The Express.
London, England, 1853-05-04 00:00:00

FOREIGN REFUGEES..

Mr. PHINN asked whether any directions or instruc-
tions had been given, or any warrant issued, by the Secre-
tary of State, since the accession of the present government,
authorising the opening of the letters of foreign refugees in
England. _ . .

Viscount PALMERSTON—No each Instructions or
orders have been given ; and as far as my knowledge ex-
tends, no letter addressed to that individual—for of course
I know who is alluded to—(hear, hear)—has been opened ;
nor has any letter addressed to any foreirn refugee, as far
as lam informed. This has certainly not been done since
we were in office, nor am I aware that it has been done at
all. (Cheep.)

THE COUNTY FRANCHISE.
Mr. L. KING, in moving for leave to bring in a bill to
make the franchise in countie• in England and Wales the
same as that in boroughs, said that the principle had been
so frequently sanctioned by the house that he could not
doubt that they would now affirm it. He regretted that
the measure bad not been carried before the lath dissolution.
He now brought forward the question under more favour.
able circumstances, many new members not being pledged
against it. He also brought it forward nutlet the auspices
of a government of progress, who had introduced a budget
which had shown the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be a
worthy successor of Sir Robert Peel. (Hear, hear.) He
had no doubt the clue of electors whom the bill proposed
to create would be supporters of free trade measures. He
hoped he should not be told that this wan not
the season for introducing such a measure, be-
cause tkby had a promise of reform from the
government. He was sick of such promises. One
of those promises of the noble lord had been ful-
filled in such a way that the country would rather
it had not been earned out at all. (Hear, hear.) He
hoped the government would not oppose the introduction
of the bill.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not mean to enter into
the discussion of the question before the house. (Hear,
hear.) It must be evident to the house that the extension
of the borough franchise to counties, which would make a
great change in the franchise, was a question connected
with the whole system of representation in this country.
It was a matter, therefore, which should not be taken up
lightly. Whether the change proposed was good or bad,
whether it was advisable or otherwise, it was a change of
great importance, and would affect the representation of
that house to a considerable extent. (Hear, hear.) Such
being the cue, and seeing,that with the important measures
before the house, it would be impossible to introduce such e
bill without discussing the whole question of the represen-
tation and interfering with other important subjects, he
thought it would be better not to raise that question at the
present time. (Hear, hear.) Ho could only say that the
present government were disposed to consider the whole
sn'Aject of the representation. (Hear, hear.) They were
duly impressed with its importance, and when they brought
the question forward it would be at a time and in a manner
to occupy the serious attention of the house. (Hear, hear.)
Sir DE L. EVANS thought that after what had taken
place heretofore with regard to this question, his hon.
friend had no option but to bring it forward again in the
present session. (Hear, hear.) He trusted, however, that
under present circumstances he would not press it to a divi-
sion. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME said that his hon. friend only did what he
promised in submitting the question again to the house;
bnt after the pledge of the noble lord, and the declarations
of the government en the subject of the representation, he
thought his hon. friend would do wisely in not p 'ng the
motion to a division, because a division, under present cir-
cumstances, would not indicate the feeling of the house.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HADFIELD said that in a population of 27,000,000
a majority of the representatives was returned by 174,000
electors. That was a state of things which could not con-
tinue long without a remedy. (Hear.)
Mr. L. KING said that, after what had fallen from his
friends who always supported the motion, he would not
press it. (Hear, hear.)
The motion was then withdrawn.
SIR F. SMITH AND THE CIIATHAM ELECTION.
Sir J. SHELLEY having called attention to the fillow-
ing standing order of the house—" That, if it shall appear
that any person bath been elected or returned a member of
this house, or endeavoured so to be, by bribery or any
other corrupt practices, this house will proceed with the
utmost severity against all each persons es shall have been
wilfully concerned in such bribery or other corrupt practices"
and to the following resolution of the Chatham election
committee--" That it was proved to the committee that
Joseph Greathead, an elector of Chatham, had been bribed
by a situation as a letter-carrier in the Post-oflice obtained
for his son Charles Greathead, by Sir John Mark Frederic
Smith ; " rose to move, that the Attorney-General be
directed to prosecute the said Sir John Mark Frederic
Smith for bribery at the last election at Chatham. The
committee, in their report to the house, had stated also
that they had reason to believe that Stephen Mont had
been guilty of perjury, end the hon. member for East
Surrey (Mr. Aleock) thereupon moved that the Attorney-
General be directed by the house to prosecute the said
Stephen Meant, and In a very full house that motion was
carried. Now it was his (Sir J. Shelley's) opinion, that
if the house was right in directing a prosecution for perjury
against Mast, they ought also to direct that
a prosecution for bribery be instituted against Sir. F.
Smith. (Hear.) The members of the Chatham committee
had performed their duties with great independence, and
he trusted the House of Commons would stand by the com-
mittees and their reports. There were many precedents
for taking this course. It had been taken in the use of '
Ilchester, in 1803 ; of Penrhyo, in 1807, and again in 1819;
of Dublin City, in 1821; of Ipswich, in 1834; and of Great
Yarmouth in the same year. It might be said that the
bribery in these cases was bribery by a direct gift of money,
but would any person say that a gift of a situation with
501. or 601. a year was not as clear a cue of bribery as a
, gift of money ? (Hear.) .Whether it was or was not biibery
lK a judge and jury determine. He confessed that were
he in the position of Sir F. Smith, he would rather
run the risk of being found guilty by a jury
than be pointed at u the person who had been found
guilty of bribery by a committee of the House of Commons.
(Hear, hear.) The subject was a painful one, and he should
not say a word to hurt the feelings of Sir F. Smith. He had
impersonal feeling whatever in the matter, and he only
brought it forward from a sense of public duty. (Ranh
heaugr )He thought they would succeed in putting on
end to corrupt practices if they did not proceed against the
rich man who bribed as well as against the poor man who
received bribes. (Hear, hear.) Having said thus, he
would now leave the matter in the hands of the House of
Commons. (Hear, hear.)
Sir F. THESIGER had hoped that some member of the
government would have favoured the hours with an expre►
non of their views on the motion which the hon. baronet
brought forward. The hon. baronet had explained clearly
and fairly the grounds on which he felt it to be his duty to
bring forward this question, and he felt satisfied
the honourable baronet was not instigated by personal
or political motives on the present occasion, and this
being the case, the bon. baronet would be gratified to find
that the house would probably feel that it was not its duty
to interfere in the manner ho suggested. The hon. baronet
said that the committee reported that Sir F. Smith was
guilty of bribery. That was not the report of the com-
mittee. The report of the committee was, "That Joseph
Oreathead, an elector of Chatham, had been bribed by a
situation as a letter-carrier procured for his son by Sir F.

