The Sun.
London, England, 1838-06-13 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT

HOUSE OF COMMONS, JUNE 12
The SPEAKER took the chair at the usual hour.
WOODSTOCK ELECTION COMMITTEE.
Lord LINCOLN brought up the report of the Committee
appointed to try the merits of the Woodstock Election peti-
tion, stating that the Marquis of Blandford was duly electeo,
t!Nt the petition of Lord John Churchill was not frivolous t r
vex::tious, neither was the opposition thereto.

Mr. B. SMITH brought up the report of the Su Ibuly
Town Lands Committee.
Mr. BROCKLEHURST presented a petition from Mcc-
clesfield in reference to the Free Grammar School of that
place.—The petition was ordered to Le reFerred to the Com-
mittee. •

TRAMORE DRAINAGE BILL.
Mr. V. STUART moved the second reading of the Tra-
more ( Waterford) Drainage Bill.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE presented a petition from Rowland
Alston, Esq., and Geo. Lane Fox, Esq., against the Bill,
praying that it might be read a second time this day six months.
The motion for the second reading having been seconded,
Mr. T. DUN CO MBE moved that the Bill be read a second
time this day three months. He thought that a more wild or
I' visionary scheme had not been submitted to the House. A
Company had been formed, consisting of 800 shares, at 251.
each, for the purpose of draining and reclaiming about 2,000
acres of that strand. The reason assigned for the project
was that it would be extremely beneficial to the landowners
and occupiers of the neighbourhood. Now he ( Mr. Dun-
'combe) was of opinion that the petition which he
-had just presented, completely refuted that assertion. The
petitioners had no doubt that the Company had the best in-
tentions possible, but he contended that they (the petitioners)
were the best judges of what would be beneficial to their own
interests. He contended that the p esent was an attempt to
encroach upon the rights of private property, and would be
very injurious to that of the individuals in question. On these
grounds he would move as an amendment that the Bill be
read a second time that day three months.
The motion having been seconded by Mr. ALSTON,
Mr. VILLIE RS STE WART complained of the unprece-
dented course that had been taken by the Hon. Member with
respect to the measure. He regretted that he had not pre-
viously seen the petition, as until five minutes ago he did
not understand what the grounds of complaint were. It
the Bill were allowed to pass it would have the effect of pre-
serving 1,400 acres of land to the public from the encroach-
ments of the sea, and would give hundreds constant employ-
ment. It had been said that the Bill was only supported by
small farmers—he denied that it was so, as many of the
most influential landowners of the neighbourhood supported it.
Hon. Gentlemen, before voting against the second reading of
the Bill, ought to consider that they were not only preventing
a work from proceeding which would give employment to
thousands, but they were also putting an end to a work which
would be of incalculable advantage to the country generally.
In 1829 an engineer was s Att to value the property by the
Woods and Forests' Office, and he reported it to be worth
1301. a year, independent of the value of the improvements ;
therefore the property must be of considerable value. He
would leave the question entirely in the hands of the House.
Mr. ROWLAND ALSTON characterized the Bill as one
of the most extraordinary invasions of property that had ever
come within his knowledge, and he felt himself bound to oppose
it. It vas a Bill that went merely to protect the projectors,
and had no reference whatever to the owners of property.
If the Bill were passed, it would tend to destroy much of his
(Mr. Alston's) property. Several of his tenantry took sea-
weed for manure from what the Hon. Member called this
waste land ; and would the house believe there could be any-
thing like truth in the statement that 1,500 acres
could be recovered from the sea at the small out-
lay of 20,000/. ? Would Hon. Members support projectors
of Bills in the invasion of private property, without tendering
the owners something like compensation or indemnity against
such losses as these Bills might subject them to? And, if the
Bill were allowed to pass, his property would be scarcely of
any value. He trusted that Hon. Members would give their
support to the amendment of his Hon. Friend, the Member
for Finsbury.
Sir E. KNATCHBULL asked how it had happen° I V, at
the Bill was only reported yesterday, and was this day moved
to be read a second time ?
whichn
e
laenanTl ulr
e.
wnwchVataaeaesssßas.dirnngpiaglicases.
dfi
v.etc:AtsehreiSTUAßTneswetKe.htrpahoeeEfeotbntßtelGazetteroi3
after
uti
enottstpeeonhoaoxi etrpdbfii
was
exi
‘anaidest,
expirationi
sadthnt
srhseaiiurbedtet
:at
yt
fl
referred
ltrthiaberi a:
neneolotwgdtuuooastnrnfstht Standing
oaei
the
time. r eport would have
been sooner presented, but the Queen's consent had not been
perfectly
y
lthieotdeehti
ftenie6Cumto afioe Bhltmxri
dlieotelmedit.fmrri
sult
pe:eoee,:t
%erfai
piitrhohatceodiorhai
nniet,
atlPieisieraosiivuvneasceote'etry;
March to the 12th of June. Even according to the statements
of the Honourable Member (Mr. V. Stuart) the Bill ought to
have been read a second time in April.
