliamentary grants, where the tithes belonged to any Dean or Chapter, or "ere annexed to any See. The Bishop of LONDON said that the Governors of Queen Aune's Bounty had voluntarily presented to Par liament a very minute account of their proceedings up to 1826 ; it would therefore only be necessary to continue that account up to the present period, and the Noble Lord would be in possession of all the information which he de sired. He begged to inform the Noble Lord that the Bishops and ecclesiastical bodies who were impropriators stood in precisely the same situation as lay impropriators. A Bishop held his tithes on the same condition as a lay impropriator—namely, to provide a certain sum to the curate, which was generally fixed in the leases, and could not he altered until the leases ran out. That was the con dition in which matters stood until the Archbishop of Can terbury introduced his Bill in 1831. Up to that time the Bishops could not charge the tithes with a higher re muneration for the clergy than was fixed in the leases. If the Bishops had done as the Noble Lord wished them to do they would have been unable to maintain the dignity of their station, which was so necessary, not for their own aggrandizement, but for the interests of religion. The language in which the Noble Lord had indulged with respect to Deans and Chapters, and " all the rubbish of cathedrals," was not new. Precisely the same language had been used before the great rebellirn, by Harry Martin and Sir Harry Vane. He could assure the Noble Lord and the House, that the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty dispensed the funds at their disposal with the ut most impartiality, and that in no instance was any favour shown with respect to livings held by Bishops or ecclesias tical bodies. . . The Bishop of CHESTER had seen a petition, a fac simile of the one lately presented to the other House of Parliament by a Noble Lord, which was full of the grossest misstatements, and displayed an utter ignorance of the whole nature of impropriations. He merely alluded to the circumstance to show with what caution such a state ment ought to be received, and to declare that if ever the opportunity should offer itself, by the presentation of that petition to the House, he should feel it his duty to contro vert its statements in detail, by entering into an explana tion of the circumstances to which it referred. The Earl of HARROWBY rose, not, indeed, to add anything to the statement made by the Right Rev. Pre late (the Bishop of London), which was in his (Lord Harrowby's) estimation complete, but to give his testi mony in favour of that statement, lest it should be sup posed he did not fully concur in it. The Noble Earl de fended the conduct of the governors in their distribution of the Royal bounty. He thought not the least doubt could be entertained with respect to the impropriations which bad fallen so unfortunately under the Noble Baron's lash being precisely similarly situated to lay impropria tions. But whether that were so or not, he (Lord Har rowby) thought it rather bard that the faults of their pre decessors should be visited on the present board. He en tirely agreed with the Right Rev. Prelate that the best mode of meeting the views of the Noble Baron would be to order the production of a copy of the book to which al lusion had been made. _ _ . The Bishop of EXETER did not rise for the purpose of speaking on the general question, but for the sake of doing justice once more to certain individuals who had been particularly adverted to by the •Noble s Baron, and subjected by him to grave charges 7 —he alluded to the Dean and Chapter of Exeter, whom the Noble Baron had that night charged along with others with conduct dis. graceful to themselves and to the church to which they belonged. He had described them as drones—the suckers of the honey of the others who did their duty. It would certainly be in th e r e collection of the House, that he (the Bishop of Exeter) only a few nights ago had satisfactorily shown how innocent those parties were of the charges which bad been alleged against them, and, having done F o, he had hoped that the Noble Baron would not have come down to the House to reiterate those charges, or, at least, would have refrained from bringing them promi nently forward without instituting some inquiry as to their truth. He needed hardly to repeat that they were entirely destitute of foundation. What might be the feelings of the Noble II iron on occasions like the present he (the Bishop of Exeter) knew not, but this he would say, that he for one would rather be esteemed guilty of the greatest abuse of power ever charged—he would not say proved by the Noble Baron—against any individual, than have it said of him that he was in the habit, night after night, like the Noble Baron, of bringing forward unfounded allegations on flimsy and unsubstantial infor mation, and treating that information as if it were really entitled to credit.