Smith," and the circumstances of the ease would -account
for the committee's expressing themselves in this manner.
The hon. baronet had quoted precedents where the home
directed prosecutions for bribery, but he would venture to
say that there was no instance in which the house in-
terfered unless there was a cue of flagrant and gross
corruption, and of such • character as to make it
the imperative duty of the house to interfere and
direct • prosecution. (Hear, hear.) With great deference
for the committee, he ventured to say that he could not
have come to the same conclusion that they did ; and he
hoped the law officers of the crown were present to hear him
avert that there was no bribery, in the legal sense of the
term, committed by Sir F. Smith, which would render him
amenable to the Act. Under the 7th section of
Os act of George 111., c. 24, which was the
net sought to be applied to the ease, it would
be necessary to show that the candidate had corrupted or
procured the vote of a party by the gift of some office or
emolument; and no court in this country would hold that
where a voter, without any inducement or improper in-
fluence, had promised his vote originally, and bad adhered
to that original promise, anything which intervened—pro.
Tided the voter himself declared that it did not influence
him—could be considered bribery. He trusted he had said
enough to induce the house to reject the motion, and not
to pass so heavy a censure on the party against whom it was
directed.
ldr. \V. WILLIAMS was quite sure no member of that
house felt a greater abhorrence than he did of bribery and
corruption being employed to obtain a seat there ; but his
difficulty in this case was that it was a notorious fact that a
vast mass of members obtained their seats by means more
objectionable and reprehensible than those under conside-
ration. (Hear.) It they prosecuted Sir Frederick Smith
they would, ho feared, stand in no better estimation
with the public than they did at present. They ought to
deal with the whole question of bribery, and pass an act of
parliament, which would make it penal for a member to
obtain his scat by improper means. (Hear, hear.) Many
hon. members had confessed before the committees that
they had spent thousands, where hundreds would have