Mr. V STUART said that, as all possible diligence had
been used, it was clear that no fraud was intended, and he hoped
the House would be as indulgent es possible. The delay had
been occasioned solely by the unfortunate circumstance that
the Queen's consent had not been sooner announced in the
Gazette.

Mr. WYSE asked if the discussion on the merits of the Bill
was to go on.

The SPEAKER said, if the question were put t• him, be
must, in the exercise of what he deemed a sound discretion,
say that the Bill ought not to be allowed to go on.—( Hear.)
Mr. V. STUA RT said he would bow to that decision.
The 'SPEAKER wished it to be understood on what
ground he came to that decision. • He was anxious that the
rules Gf the House should be strictly observed. And in this
case it appeared that the spirit of the rules had been violated
by the delay which had taken place.
Mr. O'CONNELL suggested that the motion should be
withdrawn, that it might not appear on tho votes to have been
negatived.
The SPEAKER said the Hon. Member who had moved
the amendment must first consent to its withdrawal.
That consent having been given, the motion was accord-
ingly withdrawn.
DURHAM UNIVERSITY.

Lord DUNG ANNON presented a petition from Stockton-
on-Tees for an endowment of the Durham University. This
petition was signed by 150 of the inhabitants of Stockton n
Tees and the neighbourhood; and he heartily concurred in

its prayer.
.Colonel GORE LANGTON presented petitions from
Somersetshire, for the immediate abolition of the system of
negro apprenticeship.
Mr. MACKINNON presented a petition from Exeter, in
favour of the Patent Invention Bill.
Mr. PA CK INGTON presented a petition from the magis-
trates of the county of Worcester, against the County Courts'
Bill, which they conceived to be a dangerous experiment con-
nected with the administration of justice, and likely to increase
the expenditure very much.
Mr. O'CONNEL L presented a petition from the Coombe
Lying-in-Hospital against the Medical Charities Bill ; a peti-
tion from New Ross praying to obtain the benefit of a Muai-
cipal Corporation ; and two petitions from the river pilots of
the port of Dublin against the Pilotage Bill, and praying for
compensation.
Mr. WALLACE presented a petition from the united Se-
cession Congregation of Greenock, against any further en-
dowment to the Church of Scotland. The petition also
prayed that no money should be granted in aid of Parochial
Schools, which the petitioners stated were in such a state of
mismanagement as not to deserve it.
The Hole. MEMBER also presented a petition from the
bankers, merchants, and others of Kin&s-Lynn, praying for
a reduction of
post,ge ; and one, to the like effect, from the
the farmers and others attending Leith market; and they hoped
that their petition would be noticed in The Sun and Morning
Chronicle newspapers.
INTERNATIONAL COMMUNICATION.
Mr. GIL LON postponed to the 26th the motion of which
he had
given notice for the 23d instant, on the subject of in-
ternational communicition.
RIOTS IN KENT.
Sir E. KNATC ['BULL, not seeing the Noble Lord the
Secretary of State for the Home Department in his place,
hoped that some member of the Government who was present
would be able to answer a question which he was desirous to
put. Perhaps the Right Honourable the Secretary to the
Treasury would be able to give him information. On
Wednesday last. he ( Sir Edward Knatchhull) moved
fur certain returns respecting the recent unfortunate occur-
rences in the county of Kent. The papers which he moved
for were not numerous, and he hoped they would be laid on
the table as soon as possible. He now begged to ask the
Right Hon. Secretary to the Treasury whether he could say
when they would be ready ?
Mr. E. STANLEY'S reply was not heard.
Sir E. KNATC BUL L said that he only wished that the
returns should be made as soon as possible.
INTERFERENCE OF PEERS IN ELECTIONS.
Mr. WARBURTON wished to call the attention of the
House to a petition which had been presented on the 29th of
May, complaining of the interference of the Earl of Cawdor in
the election of a Member to serve in Parliament for the bo-
rough of Carmarthen. As the Noble Earl had not done any
thing which would not be lawful if done by a Member of the
House of Commons, he (Mr. Warburton) had used his in-
fluence to prevent the complaint from coming before the House.
But the nature of the complaint was not simply confined to
that ; but it was, that the Earl of Cawdor, through the means
of his agents, did exercise an improper influence and coercion
over his tena,its, in matters concerning the election of Members
for Carmarthenshire—it was because he (Mr, \V.) thought
his influence was improperly exercised, not simply as a Peer
of Parliament but because he did that which it would
have been improper in a Commoner to do, that he brought
this matter before the House.—( Hear, hear.) The matters
complained of were stated very fully in the petition which he
•had presented, and which had been printed in the Votes.