—(Hear.) Lord KING declared that if he had said anything im proper he was sorry for having done so, but his remarks were not directed so much against the individuals as against the Deanery itself—not against the men but the system. He did not mean, on the other hand, to impute any partiality to the Board, but he wished to know why they and not the impropriators of the parishes were tke parties to reward the curates for the duties they performed? He could only say, that had the knowledge of this appro priation of the funds placed at the disposal of the Board been obtained by Parliament previously to the last grant, that grant never would have been made. With respect to the amendment moved by the Right Rev. Prelate, he had one observation to make, anti that was, to repeat his wish that the separation specified in his motion should be made from the whole mass of the information. The Bishop of LONDON said thatt if the Noble Baron would not agree to have a return of all the parishes held iiy inspropriators, he should feel it his duty to divide the House upon the question•. Lord KING said, his only objection to that was the difficulty which would thereby be occasioned, in getting at the particular information he required, in so large a mass.—(Hear.) Lord ELLENIIOROUGH thought the motion should be withdrawn, and another of a more general nature sub stituted in its place. Lord WHARNCLIFFE denied that the Noble Baron (Lord King) had shown how any distinction could be drawn between the clerical and lay impropriations in the present instance. Besides, who could assume the power of alienating any part of the revenues of the deaneries in question ? He (Lord Wharncliffe) thought the Noble Baron would find it a difficult task to show that any per son possessed that power. He contended that the clerical impropriators bad no more failed in their duty than the lay impropriators. Earl GREY did not rise for the purpose of defending the conduct of the Governors of the Royal bounty,—the Right Rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) had absolved him from that task,—but to say a few words with respect to the nature of the question which was before the House, which, in its present form, he thought open to objection, inasmuch as it would place the parties to whom it referred in an invidious position. No distinction whatever, it ap peared to him (Earl Grey), would, by the motion in its present shape, be made with respect to those clerical persons standing in the situation of lay impropriators. He would suggest the propriety of having those returns which were already completed up to 1826 laid on the table, ac companied by returns from that period up to the present time. This would render the information complete ; but if the motion were persisted in in its present form, he (Lord Grey) should feel bound to votefor the Right Rev. Prelate's amendment. The LORD CHANCELLOR said it would be much more convenient to the House, as well as to the officers who would have to compile the information, and it would be infinitely the best mode for rendering that information clear and distinct, for the Noble Baron to withdraw his motion, and ask for the production of the returns up to 1826, which were in existence, accompanied by others which would carry the information he sought down to the present period. By this means the whole object of his motion would be attained. He would not advise the alteration of the motion, so as to reduce it to a different shape, as he was convinced that would be attended with considerable difficulty, but would recommend its entire withdrawal. Lord KING ultimately withdrew his motion, with the intention of submitting another in its stead on Thursday next. The Duke of RICHMOND presented two petitions against slavery from places in Sussex and Bedfordshire. The Archbishop of CANTERBURY presented two petitions from Gravesend and Bath, for the better observ ance of the Sabbath. The Bishop of LONDON presented petitions for the better observance of the Sabbath, from St. Albans ; from a place in Essex ; from the congregation of the Episcopal Chapel in Chelsea ; and some other places.—Adjourned. R 0 USE OF COMM ONS, MARcH 12. Owing to the ballot upon the Ennis borough election petition, the gallery was not opened until five minutes after five, when the rush that took place to obtain seats for some time rendered the proceedings inaudible. An Box. MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, pre • dented a petition from Limerick, complaining of abuses in the corporation of that city.—Referred to the Committee on Corporations. Mr. B. HALL presented several petitions from New port, Monmouthshire, and Monmouth, for the abolition of slavery, and for the repeal of the Septennial Act, and vote by ballot.—They were ordered to lie on the table. Colonel PERCEVAL presented a petition front Thomas Baker, stating that be had presented a petition complain ing of an undue return for Sligo, but that from some mis take the recognizances had not reached the Speaker's hands, and praying for further tinte.--Otdered to lie on the table. Mr. O'CONNELL moved that certain papers presented last night, or this morning, relative to disturbances in Ireland, be printed.—Ordered. Mr. WILKS moved that certain returnn, relative to the Courts of Requests of London and Westminster, pre sented last night, be printed.—Ordered. ACCOMMODATION FOR REPORTERS. Captain BERKELEY gave notice that on the 25th of March he intended to move that it be expedient to appropriate a part of the gallery, or some other portion of the House, for the accommodation of Reporters for tl e public Press,—the Reporters being subject to such re gulations as the House should think proper to make.— (Loud cries of " Hear, hear.") BRIBERY AT LIVERPOOL ELECTIONS. Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, as the House were about to appoint a Committee upon the subject of bribery at the elections for Liverpool, and as it was desirable that the Committee should be appointed by lot, he thought it advisable that be should state the man ner in which it should be carried into effect.