sufficed under e better system. It would be most consonant
with the meta' tenanco of the character of the house to pass
this case by; end assoollas possible to see if there were any
means by which they could put an cod to the system.
Mr. BRAMSTON said, having been a member of the
committee, be wished to say a very few words on that occa-
sion. At the same time, ke confessed he almost doubted
whether it were right for a member of the committee to de-
fend the course which bad been pursued before the house.
(No, no.) The tribunal up stairs being a judicial tribunal,
and that house not being a court of appeal, it seemed to
him that if he were to address the house in reference to the
reasons an which the committee formed their decision, he
might be speaking carom non jodia. He might observe,
however, that the duty of the committee was to look at the
whole evidence which came before them, and that upon that
evidence they came to their decision. He must add that it
was proved by various witnesses to be quite impossible for
any candidate to stand for Chatham without giving pro-
mises ; and the question was, whether the house had not,
by forming a constituency of that peculiar character which
Chatham and the other deckysrd towns possessed, become
partakers of the crimes of the candidates—(hear)—whether
they bad not by their legislative proceedings done that
which tended to corrupt and destroy the character of the
inhabitants ; whether they had not at the same time laid a
snare which no candidate who stood for one of these places
could help falling into ; and whether it would not be their
duty on another occasion to take steps to correct these
evils. He thought, however, that under 'listing circum-
stances it could nut be consistent with the dignity of that
house to order the prosecution of a man for a crime to which
they themselves had been privy. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. A. PELLATT said, as a member of the committee,
he felt himself place .I in a peculiar situation. If
called upon to vote on this question ou abstract
principles of justice, he must go into th, lobby
with the hon. baronet (Sir J. V. Shelley) • but if asked
whether or not the motion should be withdrawn, ho would
reply in the affirmative. He was never in his life called
upon to perform a duty under more painful circumstances
than when sitting as a member of the committee ' • for al-
though he felt it his dutytojoin in the decision, he felt that
the grounds of it were trivial in comparison with the cir-
cumstances of some other elections. He felt that it would
be better to deal with the whole question of bri-
bery, including the eases of agents and receivers,
than to visit the whole vengeance of the house
on the head of the late member fur Chatham.
There could be no doubt about the law of the question, and
according to the law Sir F. Smith bad been declared auilty
of bribery. If the motion came to a division, he must vote
in its favour.

Mr. NEWDEGATS had heard 311 the evidence, which
the bon. baronet had not, and his belief was that Sir F.
Smith had offered tho situation without intending it as a
bribe, but that Mr. Greathead had been influenced in his
vote by that offer. Sir F. Smith was by no means so bid as
many that had come before the house, and he should there-
fore not support the motion.
Mr. PIOOTT hoped, after the opinion so generally ex-
pressed by the house, the hon. baronet would consent to
withdraw his motion.

Mr. M. SMITH admitted the prevalence of per-
jury and bribery at the last Chlthum election, but did not
see that any good would result from the success of the pre-
sent motion.

Mr. W. J. FOX said he attached little importance to the
motion before the house, whether successful or not, but he
rose to reply to the challenge which he understood to have
been thrown out by the hon. awl learned member opposite.
He understood the hon. and learned member ta say that no
member of that house was free from solicitations ter go-
vernment appointments, and tbst all bad in turn procured
them for their constituents. Now, (or his own part, he
could say that he had never obtained such appointments,
nor had he ever received a solicitation from any of Isis
constituents. (Hear, hear.) He had no doubt many hon.
members could make the same statement, but lie had
thought it right that the challenge of the hon. and learned
member should not go forth unanswered. As for the motion
itself he feared that people out of doors would take it for
one of those rare ebullitions of morality in which the house
indulged without its leading to any result. The only proper
remedy was some general measure which should strike at
the root of the evil.