They were stated upon the authority of the two petitioners who
were electors for Carmarthenshire, and who also (he stated
this, in order that Hon. Members on the opposite side and the
Noble Earl might have the benefit of the admission), were
active partizans in behalf of Sir James Williams, the unsuc-
cessful candidate. The interference was said to have taken
place in two of the polling districts where the Noble
Ear's property principally lay. First, with regard to the poll-
ing district of Newcastle Emellyn, to which the statement of
Mr. Hall principally related. He should dwell less en
that district, because the statements with vospect to
it were somewhat general, and ho attached no great
importance to the memorial drawn up by certain of the tenants,
with the intention of presenting it to his Lordship, becaese it
was clear, from the phraseology in this memorial, that it W4i
not drawn up by the tenants themselves, bet they, probibly ca
the sugqestlon
o f some euty interestedi iuthioud to sign it.
I - •

He would now pass to the polling district of Llandillo. With
regard to the interference of the Noble Earl in that district,
there were documents distinctly confirming it. He had
in his possession, the original of all the letters except one
referred to in the petition, which he would go through seriatim.
The first documents to which he would call the attention of
the House were three letters, addressed to Thomas Tobias,
William Jones, and David Hopkins, by Richard B. Wil-
iisrns, the steward of the Earl of Cawdor. The letter ad-
dressed to Thomas Tobias he would now read to the House.
He would premise that, at the period of the election, and dur-
ing the transactions preceding it, the Noble Earl wee not in
that House. The letter was dated from Stackpole
Court, the residence of the Earl of Cetedor, and was as
follows :—" Thomas Tobias, I will depend on you to
plump for the Honourable Colonel Trevor, at the coming
election, who is the only candidate supported by your
Noble landlord, and I have no doubt you will do so. Your
well-wisher—Richard Owen Williams." Similar letters
had been addressed to William Jones and David Hopkins, and
if the interference had been confined to these three letters,
he was not certain that he would have brought the subject under
the consideration of the House. But there was another letter
Which had been written by Richard Owen Williams to a person
named Thomas Evans, who was also a tenant of the Noble
Earl, and had built an inn upon the property, relying
upon the excellent private character of the Earl of Cawdor.
The letter that Evans wrote to Williams was not in his pos-
session, but the answer that Williams wrote to the application
of Evans, for liberty to split his vote, was to the following ef-
fect :—" Sir, your Noble Landlord's interest is given to
Col. Trevor, and all support withdrawn from Sir J. Williams.
You will see, therefore, that I cannot comply with your re-
quest, and I hope I shall find you plump for Mr. Trevor, the
Conservative candidate." Ile (.Mr. W.) thought that letter
pretty clearly showed the sort of influence that had been exer-
cised over one of the tenants at leastof the Noble Earl. The next
document was the most important. He had not the original of it,
but only the copy of an extract. As it was not an original docu-
ment, he thought it right to state the circumstances connected
with it. Daniel Rees, the sub-agent of the Earl of Cawdor,
acted under the direction of Mr. Owen Williams, through whom
various applications were made to the electors, with a hope
to induce them to plump for Colonel Trevor. On the first
day of polling a meeting of many of the tenants of
Lord Cawdor took place at an inn in Llandillo.
Four of those tenants were called by Daniel Rees into
a private room, and there a letter from Mr. Williams, the
steward of Lord Cawdor, was road to them. The following
was an extract from that letter :—" You had better see Evan
Evans, David Tobias, and two other tenants, and tell them
that as they are so very independent and so very un-
grateful for the indulgence shown them by their
landlord, I hope to receive their rents up to Lady-day on
my return to Llandillo, and then I shall see what farther
is to be done in this matter. I am glad that the other
parties are safe, and I am much pleased with Daniel
Rees. We wish every man to plump for Col. Trevor."
That extract was proved in this manner :—Daniel Rees showed
the letter to Thomas Williams, of Llandillo, who was per-
mitted to take a copy of it ; and he knew the origi-
nal to be in the hand-writing of Owen Williams. In
consequence of that letter, the tenants stated that though
they had intended to plump for Sir James Williams they
were induced to split between him and Colonel Trevor.