— (Hear.) It was not necessary for him to say any thing upon the particular case of Liverpool, because the House had decided on a former day, that it was a case that called for inquiry. It was a precedent of great importance which was now to be set up with regard to an inquiry into bribery and corruption ; and it might be useful if he stated generally what was the view which he had always taken, and which he should now recommend to the Howe. Anciently, and by the constitution of the House, when inquiries of that kind were caused, they were referred to a Committee of Privileges, consisting of the whole, or nearly the whole, of the House. There were many cases, not long after the revolution,' in which that course had been pursued. There was one memo rable instance of Sir Edward Seymour, who charged a person, named Shepherd, in r e spect of four boroughs, with endeavouring to carry an election by bribery—that case was referred to a Committee of Privileges, Sir Edward Seymour acting as chairman. The House resolved that he had made good his charge, and the Speaker was di rected to return him the thanks of the House, which he did, declaring that although Sir Edward Seymour's ancestors had rendered their country great service in the army and navy, there could be no greater service than that rendered by Sir Edward himself, by which he had restored the constitution of that House. By the passing of the Grenville Act, however, that sort of inquiry fell into disuse. The consequence was, that in a great many cases acts deeply affecting the constitution of the House, and the re presentation and character of the country, were com promised and concealed from public view. In many cases, where one party succeeded by bribery, and an other party was the petitioner, the former bribed the latter not to proceed with the charge of bribery. That had notoriously happened in many instances, and he could mention one because he had been concerned in it himself, namely, Grampound, in which the Committee only sat a single day, their opinion being that the return was a good one, and that the petition was neither frivo lous nor vexatious. The time had now come when sup pressions of the kind he had adverted to ought no longer to be continued, and when, if it was wished to put an end.to bribery, the only effectual course of doing so would be to enter into inquiries as to the cause of it. The method in which he proposed to do this was, instead of having the inquiry at the bar of that House, which was an inquiry of a desultory nature, and in which it was' almost impos • Bible to get at the truth from the manner in which the inquiries were answered, and the party feeling that existed in the examination—he proposed, that instead of pursuing that method, a Select Committee should be appointed for any place the House might think proper to inquire into. The proposition of hie Hon. Friend the Member for Wiltshire was that the Committee should be named by the party bringing forward the inquiry. That he (the Noble Lord) did not consider altogether a proper course to be adopted. He should therefore propose that the Committee should be named by lot, with the distinction that instead of 11, 13 should be chosen— that instead of 33, only 21 should be chosen, striking eight off. Many gentlemen, lie knew, had objections to there being any struck off. He (the Noble Lord) did not think any great advantage would be derived from it, but as there might be many persons appointed on the Committee in favour of the borough against which the inquiry might be instituted, it might be as well to continue the adoption of that course. He should therefore propose that two persons should he nominated to assist the Committee in striking off the eight Members, and in the present instance he should propose his Hon. Friend, the Member for Wiltshire, and the Noble Lord, the Member . for Liverpool, who would have the power of striking off four each. The Committee being thus chosen, they would elect their own Chairman, and proceed with the severalinquiries submitted to thcm,making such report to the House as it might legislate upon. Ile begged, however, to observe that this would not be final, as any Bill might he introduced contrary to their report. He would not now state what the nature of any Bill that might he introduced might be. The present was a subject of considerable importance, as he considered it the duty of the House not to allow those scenes of bribery and cor ruption which had been continued and augmented in a most unprecedented manner.—(Heals) It was the duty of the House, therefore, to take care that any inquiry that was instituted, with respect to any case of bribery or corruption, should be a most effectual one. The Noble Lord concluded by moving the following resolution : That two Members be named by the House, that 21 Members be chosen by lot from Members then present in the House, with such exceptions as the House should admit, and thst the two Members named, as aforesaid, shall have the liberty to strike off each four of the said 21 —that the remaining 13, with the two named by the House, constitute a Committee on the Liverpool petition. The SPEAKER then put the question. Mr. R. WASON said there would be a great inconve nience resulting from two individuals being named for the purpose of striking off each four from the twenty-one bal loted for. He, for example, had for the last four years been exerting himself for the purpose of putting down corruption in Liverpool, and he had no doubt the Noble Lord (Sandon) who had been returned for that borough, would immediately strike off him (Mr. R. Wason) from the list, while he (Mr. W.) would at least be as efficient a Member of the Committee as those who knew nothing at all of the matter.