The Express.
London, England, 1851-05-07 00:00:00

he was offered 201. to vote for Mr. Baird by one of that
gentleman's committee, who was not himself en elector, and
added that in a plate with 15,000 inhabitants, 41 public
houses were kept open with free drink for all
persons coming to the election. (Hear, hear.) He would
now read the evidence of two ministers of the gospel.
The Rev. James McGowan, • minister of the Free Church
at Airdrie, stated that he came into the town between four
and five o'clock on the evening of the day of election, and
that on the road ha witne<sed the most awful scenes of
debauchery, druakenness, and rioting that it was ever his
lot to behold. Tha Rev. Alexander Barr, • minister
of the established church of Scotland, said that the scenes
at the last election at Airdrie were shocking. Idleness and
habits of dissipation were encouraged, and trade was
at a stand still. What ho had stated of all
these places he believed took place in a mitigated
form at Linlithgow mid elsewhere. Tho worst
phases of the debauchery were exhibited at Airdrie,
Hamilton, and Falkirk. He asked them to con-
sider whether the elections in this country were to be
carried by such processes as these ?—because, if so, mark
the consequences. Who would sit in that house if the
path to it were through some hundred gin houses, with a
bill of 2001. or 3001. each) (Hear, hear.) The election
expenses of hon. members had been estimated at from
5,0001. to 15,0001. Would "the territorial aristocracy"
of this country, as they were called, who lived
on rents, and some of whom bad little money
to spend, sit there ? No. It was the monied
people, who had hard cash at their bankers, who alone
would find entrance into the house ? (Hear, hear.) Was
this a process that would conduce to the improvement of
the character of the representation, or, rather, had they not
better return to the old regime of pocket boroughs, and
" hereditary claims," if it were to be continued ? (Hear.)
He would rather live under an oligarchy or • despotism
than be governed by a majority of members who had en-
tered the house by such means. (Cheers.) Was there not
something due to the morality of the sge ? Was that house
to be the only quarter where scenes like these could be
heard of without emotion and disgust, and a desire
to put an end to them for the future? (Hear, hear.)
He asked for inquiry. He asked for nothing but
inquiry. Ile did not ask them to unseat any hon.
member, but simply to inquire into these transactions. He
asked them, in fact, to include with their inquiry into
the misdeeds of St. Alban, a caw which he humbly opined
was characterised try *cotes ten thousand times more re-
Totting and degrading. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. BAIRD said that neither himself nor his firm had
given say instructions to those who kept public houses at
Airdrie to treat the electors. To inquiry he had no ob-
jection, but with regard to the scenes of drunkenness, he
hail no doubt that some of them took place because they
were the common practice.* in the Falkirk burgh.. (Loud
laughter.) A petition had been presented against his return,
but as the parties could not substantiate a single one of its
allegations, though they had spent three months in obtain-
ing evidence, it bail to tw withdrawn. (Hear.)
l'be ATTORNEY-GENERAL hoped the house had
listened with feelings of deep regret and diegust,
as he could assurethem he had, to the sad
snit painful details brought before them by
the hon. member fur the West Riding. (Hear, hear.) Nu
man rouid picture such scenes of debauchery without feel-
ing regret that they should be mixed up with election.* •
but, although, in esmunon with manyothers, he might think
an inquiry highly de.irable, be could ni the p strongly sag-
gusting to the hon. n. mix (Mr. Cobden) out to mix up two
questions which were essentially distinct. The hon. mem-
tee was no doubt entities not to throw any impedi-
ment in the way of inquiry into the St. Albans
taw, and as the bill about to be proposed fur
that purpose would hare to go through the ordeal of
another place, it ought not to be encumbered with'
anything iu addition which might endanger its success.
(Hear, hear.) He would suggest to the hon. member fur
the West Ruling to make his proposition the subject of a
substantive neaten, whereby the bill and the motion could
be chromed separately, the bill taking precedence. (Hear.)
Mr. IiOLBCCK supiorted the amendment, and consi-
denal that, alter the alligatious put forward by Mr. Cob-
den, Mr. Baird would be branded if he had not an opportu-
nity of exculpating hiinwlf, and he could only have that
opportunity by m„ sus of such an inquiry.
Mr. E. LLLICE, Jun. would he the very last person to
object to any 'meta inquiry as that contemplated by the
amendment of thus hon. member (Mr. Cobden), but ob-
jected to the case of Falkirk being grafted on the bill which
be had submitted to the house that night. He (Mr.
Ellice) beliesed that if he emusentecl to the amendment,
the bill would bo placed in jeopardy, and in all
probability defeated. Besides, there war the inconvenience
of any one commission having to inquire into two distinct
ma's at different and distant. parts of the kingdom.
He (Mr. Enke) had no objection that the petitions pre-
*rated reorilinit the Falkirk election should be submitted
to a 'sleet committee, and then legislation could follow if
neeeesary.
Mr. BANKES held that the amendment of the hon.
mcmtwr (Mr. Cotiden) was inailmiseible. The question bud
been brought consort in a manner the most unprecedented.
Ito read Iron the votes of the 2nd .tpril that the Speaker
communicated to the house that he had received a letter
from Mr. I °meek, stating that it was not intended to pro- I
teed with the petition against the election of Mr. Baird.
The Speaker publicly read the letter; the hon. member
for the West Riding might have heard it ; it was pub-
lished in the newspaper. the next day, and the sagacious
people living in the Falkirk burgh., Mr. Hamilton and
others, might have read it, and why did they not prefer
another petition ?
Mr. COBDEN—They have sent a petitiou. I presented it.
Mr. BANK ES—Then why did you not present it at the
eight time? Did you keep it in your pocket?
31r. COBDEN—I did not keep it 21 hours.