All the other cases were of the same nature. Daniel
Rees took them aside, and showing them the letter, he induced
them to vote for Col. Trevor—they stated that they were in-
fluenced by the threat contained in the letter, and as they were
willing to come forward and depose to the effect as he had
stated, and such being the case, there could be no doubt but
that they bad been influenced by a letter written by the
steward of a nobleman.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Now, he
thought that although the first letter he had read con-
tained many equivocal and doubtful passages, arid that that
letter alone would not justify his calling the attention of the
House to the subject—( Hear, hear)—yet, when he cou-
pled that with a letter written by Mr. Williams to
• Daniel Rees, threatening, as the consequence of their not
giving their votes in a way agreeable to Mr. Williams, that
the parties would be called on to pay up their rents at a period
at which it was unusual for them to be called upon, he
must say it was a course of proceeding that was not only
unworthy of a Peer but unworthy of any porson.—(Hear,
hear.) It was an undue exercise of influence over the
elector, and, therefore, it was necessary the attention of
the House should be called to it. If the facts he
had stated were considered as resting on good and satisfactory
evidence, as they appeared to him, the question was how it
was proper for the House to notice this matter. He con-
fessed that he attached no very great importance to
the resolution of the House, which laid it down that it was an
improper thing for a Peer to concern himself in the election
of a Commoner, in a manner that would be perfectly
justifiable on the part of the Commoner; and he did
not wish (although he meant to conclude with a motion that
the petition be referred to a Committee of Privileges) to
Icall the attention of the house to the conduct of Earl
Cawdor, simply on account of his doing that which on the part
of a Commoner it might have been proper to do. It was
7solely to that 1 art of Lord Cawdor's conduct that he wished
'to call the attention of the House, so far as the conduct of
his steward appeared to have implicated him in transac-
tions which would have been unworthy of a Commoner,
He had opposed the motion of the Hon. Member for Shrews-
bury, because he held it to be absolutely impossible to prevent
the exercise of intimidation on the part of the landlord.
Neither could such conduct be checked by moral reprobation; and
his object in calling the attention of the House to this matter
was to show the impossibility of checking it by such
meats. He asked was there a Noble in the land who
could be prevented by moral reprobation front intimi-
dating his tenants, if so blameless a noblemen as the
Earl of Cawdor could not be prevented by it ? It might be asked,
why did he (Mr. W.) bring this matter before the House, if Le
was convinced that neither by pains or penalties, nor by moral
reprobation, could such practices be checked. His answer
was that he thought it was only by repeatedly bringing the
attention of the House to such transactions, he could obtain
the admission that the evil existed. It was only by
doing so he could expect to raise a demand for the cure
of the evil; which he was satisfied could only be ef-
fected by giving the protection of secresy to the voter.
He begged to move that this petition be referred to a Com-
mittee of Privileges. It was not his intention to press that
motion to a division.--( Laughter from the Opposition
Benches.) He only made this motion in order to enable those
Hon. Members wile might have any counter statements or ohs
servations to make support of the petition, that they thight
have the opportunity of discussing it.
Mr. AGLIO NB Y seconded the motion.
Sir J. GRAHAM said he was fully prepared to answer the
charges brought forward by the Hen. Gentleman opposite ;
but when he considered the period of the session, the pressure
of public business, the refusal, the somewhat peremptory re-
fusal given by the Noble Lord last night to his Right
Honourable Friend to give the precedence of discussion
of so important a question as this_;whether the House
should retain or part with the jurisdiction of the trial
of controverted elections—when he considered all these
circumstances, he confessed he was amaeed that a Member of
so much discretion and experience as the Honourable Mem-
ber for Bridport should have determined to take prece-
dence on the ground of privilege with such a motion as
this.—(Hear, bear.) At the very outset be bad aban-
doned it as a motion. He sa'd lie did not bring it forward
with reference to the conduct to the Earl of Cawdor, as a
Peer of Parliament ; but only as a question which he would
have mooted, had similar conduct been adopted by a Com-
moner. If that were his ground, it failed him altogether.
What did lie admit ? First of all, that the petitioners
were hot partisans of the defeated candidate—next, that
the Earl of Cawdor was a gentleman who might be re-
lied on in all the relations of life—next, that all the mat-
ters in one of the polling districts were unobjectionable, and
that he placed no reliance on them.—( No, no.) If he ( Sir
James Graham) mistook not, the lion. Member rested the
case on one letter, the original of which he did not possess,
and the authenticity of
which he sought to establish,
Lord Cawdor did not disown the acts of his agent —he _—..e gave
his interest to one of the candidates, his Hon. Friend who sat
behind him, and opposed Sir James Williams. The number of
electors in the county of Carmarthan was 5,a00, and the mem-
bers at the last election had been returned by a small majority.