—(A laugh.) The fact was, if they wanted to get at the root of the evil, the only way was to have the very best men in the Committee. The proposal to strike off any of those who were balloted for would altogether defeat their end. Mr. O'CONNELL hoped this amendment would be acceded to. Undoubtedly the Noble Lord deserved the gratitude of the House for bringing forward this motion, and setting an example that be (Mr. O'Connell) trusted would be followed, of a determination fairly to meet existing abuses. Hitherto there had been no stimulant whatever, to bring before the House cases of unsuccessful bribery. He knew many cases in which the unsuccessful candidate should have been charged with bribery, and who, if he had been returned, must have been unseated on that ground. He particularly alluded to the case of Tralee, which was represented in that House by a relation of his own—(Hear, hear, hear)—the unsuccessful candidate for which, had been guilty of the grossest bribery. He regretted that the law in its present state did not contemplate such cases. According to the information daily received, the most complicated system of the grossest bribery existed in Liverpool in the choice of all municipal officers. The most immoral of all possible scenes frequently occurred, and it might he said that parties who ought to have been in the dock in consequence of bribery and corruption, were now on the bench deciding against knaves of much smaller di mensions than themselves. There would be great incon venience in the Noble Lord's proposition for two to strike off four each from the twenty-one balloted for. The ballot gave a fair chance of an impartial Committee to all the public. There was no advantage in it to either side. It was perfectly fair. He hoped the Noble Lord would think of this. If there was any indi vidual more anxious or more qualified than another to sift evidence, or elicit facts, the consequence of the Noble Lord's proposition would be that that individual would be struck off. Corruption of the most complicated nature had prevailed for a great many years in the Corporation of Liverpool, and it was absolutely necessary, in that as in every other instance, that the Committee should comprehend Members of the most extensive and intimate acquaintance with the facts of the case before them. The Committee might with propriety be increased to fifteen, or else the whole twenty-one balloted for should remain. If this proposition of the Hon: Member for Ipswich (Mr. Wason), could not be acceded to, he (Mr. O'Connell), should deem it proper to take the sense of the House open it. Mr. WARBURTON complained that another inconve nience would arise from the Noble Lord's proposition. According to that proposition, only Members then pre sent in the House, when their names were called, should constitute the Committee. Now it was well known that when there was any particular question on which a Com mittee was to be appointed, what was called a " whip" took place in that House. A great many were present, or absented themselves, or attended from friend ship to those by whom the Committee was promoted.— (Hear, hear.) He hoped, therefore, the Noble Lord would consent to extend the provision to all Members who had not leave of absence, or were not employed in the service of other Election Committees. Mr. A. BARING said that that was a qu,stion of the greatest importance to this House. No doubt, if it merely concerned the town of Liverpool, they would be anxious that nothing but what was just should be done; but when they came to consider that they were now setting a prece dent for a ❑ew species of legislation on this subject, they must take care thatino injustice was done—that they did not adopt a course which would lead to inconvenience at future times. If it were requisite to adopt any general rule upon this subject, they ought to adopt it upon a consideration of general principles, and not upon the particular case taf Liverpool alone. With respect to the practice of bribery, there could be no doubt of their all being interested in, as well as desirous of putting it down, by all the means in their power. No gentleman could object abstractedly to the proposed regulations ; but the question was, whether the form in which they were about to set this precedent was the most convenient which could be adopted ?--(Hear, hear.) Were they in all cases to proceed in the manner it was now proposed they should do? Under the Grenville Act, which now regulated their practice, a Member who was proved to have obtained his seat by bribery, was compelled to vacate his seat; but here the charge could have no such result; and was it not too much to call upon the House to go back and examine what took place at two or three elections past? Here no specific charge was broughtlagainst a Member, or his agent, with a view to unseat that Member, but a simple vague charge of bribery with re• spect to the town of Liverpool. Would the Noble Lord opposite (Lord John Russell) tell him what he understood by this precedent, which, in his judgment, would be at tended with the greatest possible inconvenience? As the Noble Lord patronized this measure, be (Mr. B.) supposed that it was in conformity with the legislation upon this subject, which be intended shortly to recommend to the Home. Did the Noble Lord mean to propose that upon every allegation of bribery a Committee should have a right to be ordered by the House to inquire into it ? Again, were the persons who made such allegations to be made to enter into such securities to pay the charges and expenses of those who might be summoned to give their attendance at the bar of this House ? On the other band, if the ap pointment of a Committee were not to be a matter of right, but was to rest in the discretion of the majority of that House, the greatest injustice might be committed. It was not too much to suppose that all petitions and complaints against any number of the minority of this House would be listened to, and have Committees ap pointed to investigate their foundation ; whereas, peti tions and complaints against any Member of the majority would at once be dismissed as 'frivolous.