Mr. T. BUNCOMBE said the house ought before it
acceded to this motion to consider what a serious thing it
was to undertake a criminal prosecution against an indi-
vidual for bribery. It was not the decision of the corn-
, mitten they were to look to, but whether there was evi-
denee to go before ajurpufficient to induce them to convict
Sir F. Smith. Ho (Mr. Buncombe) believed that there was
not. (Hear, hear.) In the Derby case a man named
Morgan was prosecuted, and pleaded guilty, but what did
the jury do ? They said (in effect) " Really the House of
Commons is so steeped to the chin in corruption and bribery
that although we find Morgan guilty we recommend him
to mercy." Then what did the judge say? "This
Morgan has been guilty of a heinous offence, but so have
other people before him. Go about your business and
never do so again." (Cheers and laughter.) That was the
end of Morgan. (Hear, bear.) He did not believe, how-
ever, that that would be the case with Sir F. Smith, for the
jury would not find him guilty. If the feeling of the chair-
man and commi.tee was worth anything, let them pause to
consider what those gentlemen bad said. They had said
that they found Sir F. S.nith guilty of bri-
bery because they were obliged to do so under the
strict letter of the act, but they in addition gave their opinion
that the ease should not be prosecuted. He thought it very
inconvenient that members of committees should be obliged
to vindicate their decisions in that house, as he was satisfied
they bad discharged their duty conscientiously, and he
thought the public had a right to be grateful fir one
portion of their report—not the miserable case of Sir F.
Smith—but their report that the electors of Chatham were
so dependent on government that it was impossible they
could fairly exercise the franchise, and ought therefore be
disfranchised. Under these circumstances he thought that
the present case ought not to be proceeded with. They
had that evening had a motion by the hon. member for East
Surrey, for making the franchise uniform in counti. s and
boroughs, and his hon. friend had withdrawn his motion
because the minister had promised a large and comprehen-
sive measure of reform. He (Mr. Buncombe), although he
had seconded the motion, advised his honourable friend,
under tte circumstances, to withdraw it. The test of the
present administration would be the manner in which they
dealt with these questions, for they must not only deal with
the extension of the franchise, but also with the system of
corruption which had been so well exposed before the cm.
mittee. If they dealt well, depend on it they would be
entitled to public gratitude, and therefore, as both parlia-
mentary reform, and these corruptions on our representative
system must be dealt with under a new reform bid, he would
' ask was it worth while, steeped as they ware in corruption,
either in former days or is the pr ent—(a laugh)—to lose
time with such prosecutions as that they were then discuss-
ing ? He did not think the house would raise itself in pub-
lic estimation by persisting with this motion.
Mr. W. 0. STANLEY, who with difficulty obtained a
hearing, was understood to express his regret that a late
high law officer of the crown should express his opinion that
a general system of corruption prevailed amongst members
of that house. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. HEYWOOD expressed his conviction that Chatham
was thoroughly corrupt, but still he could not see the expe-
diency of the present motion. He felt bound to join in the
general call on the hon. baronet for its withdrawal.
Sir J. SHELLEY said that the hon. and learned mem-
ber opposite had said that the house should look especially
to the honour and integrity of its members. That was his
(Sir J. Shelley's) object in making his motion. (Hear.)
As to the observations about the report of the committee,
he had stated before that he made the motion without read-
ing the evidence, being satisfied that the report was suffi-
cient. Looking at the case of the poor man Mount, he
thought it would not be fair if the house did not take no-
tice of the rest of the report also, and therefore he
had brought this case before the house. The
hon. and learned member hod appealed to the
law officers of the crown, and he (Sir J. Shelley) would add
that if the noble lord who represented the government in
that house felt strongly on the subject of reform, an opinion
might have fairly been expected from him also. He (Sir
J. Shelley) would venture to say that the poople out of
doors would be much astonished that not ono member of
the government had said a word during the debate. He
had been urged to withdraw his motion, and he might have
done so had he received an assurance similar to that which
had influenced his hon. friend the member for East Sur-
rey. But not one member of the government had conde-
scended to say one word, and therefore, although on any
other occasion he would have been most happy to study the
convenience of the house, he did not think that on the pre-
sent occasion, and in the absence of any expression of opinion
from the government, he should be performing his duty
did he not persist in asking the opinion of the house on
his resolution.