By how many electors had the present petition been signed—by
two individuals. One of them was Mr. Adams, the eldest
son of a gentleman who lied formerly represented that county,
and would the house believe that, at the election of 1832,
Mr. Adams, senior, made a journey from Carmarthen to Pem-
broke, to the Earl of Cawdor, in the hope of persueding him to
give him his vote. Earl Cawdor had done so, and the conse-
quence was that Mr. Adams was returned, and ackrsw.
hedged the favour in the following letter :—" It is with
I
the greatest gratification that r. turn my warmest
thanks to your Lordship for the All...powerful support
accorded to me at the late election—( Ministerial cheers,
followed by Tory cheers)e-arrd to which I may gaiely say I at.
tribute the success that has attended me, .1 shall always he
proud to acknowledge by word and deed my sense cif the obli-
gation conferred on me by your Lordship, and I than always try
to merit a continuance of your favour." So much for the object-
non of the Adams' family to the influence of the Earl of Cawdor
and the Carmarthen election. The second individual whose
name was attached to it, was a provincial barrister, having
barely a qualification for a vote—one who had not been slow
et moments of contest to ask the support of Lord Cawdor. At
the election in 1835, this Mr. Lloyd Hall wrote to Williams,
the culprit, agent of the Earl of Cawdor, requesting his
permission to canvass the Noble Earl's tenants fur Mr. Price.
So that in fact he was applying to the agent of Lord Cawdor
for his support. But it was said that these gentlemen were
warm supporters and partisans of Sir James Williams. Now
it was clear that the petition owed its origin to the heat
of the last general election. The subject of the pe-
tition, or the petition itself, was not new to the House,
for seven months ago it was brought with great
pomp into the Howe by three Honourable Members,
of whom the Noble Lord opposite was one. The Speaker
was pressed to present the petition to the House as a gross
d
breach of privilege, which he decline doing, Seven Intmllis
had elapsed, and nothing had been done in that House,
though a great clot;; Last taken place ont, Lord Cawdor
had been teasluced in the puiblie prints in the most
virulent manner, and such leoisig the case, he ( Sir James
Graham) thought it teat justice to his Noble Vaiend to state
what had talseviplaile between Lord Cawd4iAnd Sir J. Williams
the insinediate promoter of the petition. Now a meenooial
that had been referred te by the Hon. Member wee a memorial
by three voters, who eteted that they underetood that his Lord-
ship no lortgete supported reform prineiples, that threats had been
toed by his Lordship's_tvient to compel his tenants tq sate for
a donservativg candidate, that they wo`:.Wt taller° to the
F111QIPI" they had always professed, :44a vote for Sir Jallin
Williams, notwithstanding the sentiments entertained by the
Nollle I,4er.d Tlf44.loeuAial was dated Jul,li, 1837, but it
,

was never presented to the Noble Earl, and the allegation of
threats was totally without foundation. At the election of
1831 Lord Candor wrote a letter to Sir James Williams,
then a candidate for the county of Carmarthen, expressing his
regret at understandirg that he had become an advocate for
Triennial Parliaments and Vote by Briton and requese7ng to
be informed on these matters, in order to a right understand-
ing as to whether he should afford him his support or not. To
that letter Sir James Williams replied that the repei t had been
ill founded; that he was perfectly satisfied with the Reform
Bill then proposed by the Ministers, and that he would never'
nice his voice fur further concession..—( Hear, hear.)
Upon this assurance he received the support of Lord
Candor, and succeeded in obtaining his seat. At the election
of 1832 he also obtained his interest. At the general elec-
tion in 1835, the county was again contested, and great
anxiety was felt as to how the Noble Ea: l's influence
would be used. The Noble Lord opposite (Ebrington) was
very anxious to obtain that influence for his brother-in-law.
( The Right Hon. Baronet then read a letter from Sir krnes
Williams, enclosing his Lordship an address to the electors,
which stated that his (Sir James Williams's) principles were
unchanged.) The Right Hon. Baronet continued—le an_
swer to that Lord Cawdor wrote a letter to Sir James Wil-
liams, stating that from his having stated his intention not to
seek anything more from the Government after the passing of
the Reform Bill, with which he expressed himself perfectly
satisfied : that he did not deem his address as indicating that
he held Radical inions; and that under those circumstances
he (Lord Candor should have no hesitation in giving him
his support. From his address to the electors it did trot ap-
pear that he was an advocate for secret voting nor for triennial
Parliaments, and his allusions to the Church conveyed an
idea that upon that subject he (Sir James Williams) did not
hold different opinions from Lord Candor. The letter of his
Lordship went on to say that if he had mistaken the views of
Sir James, as indicated by his address, he trusted to his
honour not to receive his support. To this letter Sir James
Williams sent an answer, stating that Lord Cawdor had not
at all mistaken his views upon the subject of his address, that
his feelings upon them were precisely similar to those of his
Lordship, and expressing in the warmest manner his thanks for
the support he had received. In 1834 Lord Candor sup-
ported Sir James Williams under those circumstances ; but
he did not continue that support, and his reasons for refusing
to do so were quite evident. He (Sir James Graham) would
now call the attention of the House to these facts, which were
deserving its attention. Sir James Williams, after this decla-
ration of his sentiments, voted in favour of the motion of Mr,
Ripon for the expulsion of the Bishops from the House of
Lords.—( Hear, hear.) Secondly, he was a member of Mr.