Mr. BANK ES—Then was it ;resented in time ?
Mr. HUME—It was nut against the election, but for
inquiry.
Mr. BANK ES said that ought to be brought forward as
a %ell:trate motion and nut grafted on this. With regard to
the me:nurc now bcfore the house, he offered no objection
to the introduction of the bill, but with regard to the na-
ture of the commission he should probably differ from the
hoe. mover. Ile thought the commission should consist of
members of the house, and when the bill was introduced he
should make a propthitiun to thut effect.
Mr. 111.31 E suggested that his bon. friend should with-
draw hi. amendment. _ .

Mr. FORIIEN mid he knew Mmething of the hon. mem-
ber for the Falkirk burgh., who he believed had effected a
gnat deal of good in that neighbourhood. Every exertion
was made to get up evidence to su!,port the petition againvt
him, but the petition was abandoned at the Mat, day fur
want of evidence.

Lord J. ItUsSELL said, as to tho motion of his hon.
fnentl, which was for the introduction of a bill for the ap-
cof commission with regard to St. Albans,
riratiredu ont the T. port of an election committee, that they
haul reason to believe that extensive bribery prevailed at
the last election for the borough, ho could not conceive a
more legitimate ground fur that measure than that which
had been stated by his hon. friend. Therefore he should
have no hesitation in giving his vote iu favour
of the introduction of such a bill. The honour-
able member fur the West Riding of Yorkshire hail
brought another CIVIC forward, and he should be certainly
very far from saying that there ought not to be some in-
quiry with regard to the ease, because he thought that so
far as notoriety and scandal went, it was a use that
ought not to be passed over by the house when
brought before it by a member of the house. But
he could not agree that the two cases should ,be
embraced in the same commission. _ _

After a few words from Mr. Furtintsebu and Mr. LOCK-
HAM', the latter of whom was understood to corroborate
the statement of the hon. member fur Stirlingshire (Mr.
Forbes) as to the high e•dimation in which Mr. Baird was
held in the Falkirk burghs,
Mr. H. BERKELEY said he begged to join in the re-
quest to the bun. member fur the NS est Riding to withdraw
his amendment, at the same time he thought he had done
good by taking tile matter up. When be (Mr. D. Berke-
k)) spoke last year in favour of a new teform bill he was
told it was not necessary, as public opinion prevented bri-
bery and corruption now. Ile saw no evidence of that in
what had taken place in reference to these boroughs.
Mr. COBDEN said of course he was in the hands of the
house, and it was evident the house was against his amend-
ment, but it was suggested that he should snake a separate
motion for a committee. Ile did not think, however, that
the example of committees was very encouraging, auil he
happened to he already a member of twoeonanuttees, which
he bad to attend ce,•ry thy, so that it was quite impossible
for him to attend another committee, even et' he could ob-
tain on e. But he ventured to suggest, that as this mea-
sate was before the house, it was thu duty of government
to see that what should be done by the house was dune,
and that the Lord Advocate of Scotland was the proper
person to bring it forward. The hon. gentleman concluded
by withdrawing his amendment.
Leave was then !liven to being in the bill.
NISTYMON UNION.
Sir L. O'BRIEN moved that the 'Petition of the mem-
bsrs of the late board of guardians of this union be printed
with the votes. The board was dismissed without notice,
and he should brim( the matter before the house.
At the suggestion of Mr. TM/KNELT, the petition was
referred to the committee on !public petitions.