Lord .1. RUSSELL—I own I did not think that this was
a case in which the opinion of the government should be
used to sway the opinion of the house. (Hear, hear.) It
appeared to me that the course I ought to pursue was, to
endeavour to procure the best advice for my colleagues
and myself, in order that we might bo prepared with a cor-
rect view of the law. Accordingly, I have consulted the
law officers of the crown, and they have given their opi-
nion from the report and evidence that there are grounds
for a prosecution—(hear, hear)—but at the same time they
will not answer for its success before a jury. They think
that there is evidence to go before a court of law, showing
that Sir F. Smith has been guilty of bribery. (Bear, hear.)
That was the first question I thought it my duty to put,
but another question, which concerns the house much more,
was as to what was the meaning of the report of the com-
mittee. lowa that that report appeared to have some
ambiguity in it, and I cannot say that that ambiguity has
been removed by the observations of members of the com-
mittee during the present discussion. It would appear on
the face of the report that the committee were of opinion
that Sir F. Smith had been guilty of bribery in inducing a
voter of Chatham to give him hie support by the promise
of a place in the pest office. The words, however, will ad-
mit of another interpretation, and if that interpretation be
right, then Sir F. Smith has done no more than ootain this
situation for Greathead without intending to influence his
vote,and without the smallest reference to theelection. Now
the latter would hardly be a circumstance upon which the
committee would think right to report; but, at the same
time. it was difficult to understand from the chairman and
members of the committee who have spoken what had really
been their intention in making their report. (Hear, hear.)
One member said that the committee were bound to come
to the resolution recorded, and another said that there
should be no prosecution for bribery, on the ground that
the state of the constituency was such that no person could
be a candidate without being led into corrupt promises of
this kind. That is a statement to which I must demur;
for I can uaderstand it being said—although it would be an
unfounded statement—that a candidate could not g s to

Chatham without being so beset with applications tor ap-
pointments in the dockyard, that ho could not *roil being

led into temptation. But that there should be sash temptation at Chatham as to oblige a candidate to e
bribe
voters by situations as letter carriers, is a statement that
appear, to me to be entirely without fiundatim.
I cannot imagiao that in Chatham, 05910 than
any other borough, a man cannot be a candi-
data without promising office. But tiers another mem-
ber of the committee says that Sir F. Smith (11,1 not
intend to corrupt Greathead, and would not vote for the
motion on that ground. I give that gentleman full credit
for conscientious conviction, and he is quite right in Ws
vote if such be his belief. But what I cannot understand
is, how a person so thinking could have been a party to that
report, because it really appears to me that it places the
house in a situation of great difficulty. (Hear, hear.) If
Sir F. Smith bad no corrupt intention in iuflueueing the
vote then the whole matter of offence is wiped oat, and
there ought not to be any report charging Sir p,
Smith with a crime. Some say that Sir F. Smith has
ecteally been guilty of bribery, but all arc unanimous
in thinking that the house should not prosecute. I sews
say that these declarations place the house in a situr.ion
•
of great difficulty. (Hear, boar.) I thou: 1 ba sorry to
blame the committee, but I really think it ought either to
have stated that Sir F. Smith, in their Ppinion, had been
guilty of bribery, and have supported the present motion,
or they ought not to have concurred in such a repose,
Because the position of the house is this, that we have coma
to a solemn resolution, many years since, that if any person
be elected or returned a member of this house by means of
bribery, this house will proceed with the utmost severity
against all persons proved to be guilty or concerned in such
bribery. I must say that it is very (IA :Lot to allow at the
same time such a resolution to stand on our proceedings,
and not to take notice of cases brought before us by the
reports of committees. I think that my lion. friend
is quite right in saying that this house will nut stand *ea
with the people out of doors, if it appear that we do not
consent to this resolution. I have said that I did net
think it the business of government to influence the decision
of the house, and I meant to have given my vote without
taking any other part in the proceedings, hail I not been
directly appealed to by my hoe. friend. I think, however,
after what the house has said, and after the uuanimoutly
expressed wish of the committee, the house may perhaps
refrain from instituting this prosecution. The house may
take that view, but at the same time I feet it is one that
will expose us to great misconstruction. (Hear, hear.) I
think that the committee will put us in this position, that
we shall find it difficult to vote for any prosecution what-
ever, after this cue. (Hoar, hear.) I do not know even
whether it would not be better to expunge the resolution
to which I have alluded should not this prosecution take
place ; but of this lam cure, that if we prosecute poor arid
low persons, and allow cases like that of Sir F. Smith to
escape, our so doing will be fatal to the reputation of the
house. (Hear, hear.) Should the house be against prose-
cution in this case, I shall come down in every other and
give my vote against prosecution. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. J. S. WORTLEY, who spoke amid general in-
patience said that the house was not in a condition to de-
cide on the present motion. If they allowed this prosecu-
tion to go on, it would be taken merely as an evidence of
vindictive feeling. (Question) Believing that the course
proposed would be an extraordinary one for the house to
take, and not justified by the cue, he must record his vote
against the motion.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL, who spoke amid evident
symptoms of impatience, denied that the opinion of the
law officers of the crown was founded on Sir F. Smith's
evidence only, but ou a consideration of all the evidence.
Sir J. SHELLEY intimated his intention to go to &divi-
sion, adding that if that division went against Lim, he
hoped the noble lord would take means to have the NS.
sional order he had referred to suspended.
--------