Leader's Committee when that Honourable Gentleman stood
for Westminster, in 1837 ; and, thirdly, the agent of Sir
James Williams, upon the occasion of a local meeting upon
the subject of Church-rates, voted for the postponement of
the Church-rate. These occurrences created such a misunder-
standing at the last election, that the Noble Lord saw that it
was impossible he could give his support to Sir James Wil-
hems, seeing the change which had taken place in his opi-
nions, and in his political conduct. —( Hear, hear.) And this
was the only foundation for the assertion that Lord Cawdor
had given up the opinions which he had formerly held with re-
spect to the Reform Bill, He did not wish to speak with
contempt of anything emanating from that Hon. House, but
be should remark that at this time of day every one lookes'e
upon the resolution of the House with regard to the ineesfe. retice of Peers as little better than a dead letter-_no one
thought of obeying it literally.—( Hear.) Did it other No-
ble Lord use any influence at elections ? Did no Lords_
Lieutenants, or Vice-Lieutenants use any influence at elec-
tions ? Did not a Vice- Lieutenant, the Noble Lord opposite
( Lord Ebringtou), use his influence at the election for De-
vonshire ? Did not that Noble Lord canvass his father's
tenantry ? At the last election a Noble Earl had been actively
.engaged in opposition to him (Sir J. Grate m.) Did he complain
of that opposition? Far from it. There should he an influence
attached to property and station. Was a country_ gentleman
of five or six thousand a year to have influence in the county,
and a Peer with forty or fifty thousands to have none ?
The resolution of the House was not sufficient to contravene
hthis. Every Hon. Member who heard him was aware that it
ad long since fallen into disuse. It wovld be highly dan-
erous to act upon it. He (Sir James Graham) would con-
tend for the influence of property. The influence of the
Peels, so far from its application being reprehensible, was of
service to the country. The people of England were not tr,
be frightened into an acquiescence with the political feel;:egs
of a landlord ; that was not their character.. The case, how-
ever, rested principally upon a letter. He would. eeirnit that
the letter of the steward was injudicious in its expressions ;
but it was written in the absence of Lord Candor. And he
would remind the House that such menus had been used to
convey an erroneous idea to the tenanis of Lord Cawdor with
regard to his Lordship's views that it was necessary, in some
forcible language, to counteract those exertions. fie (Sir J.
Graham) would not trespass longer upon the House, for he
conoeived the allegations of this trumpery case had been
Answered,
Lord EBRINGTON said, as he had been saluded to by
the Right Hon. Baronet who had just sat down, lie shoul take
that opportunity of stating the connection 'which he hindd with
the petition alluded to, The Right Hon. Baronet had stated
that be ( Lord Ebrington) formed one of the deputation who
went to bring up that petition. He wished to correct that mis-
take. Subsequently to the election his brother-in-law, Sir J.
Willienis, wrote to him, stating, that the petition was about to
be presented, and requested his support of it. In consequence
of that letter he naittoi upon the gentleman to whom it was.
:ntrusted, when he (Lord Ebrington) found that it complained
of the interference of Lord Candor. He expressed his opi.
nion, which he still held, that a Peer had a right to a certain
influence, and he had not since that period taken any part in
support of that petition. It was not his intention to enter
into a discussion of the subject ; his only view in rising to
a:lt:tress the House was to disabuse the mind of the Right Hon.
Baronet and the Iloth:e with respect to his conduct in relation
to the petition.
Air. AGL lONBY said that it was quite cleer that an at,
tempt at intimidating the electors had been made, and lie hoped
that the letter admitted to have been written by a person to
whom was delegated the authority of Lord Candor would have
the effect of creating a feeling in favour of extending to elec-
tors the protection of secret all
t(i.so•enitisoiufsseucohuginh-t
terference wore to be permitted
u
IU expunge from its books the resolution aga it. Lord P instiv P. EGERTON could not conceive lion the let'
read by the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir J. Graham) co,-eld be
deemed irrelevant. If a Noble Lord's character 'lied been
sought to be blackened—if a charge against him }sail been al_ lowed to remain before the public for months— seas it irrele-
vent to produce lenses and documents in. contradiction of
was tifforded? Ile
those eharges when the proper opportunity
should not trouble the House by any lengthened observations
upon this trumpery csse.—( Cheers.) The Hon. Member who
spoke last had expressed a hope that this case would create a
feeling in favour of the Ballot, For his part, he ( Lord P.
Egerton) had heard nothing to change those opinions whit Is
he bad ever entertained upon that subject.