—(Hear.) If the House would not open a door to partiality of this kind, it must refer all petitions to a Committee for investigation. In the present instance it was his wish to call the atten tion of the House to the awkward position Hon. Mem bers were placing themselves in in departing from the principles of proceedings appointed by this species of offence ; and if they were to suc ceed in establishing the precedent attempted, it would be attended with the greatest inconvenience to indi viduals. In the present instance, he knew nothing about the particular case of Liverpool, whether there bad been bribery or not, nor bad he the slightest wish to shelter either one person or another, if they be found guilty of what they had been accused. It was important to inquire here who was to defend the parties accused. The Noble Lord had said the accusers were persons of great wealth, and able and willing to prosecute the inquiry ; but who was to defend the poor men who were accused ? They had been represented as persons of small means, and as being in an inferior situation of life, and in what way were those individuals to be compensated if they were not guilty—in what way was the expense of their defence to be defrayed upon an accusation against them—not as a body, but individually—for acts of bribery or which each individual would have to defend himself, and the means of defence must be provided ? After all, what was to be the result? Suppose it was to be proved there had been bribery in Liverpool, he (the Hon. Member) took for granted no Hon. Gentleman had it in con templation to disfranchise the borough of Liverpool. —(Hear.) If there had been bribery, the bribery must have been by freemen formerly, a large number of whom were now ten-pound householders, and entitled to vote, and the only consequence would be that the _ . Noble Lord had invested the franchise in iinpropzr per-. sons—a condemnation of his own Reform Bill, and which, in all probability, would apply to other places as well as to Liverpool.—(Hear.) If this was the Noble Lord's view, and it was his intention to found some correction upon it of the Reform Bill, that would be another thing, and might, perhaps, lead to some useful purpose. But the course the Noble Lord proposed was one of the greatest importance as it regarded precedent which, if once set, must be followed, and which it re quired the House to look well to. Mr. BENETT could not let a part of the Hon. Member's speech pass without making a remark upon it. He would ask who was to defend the poor men ? He (Mr. Benett) could assure the Hon. Member that there was money enough in the hands of the corporation, and which no doubt would be - applied in defraying the expenses of those individuals.—(Hear, hear, hear.) There were plenty of persons who would be ready enough to undertake the defence of those freemen, for they were the tools of the corporation. They were the tools upon which the corporation had worked before, and upon which they had worked now, and the Hon. Member might rest satisfied they would not now be deserted. With regard to the observation of the Hon. Member for Bridport respecting the mode of making up the Committees, for his own part, he did not see how it was possible for gentlemen to be upon a Committee of this sort, except selected from amongst those who were present when the ballot was taken, and who answered to their names. Sir R. PEEL said the Hon. Member who had just sat down, in reply to the very question of the lion. Member near him, had said that the corporation funds would be applied in defending those who, from poverty, were unable to defend themselves. He (Sir R. Peel) doubted whether the corporation of Liverpool could apply a single shilling of the corporation funds in any such -way. The House would recollect, that during the last session the Act was passed of the 2d and 3d of William IV., cap. 69, for the express purpose of preventing corporate funds being applied to election purposes, and if the House supposed the corporation funds could be now applied to such a purpose, that would be neither more nor less than virtually sanctioning the abrogation of that Act of Par liament.