Mr. IL DRUMMOND had oppo ed the various motions
that had been brought forward fur disfranchising constitu-
encies ; but this went far beyond that, ar.d called upon the
house to institute a prosecution against a meritorious officer
and an honourable gentleman, under the pretence of vindi-
cating the character of the house. While they were thus
casting stones, it would he well to kr.ow who was the man
among them who could stand up and say, " I ant without
sin." The attempt to pot an end to bribery was absurd.
The "Edinburgh Review" said that "the Three per
Cents. would keep pheasants." The Thr c per Cents.
would also sit in that House of Commons. The Three per
Cents. would sit there ; bank directors would sit there ;
rail-
way kings would sit there ; and, with regard to the electors,
AO long as there were rich ail poor men, they would rover
convince the poor man that it was wrong to catch and kill
wild animals, nor would they ever convince him that he was
not to take money from the rich when he could get it.
Call it bribery if they pleased, but it was that which per-
vaded, and must necessarily pervade, the whole system,
House of Lords, House of Commons, the government de-
p truncate, and everything else. (Hear, hear.) Brute
force had run to seed in France—but did not these exhibi-
tions of mock purity show that our system of national re-
presentation hail run to seed !—and was not the example of
last year a good reason why the Emperor of Austria should
not be desperately in love ssith our institutions. (" Oh,"
and cries of "Divide.") No sooner was a new minister
with a new policy installed, than your Coppocks, your
Browns, and your Italie, were busy at the Carlton and the
Reform providing their candidates and their petitions.
Trey played with members of parliament as they would
play with the men at a game at chess, giving a bisbep f a
rook, and lodging three false petitions far one fightifig ltbti-
tion. And what was the reason for all this anxiety to get
into the house? Simply because the House of Commons
I was the great place bazaar of the nation. ("Oh, oh,"
cheers, and cries of " Divide.") Why elee was it that they
were blessed with the presence of so many members of the
legal profession. (" Hear," and laughter.) They came
there because they found that a flashy partisan speech de-
livered iu the House of Commons was a much surer and
quicker road to the bench than fagging in their own chem.
bees. (More laughter.) The only quc,tion was whether
it was for the public advantage that that house should be
the school in which lawyers should study. (Hear.) They
had in the house now learned gentlemen aho held their
situation' in this way. He knew not whether the Attorney-
General was present or not, bet he believed he was right when
he said that that hon. and learned gentleman held
the situation which his talent and great ability adorned
exactly on that footing. (Laughter and cries of " Speak
up " from some parts of the house, and cries of " Oh" and
" Divide " from others.) And was there not bribery in the
House of Lards also ? It was true they could not bribe a
peer with 21. 10s., as they did a voter in a county town, or
by a place in the Post•office, but was it not bribery to make
barons viscounts, viscounts earls, and earls marquises, in
return for opportune votes? The noble lord was so anxious
for purity that he brought in a Reform Bill, and made it
bribery for a candidate at an election to give a few yards
of penny ribbon to the wife or daughter of a voter—but
three yards of broad ribbon given to a member of the
House of Lords the noble lord considered convenient to the
public interest. (Cheers and " Oh.") He was not cen-
suring these proceedings—on the contrary, he justified them.
Without them the government could not be carried en,
and he was only sorry the government had not a great deal
more of this kind of patronage than it had. (" Oh, oh,"
and " bear.") In the House of Commons they bribed by
I seats at Boards,and when a man became particularly boring
they sent him to Hong Kong. (Roars of laughter.) And
it was absolutely necessary that the Minister should have
the power of practising this kind of bribery, or he could
never carry on the public business. (Hear.) Ile recollected
an occasion when Mr. Percival's government was on the
poiut of falling, because one brother in the Treasury re-
fused to vote until the Minister had given another brother a
place; and they must all remember when Sir R. Peel was
unable to hold office because he had not the appointment of
the ladies of the bedchamber. (Hear.) Aid even new,
unless " loud-tongued" rumour was wrong, the noble lord
at the head of the government had received a letter of re-
monstrance from the head of a numerous aristocratic family
not pre eminently rich, complaining that none of that
family were included in the present government arrange-
ment. (Hear, hear.) What was the difficulty of
the present government at this moment ? Simply
want of places to give. They had nothing to fear from the
opposite side—their danger was from shuts in their rear.
(Loud laughter.) If he were called upon to symbolise the
Treasury, he would embody it in the figure of Cybele or
Tellus,having en enormous breast and no power of affording
nourishment. Or perhaps the government might at present
be aptly typified by Mr. Oillivray's caricature of the Trea-
sury sow—that had (allowed more pigs than she bed teats.
(Immense laughter.) He saw a motion on the paper of to-
night in reference to India in the name of an hon. gentle-
man who sat behind the Treasury bench. What was that
but the squeak of one of the little pigs that had got no
teat ? (A roar of laughter.) He had endeavoured before to
impress on the head of the government in that house
n aver to quit his office upon any vote to which the house
might come, except a specific resolution to the crown, and
he beseeched the noble lord to follow that course now.
(" Hear, hear," and a laugh.) The right hon. gentleman
opposite (Mr. Disraeli) need not have left office had ho
chosen to remsin, and Lord Derby ought never to have
taken office, or having taken it he ought never to have
quitted it, for nothing was more detrimental to the public
service than these constant changes in the government. The
fact was, that with all the talk about reform they had never
been reformers, but speculators. Reform would have led
them back to the wisdom and principles of their ancestors,
and property would have had its legitimate action ; and un-
til it had its legi•irnate action it would never lose its illegi-
timate action. With regard to the motion for prosecuting
Sir F. Smith, he looked upon it as one of the most discredi-
table that had ever been proposed in that house. (Cries of
" Divide.")