Mr. HIINIE said, that although it had been said this was a
convenient way of circulating; a libel, the truth of the allega-
tions contained in the petition had not been denied, it had
been called a trumpery case ; but, in his opinies„ it was a very
important one. It was a strong argument in favour of the
Ballot. The tendency of all the letters read by the Right
Hon. Baronet went to show that the, tenantry were regularly
bargained for, and handed over as the landlords pleased.
Colonel TREVOR had reeeived the support of the Noble
Lord (Lord Cawdor) at the last election for Carmarthenshire,
and it had nut placed hi:n in a majority much larger in amount
than that which he lord at former elections, when the Noble
Lord opposed him, His election had certainly not been de-
termined by that support. With regard to the influence exec.
eked by the Noble Lord, it was such as was generally used
throughout the country ; it was not only proper but advanta-
geous that they should exercise such an influence upon their
poorer neighbours, and it was as much in use amongst the
gentleraen who were opposed to him in the county he repre-
sented as by those with whose support he bad been honourbeZt.
Mr. \VA RD s-ni it would eppear the constituency 'were
afraid to move. Whichever way they turned they were; afraid
of offending some one_Lord Candor or his agent ; they were
between Scylla and Charybdis. fie trusted suet, a state of
things would soon be put an end to.
Sir J. OWEN was understood to deny the truth of the
allegations contained in the petition, whieth he asserted was
little short of libellous in its form as far as it referred to Mr.
Williams. The very first paragraph was false.
Lo-d WORSLEY did not sopriesse that Lord Candor was
aware of cite pre:flees complain-A of in the petition, but his
own obeersettion led him to h sieve in their existence. From
that observation he had ware than once regretted his voting
for the fifty pound elapse, which gave the tenant-at-will a
vote for Menthers of Parliement. It was common for tenants
to be afraid to vote :or their landlord for fear of offending the
steward.

Lord J. RUSSELL deprecated bringing on a discussim
which was at likely to he carried into any practical result,
The picture drawn by the Right Hon. Member of the
state of uncertainty in which Lord Cawdor's tenants were
placed was truly pitiable—(Laughter)—and if anything could
warrant the vote by Ballot it would be the desire to remove
that uncertainty. But he (Lord J. Russell) doubted very
much the efficacy of that remedy ; and he thought that, with
such indifference as they manifested in respect to the candi-
date fur whom they voted, it would only increase their dart-
cultiei. and make their embarrassments greater. Seeing this,
he only wished to say that, though the motion was brought
forward without a result landlords were not to suprdse that
cases of oppression for the exercise of the elective. franchise
would be I.'ft unnoticed by the House.
Lord STANLEY said that if any thing could give Lord
Cawdor pleasure in connection with the ease it would be the
observations of the Noble Lord opposite.
Mr. WARBURTON replied.
The motion was then tvgative,it without a division.
THE DUKE OF SUSSEX.
Mr. GILLON postponea his motion in reference to the
income of the Duke of iiussex, in consequence of the thin at-
tendance in the House. He gave notice, however, that lit
would bring it forward on the first night of Supply.
NEGRO APPRENTICESHIP.
Mr. O'CONNE LL then moved an address for—Gera o
the minutes of evidence and Report of the Comtnissiov,rs ap-
pointed
by his Excellency the Governor of Briti.sF, Guiana,
on the hospital treatment of the sick, and gerierr4t treatment
of the apprenticed labourers on Plantation I.V.airniount, the
property of James Blair, Esq., in the o.istr;.-et of Berbice, in
British Guiana, and 0.., corresponde:ice thereon with his Ex-
collency the Governor; copy of one minutes of evidence and
decision of Special Justice Allen in the case of complaint
against -doss, Elizabeth, Johanna, and Lizy, attached to the
l',antation John Hove, the property of .J. B. Hopkinson, Esq.,
in the district of Demerara, British Guiana, and the corre-
spondence thereon with his Excellency the Governor ; copy
of the minutes of evidence and decision of Special Justice

Allen on the complaint of Jane and Jenny Anne, attached to
Plantation Vrrede Warrendschaft, the property of Dr. John
Bryden, in the district of Demerara, British Guiana ; return
of the number of apprenticed labourers, distinguishing the
sexes, who have been tried before the inferior and superior
Criminal Courts of British Guiana for offences committed
under the " ordinance of Government for the regulation of
apprenticed labourers" in that Colony, specifying the nature
of their offences, and the putashments which have been in.
Aided ; copy of report made to the Colonial °lnce by Mr,
Thomas, late of the Mauritius, relative to the state of the ap-
prenticed labourers in that Colony, and of the administration
of the law in regard to them.
Ordered accordingly.
Mr. O'CONNELL then moved for the evidence taken
before the Select Comrnittre appointed to inquire into the
working of the Negro apprenticeship in the Session of 1837.
Lord J. RUSSELL had no objection to the motion if the
Chairman of the Committee should agree to it ; but that Hon.