--(Hear, hear.) He would advise the treasurer of the corporation, or whoever the officer might be of the Liverpool corporation, to take care how be issued money for this purpose. Mr. WASON could tell the Right Hon. Baronet that the corporation of Liverpool hail only last year incurred a debt of no less than 1,200/. in defending for bribery, and that that sum was paid by the treasurer of the corporation. --(Hear, hear.) The expense of last year was paid, and he had no doubt this year's expense would be paid, by the corporation. Mr. W. PATTEN made an observation which was not audible in the gallery. Mr. HUME said, there could not be any thing more clear than that which the Right Hon. Baronet had stated ; because, after all the discussio❑ which had taken place upon this subject during the last three or four years, no body could doubt that the application of corporate funds to election purposes must be illegal; and if the corpora tion of Liverpool had paid 1,200/. in this respect ; as the Hon. Member opposite had stated, he (Mr. H.) would advise some of the burgesses to bring an action against the corporation for the recovery back of that money—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—because he was quite sure that an action would lie, and that the corporation ought to be punished for it. With regard to the expense attending this inquiry, he held that it would be money well expended in behalf of the public to apply whatever sum might be necessary to institute and to carry on the inquiry, if it was likely that inquiry would, as lie hoped, put an end to bri bery.—(Hear.) He rose particularly to notice an obser vation made by the Hon. Member for Bridport. It ap peared to him (Mr. H.) that if they proceeded to a ballot with one-third of the Members of the House present, it would not be at all fair. He concurred entirely that the ballot should be made of the whole of the Members, and that every Member whose name came up, if he had not an excuse for attending, should be bound to serve. He would go further, and say, that the House ought to pass a regulation to compel the attendance of Members on such an occasion. It appeared to be understood that it was often to the interests of both parties to stifle inquiry, and the object of the Noble Lord was that no such compromise would be showed. He (Mr. Hume) knew of one instance besides those which had been related, in which that com promise had been effected, because the party accusing knew that he had been himself as deep in the mire as his opponent. The objections of the Hun. Member for Essex were not at all applicable to the present case. He con sidered, that so far from the necessity of any fear of the present proceeding being a precedent, it would be a pre cedent in order that parties might know if they were guilty of similar acts of bribery and corruption, and were discovered, they would most assuredly be punished. He entirely concurred in the present motion ; and he sug gested to the Hon. Member for Ipswich - (Mr. Wason) to withdraw his amendment, in order that the amendment of his Hon. Friend the Member for Bridport (Mr. Warbur- ton) might be embodied in the motion ; for there was no reason why those names of the Committee who were chosen should not remain on the Committee. Mr. WARBURTON said he understood that the Hon. Member for Ipswich would not press his amendment, and therefore he would propose that some words of the motion he omitted, and that it be so altered as to except from the Committee those Members who had not leave of absence, or who were not already on Committees. The SPEAKER having put the motion and the amend ment, Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY said he did not intend to put himself forward as a great political economist, but if the present proceedings were allowed, he predicted that the proposition of the Noble Lord (Althorp) for his esti mates for the present year would fall short.—( Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend had stated that there would lie no ex pense attendant on a Committee, but the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesex had stated, that if the public were bound to pay altogether the expense of the inquiry, he should think the money well laid out. He would tell the Hon. Member for Middlesex that the moment the public entered into inquiries of this sort there would be nu end to them.—( Hear, hear.) There would be no defeated candidate of any description who would not come to the House with a petition, praying an inquiry into the bribery that had taken place in the case of his own election. He could therefore not agree to the proposition of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, that the public should be called upon to pay those expenses. That lion. Member had !voted that this had nothing at all to do with the Gren ville Act. He (Sir J. W.) considered that it had a great deal to do with it. He thought the Grenville Act pecu liarly adapted to the very question now before the House; and although in the case of Grampound the seat was not affected, yet the House were informed that bribery to a great extent had taken place there, and acted accordingly. There were great objections, in his view of the case, to the adoption of the course proposed by the Noble Lori. The old rules of the House would be put an end to by it, the protection which was afforded by those rules would be altogether useless, and a door would be opened by means of it, which the House would, in a short time, have occa sion to repent of. What species of tribunal, he would ask, was it which the Noble Lord intended to constitute by this measure? Were the members of the Committee to be compelled to attend ? Wou:d it be necessary to have all the Members present, or what number did the Noble Lord intend should form a quorum? He thought that all those inquiries should be answered before the matter was allowed to proceed farther. It had been said, however, that the petitioners in the present case were men of wealth, and would pay the expense of the inquiry themselves. That might be all very true; but it must be apparent to the House that by the adoption of the mea suuproen tproposed l by withoutthe halfe L theo r d ev p i d e r e s n o c n e s might their bfea favour