1 Mr. HUME bad never heard a more extraordinary
speech than that of the hon. gentleman who hail just sat
down. Ile protested against the charact2r which the hen.
gentleman hnl drawn of that house, and he altogether
denied that our whole system, from the crown downwards,
was, as the hon. gentleman stated, corrupt. It appeared to
him that the hon. gentleman was at enmity with all man-
kind, and that he could, therefore, see nothing pure in any
man's actions. (Hear, hear.) The present motion was in
accordance with the principle he had always advocated—
that of endeavouring to obtain an h me.:llouse of Commons
and to prevent as far as possible dishonest men obtaining
seats in it ; and, on that ground, ho should give it his sup-
port. (" Divide..")
Me. RICH, amid much laughter, and loud cries of di-
vide, proceeded to deny the charge of the hon. member for
Surrey, that he (Mr. Rich) was looking fur favours from
the government. The present government was composed
of men, whom he believed to be well able to carry on the
business of the country, and agreeing, as ho did, in their
gen-ral policy, lie gave them a disinterestid support.
Sir J. SIIEI,LEY complained of the word " discredit-
able," used by Mr. Drummond in reference to the motion,
and called for its withdrawal.
The SPEAKER told the hon. gentleman if he wished to
take exceptions to words uttered by any hon, member, ho
must do so at the time.

e..a erreins.

TO COI

A -wad Calais sr " The Expos," esatalaiso tar suss loadPrs
r Lurite;l. ;uriabsd every !sudsy sad Fads; sled, is am
11..ttoaseas. trawls,' kr "TM Enswa" Leaks Seenia, Asps;
be at t Mk" 10, aosortaana, ay Two Waal' as tlks
dar pabiaara.

RION WATER AT LONDON BRIDGE.
Tas Day—Montag. Oa. Oat .._.....Afternoon, Oa. 2n.
T.seadcw-3enuag. Oa 27a. ---.Aftentsoa. Oa. Ufa.