The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-18 00:00:00

session.

PETERBOROUGH ELECTION.

Mr. BRIGHT moved for a select committee to in
quire into the allegations contained in the petitions o
certain electors and inhabitants of the city of Peter-
borough, which were presented upon the Ist day of July,
complaining of the interference of Earl Fitzwilliam,
a peer of the realm, at the election in December last, and
at previous elections of members to serve in Parliament
for the said city. The hon. member stated that for more
than a century the borough had been under the influence
of the Fitzwilliam family, and out of the 500 elec-
tors, no less than 220 were tenants of Lord Fitzwilliam.
He proceeded to dwell upon the practice of giving head-
money, then, after reading a letter addressed to a lady
by Lord Fitzwilliam's steward, refusing to receive her
as tenant, on the ground that the vote might so be lost
to Lord Fitzwilliam. He gave instances in which per-
ions had been served with 'notices to quit for refusing
to vote, or voting contrary to the wishes of Lord Fitz-
william. He asserted that the late petition was not
bona fide, but got up and carried on at the expense of
Lord Fitzwilliam, and concluded by moving that a select
committee be appointed for the purpose of making in-
quiries.

- Mr. FITZWILLIAM, in rising to second Mr.
Bright's motion, explained the statements made by Mr.
Bright respecting the serving notices to quit upon Lord
Fitzwilliam's tenants, he denied the allegations in the
petition, that no one in the borough could give an inde-
pendent vote without exposing himself to losses and in-
convenience of every description, and appealed in refu-
tation to the fact that not only had there been several
contested elections within the last few years, but there
was actually a member for Peterborough sitting in the
house whose political opinions were at variance with
that of Lord Fitzwilliam.

After a few words from Mr. Hung and Mr. R
PALMER,

Mr. IiIVETT did not think it would be advisable to
nominate this committee until the Peterborough elec-
tion petition had been disposed of.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he did not object to the
present motion, but he thought it would be inconvenient
that there should be two committees sitting at the
same time on almost the same same subject,
while at this period of the session it was hardly possible
that the inquiry could close before the prorogation.
Mr. HUME said the inquiry was of an entirely differ-
ent character to that of the election petitions, which did
not impute corruption, but want of qualification, to Mr.
Whalley.

Mr. E. DENISON complained of the late period at
which the petition was presented, which, he said, was
contrary to all Parliamentary precedents.
Mr. WHALLEY said the petition was intrusted to
him some months ago, but motives of delicacy prevented
his presenting it. He entreated the home to appoint the
committee and remove Peterborogh from its present
state of suspense.
Mr. V. SMITH did not think it would be advisable
to appoint this committee while the election petition was
pending.
The motion was then wined to.
SUCCESSION' DUTY BILL.
On the motion for the third reading of this bill,
Mr. LIDDELL roso and was
(LEFT SPEAKING.)

ELECTION COMMITTEES.-(THIS DAY.)

CLITHEROE.
This committee which sat for the first time on Satur-
day, and is appointed to inquire into the petition against
the return of Mr. Aspinall, for Clitheroe, re-assembled
again this morning.
The chief allegation of the petitioners is, that Mr.
Aspinall rendered himself ineligible to stand as a candi-
date at the last election, in consequence of being mixed
up in the corrupt practices at the election in, July, 1852,
when he was an unsuccessful candidate. The examina-
tion of one witness had only just commenced on
Saturday, when a point arose as to whether
the petitioners were entitled to enter into evidence to
prove Mr. Aspinall's connection with those practices,
and after counsel on both sides addressed themselves to
the point, the committee reserved their decision until
this morning, when, after further deliberation with closed
doors, they announced that they had unanimously come
to a resolution, to the effect that evidence of bribery and
corrupt treating could not be admitted, under the terms
of the petition, as regards the election of 1852, unless it
was proved to have been committed by Mr. Aspinall
himself, or by an agent, with his consent or knowledge.
John Welsby, a canvasser for Mr. Aspinall at the
election in 1852, was then called, and he deposed that
he received sums of money from Messrs. Hall and Bald-
win, to take round with him and spend with the voters.
Mr. Slade objected to this evidence of treating, unless
it was proved to have been committed by Mr. Aspinall,
or his agents, with his knowledge or consent.
Some evidence was then adduced as to treating at the
Swan, in 1852, while Mr. Aspinall was himself in the
house, and at four the committee adjourned until
eleven to-morrow.