being gone into. Mr. D. W. HARVEY considered that, it having been decided amg b ae yai measure against e e ir o House poo ns eetdh materialab that a t n h inquiry Nobleu ir objectiony L w o a r s id ht,tas whiche e ri e ! dfa e i s s fdo s t a rph r hto y ehet , u t itei l t i xae e dr question now was what was the best mode of instituting t. e t that inquiry ? If he bad been in the House when the me e rits of the Liverpoolori case onsnst trthkuai tnve h gi had gopf f a b per e ri t e ot nhvoei of it, r eei o dit g h t r before four A i , e m h should certainly have been one of those who would have Members ufo c t from the Committee, who ought vtbwenooleouurtttnse:hditoe properly, rf oionp, fheeteruhle yosisseei resolution toyol whatever for having so many con sider there was any necessity as 21 Members. He begged : , leave to suggest that the Committee should be restricted to 15 ; tliat their attend : ance should be regular and coercive under this inquiry, ; as well as under the Grenville Act.—(Hear.) He hoped ; the Hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) would ... 1 /Hasse ll ) adopt this suggestion, and that the Noble I' m. " ' n ---sw would t a k e care to make some provision for insuri g Tni f larity of attendance by the Committee. Most issoofru"rj:e the selection in the way proposed, of four by ace o' ' c O r parties, would be the means of leading to great 0 nicnce and abuse. as pool.As I p r. e . c i \ Hti V ec Y al N ti yh N o did taingdi, t s ot n hl eoeityienoavnffes:itcditgei sitg:tiniel eivpbrboeisrcoehnutgi th p r ivo o n :_ 3 l ,: le ti : ei , proposed to institute should have been gone into rue the passing of the Reform Bill, especially bad been prepared for it by the report of the muchS e llec be lfi tee w r mittee on this subject. It would have been oo°4 if the i n quiry had_ been made before the future cone 1 ,00 , of that borough (Liverpool) had been definitively and ° tip; fixed. The Noble Lord had said that this was all' wo o precedent for future inquiry into any elections whe re __ ,i O O ' , opposed or alleged that undue influence or 00r"_P ee ig to O tte. (Ifadalneey•einnitriisveidd.ualsllew(itAhloru. tWpryernsno)ntallerpersepcoantesdibZalwioi, tutu such an inquiry before an unsworn C"firforthe .ording to Different plans had been at different times pr opose° ford trial of contested elections but none had been found s° e j as in former times, when the Committee o fPrivil".. e e d o c. as that which at present prevailed. If the whole Bouse91:00, misted of the whole House, questions would be decoLeed it must be clear that if there did not exist the pon__ o l str ik i n g off from the number of anv Committee or Toinuge there would be a great chance of a prejudiced man u pe t t he party feeling and not upon their merits. reed judge.—(Hear, hear.) It was for this reason tu r a io to power was given to both parties in a court of P e If Tike off a certain number of names from the ju l t t i o se that were not done here the decision of election 1 tbi s as 0et_00...; would be thrown into the hands of the tnajoriti ° t oo House which would feel itself at liberty to vote upon o i questions in the same manner as it did upon o t . b ers 'heo l . allow their feelings of party or of affection to guide l re He asked whether an instance would be found whe Mors charge had been brought against an individual either 0, a Committee or before the House without tire Prl os e. cused being allowed to be heard by himself or °toil His Noble Friend (Lord Sandon ) was undoubtedlY e",bit a b g y na,ic a nese t t, n ut aj nh o go r si i en ty oti t il i li f : vote s, nwuht:): a v n eor d fe i yac t ocßrer:rlutla)itorsiflpyepedifiidasena o i aly t i :l i i pe l : ooo ,, tp spr(tir•smon,tie.atendtyoi proceedings such ers o : n a t s : i s li s r a o t k i c i e l i e: d d e i n n t g: ) e r a i b s t e v d t e l r i a e e s present.indu ced t br i e h 1:1;0W rri; which might perhaps fall to the ground . In a " Ittl a broug Lord JOHN r J e O se l n i t N pla ß n U , SaSndELifLthweasHnolout.sepatriitoicu.uglhartlyprjooteets- crileti ht there ought to be reserved some poWe b r e ° ;:ofe.. :o bi:mg adopt any other, he should not be disconteurer,.kil names off. As to the general resolutions, . h a ne he was opposed to any thing of that sort, Wh.l e , adopted, d a : v l e ). tt t .e l : in : a(C,Laopff:porpeniomec:iiatinalaNtvtmnit:aeoirni while uEtidnt should E r ic : i o t time of Committees binding w t I:27:: er r : Sir R. PEEL said, that if the present 1 0 °,, ti° he ri so o° . „ . at end, and they would thus lose the best tribuool - they possessed. d ot wh(F,tivi,olielein L recnet o ßlhi r eose d initrvit: A alrol LTf I Committee oll shouldobserved, )r t s l i i , a o t u l the d n q o u t e s b t e i o a t; r..,, 8g 7 - 00 re (l b ; lect ir b ow e ne e a : p s i :: i i nitpnyt Committees : I t : vl ey : 9 B.t ° e l : recollected that the nominees in ' the) resent c a°- roiS/ 1 ttee now proposed only reported to the House; lu s bate n t ti l too l l o ott' s i t bniets b ws e :av) allow n e cl a l ttEt t e p w o l must then n h 'fi e .tht l h teard proceeding it was not necessary to bear Coun, s°. ce ; :Of were brought la , - i la 19 , fixed r" c o lis : e : sae ng sst a l l 'o l 3la i : 13 : l c i: s ' loittaCluteiol it. .t:1 1 mifialitnibtatoiel evn that:ewi enli:rjecy3:::::a'tig:ilet i l l: 1 - f tib r t etn hi: Lord SANDON complained that no O l e been established with respect to the numbers a n rtoo" — n o reittee—the numbers requisite to form a e tt entl,e" whether or not there should be any compulsori a , 3 VI from day to day, or otherwise. He thought tbettr, mittee so appointed would be a tribunal of inign'bi obj.etea to his being one of the persons notniaaribetei7o House, as he was interested in the election, an'troted was placed m a peculiar situation. He en- ,„ -- coins House, before they cleated the present maehitt er i o ' ' out explicitly how this casual Committee ‘ s? guided in its proceedins.