Member was not arm in his place.
Mr. O'CONNELL was understood to say that he was in-
formed the Hon. Gentleman had no objection.
A conversation then ensued on the propriety of printing the
evtde.ice taken before a Committee without the sanction of
that body, in which Mr. Goulburn, Mr. Baines, Mr. Pryme,
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. S. O'Brien re-
spectively took part.
Lord J. VT SSELL wished to have the Speaker's opinion
on the subject.
The SPEAKER said that the case was one of great impor-
tance, and required to be sufficiently considered. There was
no authority to express the opinion of the Committee, and
there could be none until it should re-assemble. As regarded
the establishment of a precedent the question was, therefore,
of a very serious character.
Mr. HUME said the case of the Canada Committee was a
case in point.
After a desultory conversation the motion was agreed to
Colonel SIBTHORP postponed his motion relative to a
Select Committee to inquire into the various Commissions that
have been issued since 1830 to the present time, and begged
to know if it were true that the situation of Governor of Ber-
muda had been tilled by the appointment of an individual (un-
derstood to be Sir Andrew Leith Hay), and whether that
young gentleman had gone out in pursuance of his appointment?
Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied (as we understood) that
such an appointment had taken place, but in so low a tono that
we could not hear further.
CURRENCY.

Mr. HUME said that, in the present state and prospects of
the House---( Laughter)—he thought it better to postpone his
motion for a Committee to inquire into the fluctuations in the
currency since 1 833, and the causes thereof. He did not like
to be counted out in the midst of his speech--( Laughter)—so
he would postpone it till the first leisure day.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the notice of the Hon. Gentleman appeared to embrace two
subjects; the one an inquiry into the Bank of England and
Joint-stock and Private Banks, the other an inquiry into the
conduct of himself (the Chancellor of the Exchequer). He
bad told the Hon. Member that he had no objection to any
inquiry into his conduct, but he assured him, and had also in-
formed the Governor and Company of the Bank of England,
that any inquiry into the proceedings and arrangements be-
tween them and the country was one that he would resist. He
hod, however, since understood that the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman was not framed with a view to interfere with, or to
expose, 'be financial transactions of the country in which the
Bank of England had a share, and therefore he felt he might
say that he believed the Bank of England would not have any
objection to such inquiry. However, he put it to the Hon. Gen-
tleman that there would not be the slightest practical utility in
beginning such an inquiry at this period of the Session. If
the motion were renewed at the commencement of the next
Session he thought there could be no difficulty in entertaining
it. He hoped his Hon. Friend would therefore not merely
postpone his motion, as he intended, to a day in the present
Session, but let it remain unacted on till the beginning of the
ensuing Session. He believed there would be so little differ-
ence of opinion as to the facts that they might be taken by
common consent. As to the causes alluded to, they would of
course form matter of opinion and scientific discussion ; but all
the practical topics connected with the motion were of so
simple and obvious a character, that he thought the inquiry
would be fitter for the House to take the discussion on itself
than a labour requisite for a Committee to enter on.
Mr. PATTISON said that he was happy to assure the
House that there was no indisposition on the part of the Bank
of Engiznd to meet the inquiry. When the time arose they
would be quite prepared to entertain it.—Hear. )
Mr. HUME assured the House that his object was not by
any means to violate the Bank Charter, as had been hinted,
but to show that a certain system had led to certain results.
—(Laughter.) If, therefore, he should be in the House at the
beginning of the next Session, he should, on the present un-
derstanding, call for the Committee of Inquiry into this system.
THE BRITISH AUXILIARY LEGION.
Captain MATHE W said that, concurring as ha did in the
view which the Hon Member for Kilkenny took of " the
present state and immediate prospects of the House "
(Laughter)—he would follow his example and postpone his
motion for an address to her Majesty on the sahject of the
claims of the British Legion.
HIGHWAYS.
Mr. B ARNEBY moved for leave to brim in a Bill to
amend the laws relating to highways in England and Wales.
Sir GEORGE STRICK LAND thought that it would be
impolitic, at the present time, to take the management of the
high roads from farmers and to throw them on the unions. The
country had been kept in a constant fever by Poor-law agita-
tion, and now wanted time for repose.—( A laugh.) If the
Hon. Member would put off his motion for another year he
would then make no objection to it.
Mr. RICE said that the best way to avoid thrr,wine- the
farmers and Memi-a-s into the fever of agitation on this subject
gas to let the Bill be peaceably printed, so that every one
might form a just opinion of its provisions before they attempted
to discuss it.—Agreed to.

The report on the Irish Tithes Bill was brought up by Mr.
CHARLES WOOD and ag.eed to.
'The other Orders of the Day were then gone through, and
the House adjourned at balf-past eight o'clock.