—(Question.) Arent' Mr. R. WASON then withdrew his amen-- or On the original question being put, no Pe - Mr. C. W 60 . WYNN remarked, that there was or "0 provided by the Act for non-attendance on lec- ; jo t mittees. Cot ° d osifw S ut i hl r dir ß hte . aep P np E epn F e l tr L hsoa w r o u aw l f d teer s re u phapapovsii,enogitil,igtaeotdn,aefttielarl the tb ict i! renbedl e rygel t,o uti. .0 1 deuce, one or more of that Committee shoal" n sing 1- ,0 to attend a regular Election Committee. S u Pr ° ce °r a ease, would there be a penalty for non-attendaa 'Job° the House the power to excuse them? tie ..e/ whether the House possessed that power. POOP t M R. OO. An Hose. MEBE apprehended that the bore some analogy with gentlemen in office. ~',01; excused from non-attendance on Election on he thought the House could also excuse P era°Pe Committee. ne t 4 0 „ Sir R. PEEL remarked, that the analogy °Woo perfect, as Ministers were under the obligation 00 Mr. R. WAGON was of opinion that no rerrerbsll:o4 Committee should be required to attend any a t-- Diet t o Lord JOHN RUSSELL thought that a s „ o il Tis serving on regular Election Committees were a e- bo ol°,o attending this, so Members on this Commit tee : 0 " excused from serving on any other. The ca rne - to apply to both cases. AN The original question was then agreed to. e tlok Lord JOHN RUSSELL said the next t' - fl, t o that the House should appoint two nominee.' iv l' A ir two words to address to the Noble Lord ope-ttottve Sandell). He begged to say, that in pror' i l i g to e ble Lord originally he was not to blame , as - :f the, 11 that there was no serious objection on the part ." ore" tile Lord. If any oth e r Hon. Member was - if should be glad of it. t eta Lord SANDON said, in explanation, that i s , rdif did not see any objection to his being one of t o e o b I chosen by the House; but that on considers° (Oho, fore,bif e iei e s l ils t rt l oe l b e dpeeg o rug h p j e e iodf c n t a i t o noi n ty. s d e h ocn e lHien l o t e a ow d ftebvet a eh l rn r e, e o a mbp d eie y nr st !i oht ( in i oo i it n ni gt,caidlp,:opouoiteitijos s r , : , D ahi t o 1 0 sl4y te ts .d House were a lawyer, to aid the inquiries shoothea a r t e made by his professional acumen. He bad s r t ° 10 ° 0 the matter to the Hon. Member for Devonl )° ,,,, r- e 'ots%,f, fused on the ground of professional engage d feared that other professional gentlemen ' l. ; thtii upon similar grounds. He was glad to pt. h o f Hon Friend near him, the Member for Card iw asscV, moment offered his services. Before be s° ,o o ' i . would mention that he held in his hand a p"f t eee ) Si i i the Corporation of Liverpool, in behalf of th e ct oot l it that town, praying to be beard before the P r n ortU ill mittee, which lie should take the proper opr moving. Die' tr iJ Lord J. RUSSELL then proposed that no io and Mr. J. Nichol! be the two nomine es I, that House. r igh t tg i „ ll Mr. BENETT said that he also had a ~,,, ted Oo tr, plain of being nominated, as he was int2';beslicetif L,lpinanoiewovsAnresyiteirebipiolooefur J. l ip.itoha e Nan l e e lsyia c tcl‘ t ilsv i ie o heuyie n oeo,oru) . nt,iLie,ilLdh T s.:sr h d , o ,p u r g o h m h i s e e d o b h j e e c‘tveodu i t d o 0 h is I further the inquiries demanded. 00 0 1 4 An HON. MEMBER objected to the aPl l°- , if , thing to do with the Committee. a ev i(d e L a at tn uh d ga a ht tptleharr:l:uylogees proposed b di b a r d: tt : i e - ' e : i s, ob c o e ii i i ! s l °l :l lj i'' the mystification of lawyers, and wished " te IV A adequate to the appointment, be would n - JP' the duties of it. /3,00 an .' It was then agreed to, that Mr. foll r ii, Nicholl be of the Committee. to .. 1 ,.. A ballot was then proceeded to, vi be° o oral fr ip i‘ n i a r m . e ß s w A e . re Ocshwoaselini,:—Llkr.lr.:lexiai:deir, 13 :: 13 m i k rd a C. Langdale, Mr. E. G. Hornby, Mr' % . Dlr., V Thomson, Sir H. Verney, Mr. J. Air' '- ixy li .eo, ett, J .,: t oral i Barnard, Lord Dudley Coutts Stuart, ootan nell, Mr. Josiah Wedgewood, Mr. Ting uas ter 11°%ft/ R. Wason objected to the name of the hlt barge tees ber, as his election was disputed on theee_ed t o 1 1 perjury and corruption.—The Speaker begg ed c ooed, the Hon. Gentleman, that such a rem s tl o , o tiePoi with bad grace from him; and that 11 ",:„ 0 0 IV no use, unless he meant to found a motng l is r fen t f ~ G. Williams, Mr. Ed. Curteis, Mr. kes v i , foo tish',6 W. Turner, Mr. B. Handley, and Mr. J•Z in besl l Lord SANDON presented a P et ! ti°n r:r thee ' s tion of the town of Liverpool, praying 0'0( C 'ri p i Mr. EDWARD ELLICE moved for 1 . f ate . '1 4 who inig e i r a Bill to indemnify certain parties beard nat da i, di b nu y ps t (u) h .p e p i t r obret Counselof table. tte their before i itehgeoC. o mi t t n i give evidence relative to the circurnstanf,,eo ssorl lion for the borough of Stafford. It 11' _ l .. i 7 i e a 0 14 1 that an almost universal corruption prev!witree, BOROUGH OF STAFFORD rough during the late electioo; and a CAn t "_ ni olc . e . o consequently appointed by the House, ( i. to DP into the subject, which Was, he believe°, .EL.eittee :Irv.